GMG Classical Music Forum

I would like recommendations for Brahms chamber music. I already know the sonatas for violin and piano by Ashkenazy and Perlman and i am pretty satisfied with them. I have seen a double disc of the trios by the same artists plus Harrell on the cello (it is out of print now) but thought of asking for advice before getting it. I know that the "competition" is high with the Beaux-Arts trio, Rubinstein and friends, Stern Ax Rose, or others
I have no idea about the piano and string quartets. I just heard on the radio a version of a string quintet with Pinchas Zukerman and his ensemble and found it marvellous. it is a live version and comes with a mozart quintet.
Thanks

Hi Sam,

The violin sonatas are best served by Suk & Katchen (Decca 24/96 mastering plus beautiful playing). I also have both Perlmans but they yield to the Suk version.

Re: Other chamber music - I love his String Sextets (so many versions to choose from). Menuhin & friends (EMI), Alberni Q & friends (CDR), Raphael Ens (Hyperion), ASMIF (Chandos), etc. I have the Menuhin & Raphael versions.

Regards - RF

There's such a rich legacy of first-rate Brahms chamber music on disc! Picking just one per category as 'best' is next to impossible.

In lieu of that I offer a few of my 'faves'...

For the string quartets:

This is actually an odd duck as the set I'd pick hasn't even hit the shelves yet. The venerable Takács quartet on Hyperion is scheduled to release a new cycle of the quartets in the coming months so if it's possible I'd recommend holding out until then.   

Although, admittedly, the wait isn't as big a deal for me as I'm already blessed with two complete cycles of the quartets: the the Juilliard on Sony and the Lasalle on DG (OOP, sadly). I also have a fondness for the Leipzig's second quartet (Op.51/2) on MDG.

For the piano quartets I would highly recommend the much praised Hollywood set on Testament. It's a three CD set so springing for it might put you back a bit but you do get some worthwhile goodies as filler: the piano quintet Op.34, second string quartet, and Schumann's ever popular piano quintet Op.44. All first-rate and very well recorded even if in mono.

Additionally, for the piano quartets I heartily recommend a couple of dark horse recordings: one on Ondine by a foursome of players that might be low on exposure but high on insight:

(http://www.arkivmusic.com/graphics/covers/full/21/219280.JPG)

...and another one from the Heimbach Chamber Music Festival on EMI (with Julia Fischer(!) on violin in the Op.25):

(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/5318348.jpg)


Of course, there's always the Beaux Arts. But I've yet to hear them in the piano quartets. But with the quality press they get it's probably a safe bet they're on top of things.

For the piano trios you could do much worse than these two excellent recordings:


(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/8413547.jpg) (http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/1421246.jpg)

Check the old forum:http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,2774.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,2774.0.html)
(what's wrong with that search engine - it took me over 5 attempts! ???)

Forgive me my copy & paste.. :)

violin sonatas: Suk/Katchen (Decca)
clarinet sonatas & trio: only for those who like the challenge of finding it : Walter Boeykens/Vanden Eynden/Dieltiens on Ricercar (OOP)
cello sonatas: Rostropovich/Serkin (DG)
piano trios: Suk/Katchen/Starker (Decca). But I also like the Florestan Trio (Hyperion), combined with the horn trio.
horn trio: on period instruments - makes a big difference with a natural horn, Greer/Chase/Lubin (HM)
string quartets: Alban Berg Qt (Teldec - not EMI); nos. 1 & 2 - Busch Qt (Biddulph)
piano quartets: nos. 1-3 Rubinstein/Guarneri Qt (RCA); no.1 - Rubinstein/Pro Arte Qt & no. 2 - Serkin/Busch Qt (Biddulph)
piano quintet: Rubinstein/Guarneri Qt (RCA); Serkin/Busch Qt (Pearl)
clarinet quintet: Leister/Berliner Solisten (Apex); Kell/Busch Qt (Testament)
string quintets: Trampler/Julliard Qt (Sony) (or the Raphael Ensemble)
string sextets: Raphael Ensemble (Hyperion)

QuoteOf course, there's always the Beaux Arts. But I've yet to hear them in the piano quartets. But with the quality press they get it's probably a safe bet they're on top of things.

I would not put my money on it! 8) (No BAT for me)

BTW Donwyn, Im intrigued by your dark horses! I'll check them out. :)

Q

For the string quintets:



(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/7946914.jpg) (http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/3455830.jpg)

Quote from: Que on April 29, 2007, 09:14:21 PM
I would not put my money on it! 8) (No BAT for me)

Q,

Since I haven't heard the BAT in any Brahms I've no choice but to take your word for it! ;D

QuoteBTW Donwyn, Im intrigued by your dark horses! I'll check them out. :)

Q

Good luck!

Quote from: donwyn on April 29, 2007, 09:40:25 PM
Q,

Since I haven't heard the BAT in any Brahms I've no choice but to take your word for it! ;D

Maybe you shouldn't.. 8)
I generally dislike recordings by the Beaux Arts Trio (with noticeable exception of their earliest recordings) - aggressive, "high strung" pyrotechnics: definitely "New World".
Not my cup of tea. I'd rather stick with the Old World - like Brahms .. ;D

BTW, I sampled your Scandinavians on Ondine with the piano quartets: very impressive - they really "got it".
I'm going to get that one.

Q

To try and to find out what you like in the music of Brahms, I would like to add some of the excellent Brilliant boxes with his complete chambermusic, for little money. Some duds, but most of it at a very acceptable quality.

Any chamber music Brahms wrote for clarinet is very much worthwhile.

Some of my preferrences:

2 Sonatas for cello and piano by Du Pré and Baremboim.
The 3 violin sonatas by Suk and Katchen but in the 3rd the extraordinary version of David Oistrakh and Yampolski.
The clarinet Sonatas by De Peyer and Prior and, in the viola version, by Zukerman and Barenboim.

The piano trios by the Trio Wanderer in a recent version.
The horn Trio by Serkin, Tree and Bloom and the clarinet Trio by Kell, Pini and Kentner.

The string quartets by the Alban Berg Quartet, and the three piano Quartets by the Hollywood Quartet with Vitor Aler. But in the first Quartet opus 25, the version of Serkin with the Busch Quartet is unique.

Regarding the string Quintets I prefer the Amadeus with Aronowitz. In the piano quintet I hesitate between Eschenbach and the Amadeus and Bernathova with the Janacek Quartet.

The clarinet Quintet (my favorite work of Brahms) has in my opinion 3 remakable versions: Sabine Meyer with the Alban Berg Quartet, Leister with the Amadeus Quartet and the version with members of the Vienna Octet (including Alfred Boskovski).

For the Sextets, I prefer the Amadeus, with Aronowitz and Pleeth

Quote from: daPonte on April 30, 2007, 12:23:10 AM
Any chamber music Brahms wrote for clarinet is very much worthwhile.

Amen to that!  Let me recommend Martin Frost's CD of the two clarinet sonatas and trio.  Marvellous!

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=118774

Here are two recordings of the cello sonatas that are both excellent.  The Isserlis/Hough recording is exceptional, and has won well deserved critical acclaim.  The Wispelwey/Komen is probably not quite as fine, but still is extremely well done. The recording is on period instruments, which for Brahms are very scarce, and it is done very well, indeed.  If you want to hear Brahms on gut strings, then Wispelwey is the way to go.  I recommend both of them very stongly.

Note: If anyone is interested in the Wispelwey/Komen Sonatas and is shopping at Amazon, for some reason it's listed as sonatas for violin and piano. 

Marc-Andre Hamelin and the Leopold String Trio have also recorded the Piano Quartets which is another favorite of mine.  Top quality sound as well as an amazing performance by Hamelin drives this recording to the top of the heap.  Not to be missed!



(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/61CEY651QNL._SS500_.jpg)  (http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B7Y3R5TAL._SS500_.jpg)  (http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41xV6xjGxFL._SS400_.jpg)

Quote from: samtrb on April 29, 2007, 06:55:34 PM
I would like recommendations for Brahms chamber music. I already know the sonatas for violin and piano by Ashkenazy and Perlman and i am pretty satisfied with them. I have seen a double disc of the trios by the same artists plus Harrell on the cello (it is out of print now) but thought of asking for advice before getting it. I know that the "competition" is high with the Beaux-Arts trio, Rubinstein and friends, Stern Ax Rose, or others
I have no idea about the piano and string quartets. I just heard on the radio a version of a string quintet with Pinchas Zukerman and his ensemble and found it marvellous. it is a live version and comes with a mozart quintet.
Thanks

String Sextets - Raphael Ens.
String Quintets - Raphael Ens.
Clarinet Quintet - De Peyer & Melos Ens.
Piano Trios - Trio Fontenay
Cello Sonatas - Starker & Sebok
Violin Sonatas - Osostowicz & Tomes

Quote from: James on April 30, 2007, 12:35:56 PM
i've heard all his chamber stuff (no duds really), and many fine recordings available to choose from...my fave brahms chamber thing used to be the piano quintet, a killer piece, but then i heard his clarinet quintet  :o.... the pinnacle of his chamber output imo. 

The clarinet quintet is sublime, achingly beautiful.  Veilhan's recording with the Stadler Quintet is my preferred recording and it's just been re-released with the Mozart clarinet quintet instead of Stephan Krehl's Clarinet Quintet.


(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/4809038.jpg)

This one is a classic, entirely in its own league:

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/515BXXW0EXL._AA240_.jpg)

I can't stand Norbert Brainin's (Amadeus Quartet) wiry vibrato and thin tone.

Quote from: Que on April 29, 2007, 11:24:51 PM
BTW, I sampled your Scandinavians on Ondine with the piano quartets: very impressive - they really "got it".
I'm going to get that one.

Indeed, I feel this group really does get it, Q.

The pianist, especially, really shows his meddle and the strings sound out with an arid lucidity that's quite cool yet packed with enthusiasm. 

The give and take between musicians is urgent and textures couldn't be more transparent.

A recipe for great Brahms!

it seems the winner of this threat is Hyperion label with Florestan on the trios, Hamelin and friends on the piano quartets and Raphael on the quintets and sextets !

Quotesamtrb

it seems the winner of this threat is Hyperion label with Florestan on the trios, Hamelin and friends on the piano quartets and Raphael on the quintets and sextets !

I have the CD of the Raphael Ensemble. The sound is beautiful but it is all too "polite". I am sorry, but I cannot be more specific. I feel that something is missing, that I find in the Amadeus set, or the Berlin Octet.

Regarding the piano trios it is a pity that no one seems to care about the recent version of the Trio Wanderer. They are really extraordinary.

Quote from: val on May 03, 2007, 01:05:02 AM
I have the CD of the Raphael Ensemble. The sound is beautiful but it is all too "polite". I am sorry, but I cannot be more specific. I feel that something is missing, that I find in the Amadeus set, or the Berlin Octet.

Regarding the piano trios it is a pity that no one seems to care about the recent version of the Trio Wanderer. They are really extraordinary.

Seems to be a bit the "British style" of chamber music playing.. ;D
It does in any case applies to the trios by the Florestan and the quintets by the Raphael Ensemble - I do like their sextets, however.

Q

Quote from: val on May 03, 2007, 01:05:02 AM
Regarding the piano trios it is a pity that no one seems to care about the recent version of the Trio Wanderer. They are really extraordinary.

i know the Trio Wanderer in Mendelssohn' trios and i love that disc

I have the Raphael Ensemble disc of the sextets and like it a lot - but I think the best I've ever heard was a live performance of both sextets at the Philadelphia Museum of Art by members of the Philadelphia Orchestra. Fantastic!

The Froest recording of the clarinet sonatas is excellent as well.

Beside his fourth symphony, these Piano Trios were probably my introduction to the world of Brahms. For years I have treasured this wonderful recording on Philips, without ever feeling the need to try another. Any other reccomendations for these? A simple amazon search revealed many resuts, so I expect that we should have some pretty diverse reccomendations.

Here's the one I have

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DGR76WWBL._AA240_.jpg)

This is a general thread on these piano trios, so it is in no way restricted to the aforementioned recording.  :)

I have not heard the Beaux Arts. The Trio No.1 with Stern/Casals/Hess is a gem, despite the dated sound.

Quote from: O Mensch on May 07, 2007, 01:44:09 PM
I have not heard the Beaux Arts. The Trio No.1 with Stern/Casals/Hess is a gem, despite the dated sound.

I'll need to look into it, then.  :)

Some of Brahms' best chamber.

Over many years I have only had two recordings of 1 & 2. I never liked 3.

(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/MuzeAudioArt/020/29580.jpg)

(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/msiart/large/0000597/0000597184.jpg)

The first two here:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21TbqkR+TDL._AA140_.jpg)

And the third coupled with Schubert's 2nd trio here:
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZCA9TBVFL._AA240_.jpg)

I can not think of three musicians better suited to play these masterpieces.

edit-Actually I'was goind to add these CD's to George's topic "Great Performances that sound great", but then forgot  :D

How's this one?

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WKWzxONTL._AA240_.jpg)

I don't know these pieces too well, with a couple of exceptions. On vinyl, I've always enjoyed the 1 and 3 by Katchen/Suk/Starker on Decca/London so much that I simply haven't gone looking for many other options, though I also keep the #3 by the Suk Trio (Panenka/Suk/Chuchro) on Supraphon.

I do keep some odds and ends in the historic vinyl cabinet, including all three trios by Istomin/Menuhin/Casals live at the Prades Festival (can't comment on those, though, since it's been years since I heard them). I've dragged that box set out and will listen over the coming days. I'll also keep my eye on this thread for likely alternatives to check out.
;D

Dirk

Quote from: BorisG on May 07, 2007, 01:52:44 PM
Some of Brahms' best chamber.

Over many years I have only had two recordings of 1 & 2. I never liked 3.
(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/msiart/large/0000597/0000597184.jpg)

The second part of this CD on Apex contains n. 3 and the op. posth. which is difficult to find

Two I really enjoy:



(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/8413547.jpg) (http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/1421246.jpg)

Ah, plenty to choose from.  :)

The Beaux is my benchmark so far. It's not perfect, but i have yet to find anything that tops it. That goes for the majority of my Brahms recordings, sadly...

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 08, 2007, 09:09:59 AM
The Beaux is my benchmark so far. It's not perfect, but i have yet to find anything that tops it. That goes for the majority of my Brahms recordings, sadly...

Do the BAT surpass IYO the recordings by Suk/Katchen/Starker, Florestan Trio or the Trio Wanderer?

Q

Quote from: Que on May 08, 2007, 09:13:16 AM
Do the BAT surpass IYO the recordings by Suk/Katchen/Starker, Florestan Trio or the Trio Wanderer?

Q

I think the Suk/Katchen/Starker is at least equal to BAT, sometimes better in places, sometimes worst. I'm still undecided if i like one over the other.

Florestan i like less. A bit too romantic for my tastes. It's like they are trying to make Brahms sound like Faure. It's a very good set, but it's not as impressive as their Beethoven, which i thought was outstanding.

Mind you though, i have reservations with all three of them, but maybe Brahms is simply too much for any one ensemble to perform at perfection. It always seems like something is amiss.

Haven't heard the Wanderer, and at that price i don't intend to. 40$ for a 2 disc set is ridiculous. I'll wait until some store comes up with a special offer...

My favorite versions were Suk/Katchen/Starker and Stern/Istomin/Rose, until I listened to the recent version of the Trio Wanderer. Regarding the opus 8 and 87 it is a sublime version, the best I ever heard. In the dramatic Trio opus 101 the version of the Trio Stern is perhaps superior, but the set of the Wanderer is one of the greatest recordings of chamber music in the last years. It includes a very good version of the first piano Quartet.

Quote from: val on May 09, 2007, 03:45:03 AM
My favorite versions were Suk/Katchen/Starker and Stern/Istomin/Rose, until I listened to the recent version of the Trio Wanderer. Regarding the opus 8 and 87 it is a sublime version, the best I ever heard. In the dramatic Trio opus 101 the version of the Trio Stern is perhaps superior, but the set of the Wanderer is one of the greatest recordings of chamber music in the last years. It includes a very good version of the first piano Quartet.

Great, now you are forcing me to check the set.

I absolutely love Brahms!  One of my favorite composers.

I have his String Quartets, Quintets and Sextets with Piano Quintet with Amadeus Quartet on DG label.

His piano trios, I have Beaux Arts Trio

And Piano Quartets - Ax, Rose, Stern and Yo Yo Ma!  Fantastic!

My personal opinion is there he may have been the best composer to have used "restraint" in his compositions.  What I mean is, he never seems to overdo it or go "over-the-top".  Just an opinion. 

Anyways, Brahms has fantastic chamber music!

Quote from: val on May 03, 2007, 01:05:02 AM

Regarding the piano trios it is a pity that no one seems to care about the recent version of the Trio Wanderer. They are really extraordinary.

I care and totally agree about their Brahms set.  The group is also wonderful in the Mendelssohn and Saint-Saens Piano Trios.

I've all his chamber works on hysterical.. sorry, historical
versions: Lener,Budapest SQ, Heifetz trio, Serkin-Busch,
Menuhin & co.,Oistrakh SQ, Reginald Kell, Goodman, Starker,
Boris Golshtein,Primrose...all of them. ::) ::)

Quote from: val on May 03, 2007, 01:05:02 AM
Regarding the piano trios it is a pity that no one seems to care about the recent version of the Trio Wanderer. They are really extraordinary.

No need to fret, I gave a nod to the Trio Wanderer's Brahms on post #3 of this thread.

BTW, their Shostakovich recording is top-notch, too...

Your favorites? And your favorite recordings?

.. Please  :)

Where to start?  :)

Piano Trios - Beaux Arts

String Quartets/Quintets and Sextets - Amadeus Quartet

Piano Quintet - Amadeus Q w/ Eschenbach piano

My personal favorite recordings belong to the 3 fantastic Piano Quartets (Ax - piano, Yo Yo Ma - Cello, Stern - violin, Laredo - viola) Sony

Quote from: bassio on March 17, 2008, 03:27:18 AM
Your favorites? And your favorite recordings?

.. Please  :)

Piano Quintet in f minor
Ensemble La Gaia Scienza
Winter and Winter

Clarinet Quintet in b minor
Quintette Stadler
K617

String Quartets - Mandelring Quartet

String Quintets and Clarinet Quintet - Berlin Philharmonic Octet

String Sextets - The Raphael Ensemble

Piano Quartets #1 G minor & #3 C minor - Fauré Quartet

Clarinet Trio - Stolzman/Ma/Ax

Piano Trios - Trio di Trieste

Sonata for Cello and Piano #1 E minor - Mørk/Grimaud


Sarge

Too many to count without going through my collection. But a few stand out in my mind, above all the 2CD version of the piano quartets by Domus. Look also for the old Amadeus Quartet doing the clarinet quintet with Karl Leister.

If you like the G minor piano quartet (and who doesn't?), you must hear it also in the orchestral transcription by Schoenberg. Here I'll go out on a limb and say the version you've got to hear is the Chicago Symphony's with Robert Craft.

Go get this:

(http://www.mdt.co.uk/public/pictures/products/standard/4480922.jpg)

NOW!

I've been listening to this lovely recording of Brahms's Clarinet Sonatas, Op. 120, by Jon Manasse and Jon Nakamatsu (on Harmonia Mundi).  I don't have other recordings, but sure do like this one.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31qPskU8iZL._AA240_.jpg)

--Bruce

Quote from: erato on March 17, 2008, 06:39:03 AM
Go get this:

(http://www.mdt.co.uk/public/pictures/products/standard/4480922.jpg)

NOW!

Strongly seconded.
The violin/piano sonatas with just Suk and Katchen are pretty darn nice, too, but these trios are exceptional.

The piano quintet is one piece of music whose power has never failed to impress me, even in my early days of classical collecting, when my tastes ran to symphonic music almost exclusively. Among many fine versions, two stand out for me--Pollini with the Italian Quartet (the earlier of two versions they recorded together), and Ranki with the Bartok Quartet (I think) on Hungaraton.

The piano quartets can be rather special in the right hands, too. I really love the old Aller/Hollywood String Quartet, but the CD set on Testament is now OOP and going for silly prices on Amazon. I'll keep my ancient LPs.

Cheers,

Dirk

Quote from: dirkronk on March 17, 2008, 07:32:19 AM
The piano quintet is one piece of music whose power has never failed to impress me, even in my early days of classical collecting, when my tastes ran to symphonic music almost exclusively.

But then again, chamber music doesn't get more symphonic than that work.

Quote from: erato on March 17, 2008, 06:39:03 AM
Go get this:

(http://www.mdt.co.uk/public/pictures/products/standard/4480922.jpg)

NOW!

Can I go to the bathroom first?

Quote from: bhodges on March 17, 2008, 07:31:48 AM
I've been listening to this lovely recording of Brahms's Clarinet Sonatas, Op. 120, by Jon Manasse and Jon Nakamatsu (on Harmonia Mundi).  I don't have other recordings, but sure do like this one.

I'm sure it's a lovely recording. But I am very nearly learning to abhor that silhouette  ;D

And the confounded hedgehog, too!  ;D

Quote from: Sforzando on March 17, 2008, 07:42:51 AM
Can I go to the bathroom first?

Oh, I should very much advise it.

Quote from: karlhenning on March 17, 2008, 08:05:53 AM
I'm sure it's a lovely recording. But I am very nearly learning to abhor that silhouette  ;D

I gather it's a much-beloved image?  Until I saw it in Que's profile, I don't think I'd ever come across it.

--Bruce

Oh, no reason for it not to be much-beloved, Bruce. 'Twas a momentary pique  0:)

I find this version of the Piano Quintet and Clarinet Quintet very good:

(http://www.classicsonline.com/images/cds/OC259.gif)

Quote from: erato on March 17, 2008, 07:39:51 AM
But then again, chamber music doesn't get more symphonic than that work.

Precisely. Hence my easy acceptance...long before I discovered the glories of string quartets by Beethoven and Shostakovich!
;D

Dirk

I know it has had to have been mentioned more than once already but Piano Quintet in F minor. To me it is like a symphony for sting quartet and piano.

I will change my earlier recommendation of the Cello Sonatas with Starker & Sebok, to Mork & Lagerspetz. ;)

Hornteacher mentioned Frost-- anyone else like his recordings for Brahms?

Quote from: DavidW on March 17, 2008, 05:05:25 PM
Hornteacher mentioned Frost-- anyone else like his recordings for Brahms?

I haven't heard Fröst myself but he's gotten good press from what I've read.

For the clarinet sonatas, here's what I like:



(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41SE0KF1NXL._SS500_.jpg)

Cool Don, amazon has that album for download so I've bookmarked it to think about it.

 :)

Quote from: Feanor on April 02, 2009, 03:46:22 PM
I am WILLING myself to enjoy Brahms ... going to take some effort, though.

Not the best start though, as I've always (Brahmslover and string quartet lover that I am) found his string quartets rather elusive.

Quote from: erato on April 02, 2009, 09:36:47 PM
Not the best start though, as I've always (Brahmslover and string quartet lover that I am) found his string quartets rather elusive.

Same. They must be the weaker of his chamber works, not that they are in any way poor.

Quote from: Lethe on April 03, 2009, 02:53:39 AM
Same. They must be the weaker of his chamber works, not that they are in any way poor.

No no no no no no no no no! The quartets are absolutely marvellous, IMO - they just need a good perfomance (I recommend the marvellously vibrant, colourful 'sul G'  ;D expressivity of the Britten Quartet, personally). The two earlier works are just fabulous examples of Brahms at his most intense - some say clotted, I say say joyously dense. The intense C minor mood of the first is more extreme than even that in, say, the First Symphony, and there is the most awesome power mingled with oppressed beauty in this piece. It's quite extraordinary. And then the A minor second quartet is just a miracle of harmonic and motivic subtlety, of vibrant lyricism, contrapuntal wizardry. I won't have a word said against these pieces - IMO they rank very highly indeed in Brahms's chamber music output, and output which itself is second to none. My two pen'orth!

Quote from: sul G on April 03, 2009, 10:50:58 AM

No no no no no no no no no! The quartets are absolutely marvellous, IMO - they just need a good perfomance (I recommend the marvellously vibrant, colourful 'sul G'  ;D expressivity of the Britten Quartet, personally). The two earlier works are just fabulous examples of Brahms at his most intense - some say clotted, I say say joyously dense. The intense C minor mood of the first is more extreme than even that in, say, the First Symphony, and there is the most awesome power mingled with oppressed beauty in this piece. It's quite extraordinary. And then the A minor second quartet is just a miracle of harmonic and motivic subtlety, of vibrant lyricism, contrapuntal wizardry. I won't have a word said against these pieces - IMO they rank very highly indeed in Brahms's chamber music output, and output which itself is second to none. My two pen'orth!

ChamberNut sends his digital approval of this message.  0:)

Quote from: sul G on April 03, 2009, 10:50:58 AM
No no no no no no no no no! The quartets are... contrapuntal wizardry. I won't have a word said against these pieces

Yesyesyes. Handicraft second to none. But not, to these (and many other) ears rewarding listening. And although played _a lot!_ by any number of quartets lately (I can't seem to escape it... wherever I hear a string quartet, Brahms already waits for me), I've spoken with players (incidentally about to release a recording on the Virgin label of those works) who, after a temporary hangup, don't find it compelling stuff either. What makes them so difficult? I've got a hunch that it might be the total and utter absence of lightness and genial relaxedness. It's so f&*$(#ng dense.  ;)

That said, when there is a stunning interpretation, it can lift the work above itself. Mandelring Quartett in 51/1 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=230), for example. Alban Berg Quartet (EMI!!!) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0007INZKM/goodmusicguide-20) for the rest.


threaDuty:

Just finished listening (live) to Tan Dun's Piano and Pipa Concertos mixed with a little Bartok (Dance Suite (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000001GOT/goodmusicguide-20)) and Falla.

I've never understood this view of the quartets; they've never troubled me in the least - I just find them utterly compelling from start to finish. As for this surfeit of density and darkness - well, let's just I find it odd to see this complained of in a forum full of Mahler fans etc.! In any case, I don't really recognise this in the works - the C minor is darkly passionate, harmonically adventurous, texturally rich; but the A minor is full of appealing openness in sonority (to do with the key, this), lightness, singing subjects a la 2nd Symphony. I think they are a perfect pair - two totally different 'types' of 'minorness', each expressed in a its most intense form. Perfect!  :)

Quote from: sul G on April 03, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
I've never understood this view of the quartets; they've never troubled me in the least - I just find them utterly compelling from start to finish. As for this surfeit of density and darkness - well, let's just I find it odd to see this complained of in a forum full of Mahler fans etc.! In any case, I don't really recognise this in the works - the C minor is darkly passionate, harmonically adventurous, texturally rich; but the A minor is full of appealing openness in sonority (to do with the key, this), lightness, singing subjects a la 2nd Symphony. I think they are a perfect pair - two totally different 'types' of 'minorness', each expressed in a its most intense form. Perfect!  :)

This is weird. Just as I began to get convinced about my opinions being universally regarded as fact.  :(

Quote from: sul G on April 03, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
I've never understood this view of the quartets; they've never troubled me in the least - I just find them utterly compelling from start to finish. As for this surfeit of density and darkness - well, let's just I find it odd to see this complained of in a forum full of Mahler fans etc.! In any case, I don't really recognise this in the works - the C minor is darkly passionate, harmonically adventurous, texturally rich; but the A minor is full of appealing openness in sonority (to do with the key, this), lightness, singing subjects a la 2nd Symphony. I think they are a perfect pair - two totally different 'types' of 'minorness', each expressed in a its most intense form. Perfect!  :)

Yes, I agree. The "dense" thing is a very bad stereotype. The quartets no doubt contain their fair share of inner "body" but in the performances I have I never get the sense this is a handicap. The invention is what comes across and brother is it wonderful.

From what I can determine (not a professional musician) the trick to bringing these works off is this: there needs to be a balance between untangling all that inner detail while maintaining necessary forward impetus. Perhaps for many string quartets this isn't as easy as it sounds, at least in these particular works, and the tendency is to get bogged down. Speculation on my part of course...

Anyway, I absolutely love these works too and know what they're capable of.   

Here's my favorite set on disc (FWIW):


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P7WZFSYCL.jpg)

Re: Brahms' string quartets

Quote from: sul G on April 03, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
I've never understood this view of the quartets; they've never troubled me in the least - I just find them utterly compelling from start to finish. As for this surfeit of density and darkness - well, let's just I find it odd to see this complained of in a forum full of Mahler fans etc.! In any case, I don't really recognise this in the works - the C minor is darkly passionate, harmonically adventurous, texturally rich; but the A minor is full of appealing openness in sonority (to do with the key, this), lightness, singing subjects a la 2nd Symphony. I think they are a perfect pair - two totally different 'types' of 'minorness', each expressed in a its most intense form. Perfect!  :)

Quote from: donwyn on April 03, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
Yes, I agree. The "dense" thing is a very bad stereotype. The quartets no doubt contain their fair share of inner "body" but in the performances I have I never get the sense this is a handicap. The invention is what comes across and brother is it wonderful.

From what I can determine (not a professional musician) the trick to bringing these works off is this: there needs to be a balance between untangling all that inner detail while maintaining necessary forward impetus. Perhaps for many string quartets this isn't as easy as it sounds, at least in these particular works, and the tendency is to get bogged down. Speculation on my part of course...

Anyway, I absolutely love these works too and know what they're capable of.   

Seconded and seconded. Brahms' string quartets are somewhat of the ultimate in Brahms IMO. They are elusive in the sense that they are very difficult to pull off, though this generally goes for much of his chamber music. My own favourite recording is Alban Berg Quartet 1st take on Teldec. Also smashing are - predictably - the historical recordings of SQ's 1 & 2 by the Busch Quartet (Biddulph, OOP)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VRVD3HE2L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

Q

I once heard the Belcea make sense of one of them live, and it gave me a sense of the potential of these quartets. It's not as if a mature work of Brahms could ever be anything but exceptional, so perhaps I need to range further in mye exploration of performances, I've always put my usually lukewarm response to these down to me. 

Can anyone give an opinion on the Emerson/Fleisher set (DG) of the string quartets + Piano Quintet?

Re the quartets, I really rate the Britten Quartet here - really vibrant, fluid recordings, perfectly judging the differing tones of these great works. Much more winning than more well-known 'classic' recordings out there.

I have their A minor quartet on at the moment. What a piece! What these quartets have in abundance is this terrific fluidity and mobility, all underpinned by some of the most intense motivic writing in Brahms, which is saying a lot. What this means in practice is that a phrase can change meaning, can modulate in mood as it progresses, but all held in an audibly logical web. This is something Brahms always does, of course - this is Brahms, after all! - but perhaps because these are quartets he works the technique particularly hard here. It's utterly spectacular - take the last couple of pages of the exposition of the A minor: the way the viola's triplet crotchet inner part accompaniment to the second subject (which was also present in its accompaniment to the first subject, where it is partly a diminution of the first subject!) gradually infects the other parts, moves into quavers, alters the tone from lyricism to dynamism. Oh, this movement is just a wonder! And dense? Not in the slightest - Brahms tempers the many passages where all four are playing with plenty of thinner-scored moments, and the contrapuntal wizardry keeps the attention focused at all times in the more complex parts. Brahms knows how to write counterpoint that is really effective, everything audible, and audibly relevant, including inversions, augmentations etc, with which these pieces are stuffed. So the density, when it is there, is thoroughly nourishing, and any thinning would be an enormous loss.

The Brittens play this with such passionate conviction, btw - like their lives depend on it. Plenty of tonal flexibility; noticably the leader is not afraid to use high positions on lower strings in such a way as to lead to gulp-inducingly expressive effects. Everything judged exceptionally well, IMO

And, oh, the end of the whole piece - this never fails to leave me dazzled. After a last movement which reminds me of Schubert in some ways we reach an amazing last two pages: an expressive little canon derived from the main subject turns into a simple, charming little idea made out of gently descending scales and chiming chords, before the canon-idea reappears chordally, augmented and high up, mysteriously. Then, magically, this turns into six chords which with the most jaw-dropping simplicity imply-without-stating the opening of the whole quartet, audibly linking the two movements together before our ears like a beautiful mathematical proof. Finally, of course, we are wheeled away in a final Piu vivace. The magic Brahms can wield with a few well-placed chords is second to none, and this quartet contains several of the choicest examples of it.

Quote from: Spitvalve on April 04, 2009, 02:18:44 AM
Can anyone give an opinion on the Emerson/Fleisher set (DG) of the string quartets + Piano Quintet?

I am decidedly not a fan of the Emerson Quartet except in very limited repertoire (American, some modern, some late Beethoven), but in op.51/2 I actually prefer the Emersons over my all-time-favorite quartet, the Takacs. (Wrote a bit about it here (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=210).)

The Piano Quintet, however, I find an ungainly let-down. (Wrote about that, here (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=422).)

QuoteNostalgia has me consider stormy Leon Fleisher and the Juilliard Quartet (Sony via Arkiv) for that Quintet; I shall always cherish the smooth, sometimes detailed, sometimes bashful Quartetto Italiano with Maurizio Pollini (DG Originals), nor let the exacting, superbly sonorous, occasionally strident Hagen Quartett with Paul Gulda gather dust (DG via Arkiv). But splashier recent releases like said Takács with Stephen Hough (too nervous) or Emerson with Fleisher (too ungainly the execution of the piano part) can't touch Lane & Budapest.

My general disinclination towards the Brahms SQ4ts notwithstanding, I find the ABQ EMI recording significantly superior to their Teldec release.

(I don't know the Britten Quartet's recordings. Another favorite quartet of mine--the Vegh--was a staggering disappointment in their Decca re-release of the op.51 works.)

Quote from: jlaurson on April 04, 2009, 10:30:41 AM
My general disinclination towards the Brahms SQ4ts notwithstanding, I find the ABQ EMI recording significantly superior to their Teldec release.

Considering my general adoration of Brahms' SQ's  ;D, I strongly dissent.
The EMI recording is an interpretation in marble: dead as a Dodo.
The Teldec on the other hand, is juicy, vibrant, spontaneous and charming. Yes I know - these are generally not characteristics associated with Brahms. But the secret of a good Brahms performance is: the notes deliver the substance and the abstraction anyway, it's up to the performers to bring out the charm and sensitivity that is quintessential for Brahms.

Q

Quote from: Spitvalve on April 04, 2009, 02:18:44 AM
Can anyone give an opinion on the Emerson/Fleisher set (DG) of the string quartets + Piano Quintet?

I have this set but haven't had it long enough to really assess it. Although so far my impressions are very positive. There's plenty of warmth, depth, attention to detail, and a nice sense of unity.

They don't quite move along with the same urgency as the Juilliard Quartet (my favorite) but that's no real knock. No other quartet I've heard matches the Juilliard's drive in these works.

But the Emerson's are far from droopy and actually out-drive some other recordings I have without losing focus on other important matters (and there are plenty).

So, so far I'm very impressed with this set (haven't heard the piano quintet).

Being totally used to Brahms' chamber music via the Amadeus Quartet, I was pleasantly surprised when I heard the String Quartet No. 1 performance by the Quatuor Alcan on a Galaxie cable chamber music station last night.

My favorite movement of this string quartet is the Allegretto molto moderato e comodo - Un poco piu amimato 3rd movement.  I never considered this a "Scherzo-like" movement before, based on two things: 1) The description of the movement itself, and 2) The moderate tempo taken by the Amadeus Quartet.

While the movements 1, 2 and 4 played by the Quatuor Alcan were on a very similar line as the Amadeus Qt. take, I immensely enjoyed the Quatuor Alcan's take on the 3rd movement.  It was played at a much faster tempo, and it gave that movement an energy of which was not familiar with.  It was very refreshing to my ears.  :)

I still preferred the coda of the 1st movement as performed by Amadeus, which their driving heavy metal riff-like take (to my ears anyways).

Here are some newer Brahms chamber music recordings that are excellent:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BH3ERD4VL._SS500_.jpg)  (http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/jpegs/150dpi/726d7223fbd85b39/034571175515.png) (http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/jpegs/150dpi/726d7223fbd85b39/034571175522.png)

Here is a tempting new recording of Op. 51(1) and Op. 34:

http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12249

Has anyone heard it yet and can offer an opinion? I listened to some clips and they rock.

Lately, Brahms String Sextet in B flat Op. 18 has become my favorite Brahms' work.

Quote from: ChamberNut on July 18, 2009, 08:50:35 AM
Lately, Brahms String Sextet in B flat Op. 18 has become my favorite Brahms' work.

For me it's the Op 34 Piano Quintet, just amazing music, on the same caliber as those specular piano concertos of his. :)

Quote from: DavidW on July 18, 2009, 08:59:46 AM
For me it's the Op 34 Piano Quintet, just amazing music, on the same caliber as those specular piano concertos of his. :)

Dude, Op. 34 is the Everest of chamber music, in fact maybe my all-time favorite Brahms piece  :)

Which gives me an opportunity to plug something - the recording I mentioned above. As happens too often on this board, I wound up answering my own question  :P and bought the disc...and just had my first listen to it. It totally rocks!  :D

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ve9saqtNL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

I know 3 of the players (Queyras, Avenhaus, Zimmerman) from their work playing modern composers like Ligeti and Silvestrov, and the precision and virtuosity required to play that stuff really pay off here. It's a high-energy performance. Add the sharp, close-up sound and I was hearing more of the Brahms Quintet than I'd ever heard before, just in terms of voices and layers.

In short - a kickass Brahms Piano Quintet that will make the jaded Brahms lover sit up in his seat  :), played by 5 very cool-looking youngish musicians  8)

What more could ya want?  ???

(It comes with the Op. 51.1 Quartet, but I haven't listened to that yet)

Cool man!  I think that sound quality is just as important as the performance to hear all of the nuances of the performance.  So I've added it to my wishlist. :)

The SQs' reputation preceeded them, so I made sure to get the ABQ/Teldec just to be on the safe side, but then when I put them on I was like, "What's all the fuss about?" There's nothing at all problematic with the music. I was expecting a lot more thorns, but all three are certainly "error free." I think they sound absolutely "cinematic," especially No.3.

I've also heard the LaSalle, which was a bit... aggressive?

To me, the Clarinet Quintet is the perfection of classical music.

I've now listened to the quartet (51/1), and while this performance also rocks,  :) the piece itself puzzles me a bit. Does this have the glummest, most depressive scherzo ever written? I look forward to further exploration.

Quote from: Spitvalve on July 23, 2009, 01:01:27 AM
I've now listened to the quartet (51/1), and while this performance also rocks,  :) the piece itself puzzles me a bit. Does this have the glummest, most depressive scherzo ever written?

I'd say subdued. Clearly Brahms didn't want to come close to anything resembling a Haydn, Beethoven or even Mendelssohn scherzo. (He was to do a Mendelssohnian scherzo in the 3d quartet.) I think it's a stunning, dusky piece of music.

Quote from: jlaurson on August 04, 2009, 09:19:00 AM
Like you, I think most of us are (not that I can speak on others' behalf) non-ideological. I love Brendel in Haydn, as do you, and I love the Quatuor Mosaique above all in the string quartets. Not because they are HIP but because they are good. I have, neither in Bach, nor in Haydn, nor in Beethoven, discovered anything that will make either HIP or non-HIP inherently better than the other. Only ideological inflexibility can hurt--and even that doesn't necessarily detract. John Butt is probably pretty ideological about OVPP, but he still creates very fine music. Karajan was also pretty ideological about his particular sound, and he, too, created some stunning interpretations. But those who take the best of both worlds, like Paavo Jaervi in Beethoven, to name but one example, can often come up with something that's yet still even better. Both, HIP and non-HIP need each other to keep themselves on their toes, to explore new venues (not all of which lead necessarily somewhere) and to keep pushing the envelope and question "tradition" which is sometimes just "yesterday's bad habit" or sometimes "organic improvement".

Well, Jens, on the basis of those ideas and your strong recommendation written on Amazon, I decided to order this set the last week. Brahms is rather neglected by HIP performances yet (especially his piano music):

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on August 05, 2009, 06:08:28 AM
Well, Jens, on the basis of those ideas and your strong recommendation written on Amazon, I decided to order this set the last week. Brahms is rather neglected by HIP performances yet:

You shouldn't go by abbreviated or shitty Amazon reviews.  ;)

(Not when there's a fine three-partite review on WETA, at least. (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=422))

Quote from: jlaurson on August 05, 2009, 06:49:15 AM
You shouldn't go by abbreviated or shitty Amazon reviews.  ;)

(Not when there's a fine three-partite review on WETA, at least. (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=422))

Great! I must confess that my order includes not only the Hyperion box set, but the DG box set, too (a lot of non-HIP performances!). I know, it's sick, but, as the scorpion said, "it's in my nature".

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on August 05, 2009, 07:02:18 AM
Great! I must confess that my order includes not only the Hyperion box set, but the DG box set, too (a lot of non-HIP performances!). I know, it's sick, but, as the scorpion said, "it's in my nature".

I have most of the hyperion recordings, and they are fantastic, you will not be disappointed!

Quote from: DavidW on August 05, 2009, 07:04:35 AM
I have most of the hyperion recordings, and they are fantastic, you will not be disappointed!

Thanks for the support, David. I just love Brahms music: Sonata for piano & violoncello Op. 38 (discovered for me when I was a melancholic teenager); Piano Quintet Op. 34 (La Gaia Scienza and Federica Valli are terrific here); Sonata Op. 120 N°1 for clarinet and piano and many others. Great music!

:)

Edwin Fischer partnered with Mainardi and Kullenkampff (then with Schneiderhan) in the Edwin Fischer Trio between 1935 and the 1950's. There are only a few recordings of the Trio but, for me, their  readings of the Brahms piano trios (live 1951, 1953, 1954) are full of insight and with a driving flow I miss in many more well known versions.

Carlos

(http://www.pristineclassical.com/media/Pictures/CDs150/MA739.jpg)(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61an4B0TPKL._SL160_AA115_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JP6AREEVL._SL160_AA115_.jpg)

I saw a few mentions for Amadeus Quartet........
DG to the rescue with reduced price boxset I bought a few years ago: quartets, quintets, sextets

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oDEPLBuPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

Quote from: DarkAngel on September 22, 2009, 04:50:59 AM
I saw a few mentions for Amadeus Quartet........
DG to the rescue with reduced price boxset I bought a few years ago: quartets, quintets, sextets

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oDEPLBuPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

Very happy with this set.

Yeah it's swell. :)

Quote from: DarkAngel on September 22, 2009, 04:50:59 AM
I saw a few mentions for Amadeus Quartet........
DG to the rescue with reduced price boxset I bought a few years ago: quartets, quintets, sextets

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oDEPLBuPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

This set is indispensable IMO.

Quote from: Franco on September 22, 2009, 06:09:07 AM
This set is indispensable IMO.

[2]

It's not for me. I've troubles to go up stairs. My legs aren't as
strong as they were 30 years ago. :( :(

I have my misgivings about the Amadeus in some repertoire, but in Brahms they fit perfectly! I have this both on LP and CD, and they are my go-to versions.

First, I'm surprised that I've not already joined this 2-y/o thread - Brahms chamber works have always been a pleasure to me - so now 'in the door' -   :)

Second, I've started to 'double up' on a number of my Brahms selections wanting more than just one interpretation - two recent additions are shown below:

Piano Trios - other owned is w/ the Florestan Trio on Hyperion.

Piano Quartets - also have the BAT, but that M-A Hamelin set looks like a possible replacement for me?   :D

(http://giradman.smugmug.com/photos/640317741_H2N58-S.jpg)  (http://giradman.smugmug.com/photos/657791892_PCY4T-S.jpg)

Specifically, I am looking for the grittiest, brass knuckles in your face performances for the Opus 51 string quartets?

I have the Amadeus Qt. version, which I really, really enjoy.  I just want to listen to other performances as described above.

Try the Prague SQ

Quote from: Carolus on November 23, 2009, 12:17:12 PM
Try the Prague SQ

Thanks!  :)

Quote from: Brahmsian on November 23, 2009, 12:06:42 PM
Specifically, I am looking for the grittiest, brass knuckles in your face performances for the Opus 51 string quartets.

Easily this set, although important musical details aren't slighted:


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P7WZFSYCL._SL500_.jpg)

Quote from: Brahmsian on November 23, 2009, 12:06:42 PM
Specifically, I am looking for the grittiest, brass knuckles in your face performances for the Opus 51 string quartets?

I have the Amadeus Qt. version, which I really, really enjoy.  I just want to listen to other performances as described above.

Hi Ray - well, as expected in these works, so many recordings exist!  Not sure 'exactly' what you're looking for in these performances, but currently I own the set below on a Hyperion Dyad - well recommended and not a big investment!  Dave  :)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oDPqmWTqL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

Quote from: SonicMan on November 23, 2009, 03:41:13 PM
Hi Ray - well, as expected in these works, so many recordings exist!  Not sure 'exactly' what you're looking for in these performances, but currently I own the set below on a Hyperion Dyad - well recommended and not a big investment!  Dave  :)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oDPqmWTqL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)

Very enthusiastically seconded. L.Rev is my fav. in the Romances sans paroles, not Barenboim, or Ilse von und zu und ueber Alpenbergstein. If anyone challenges Rev in my estimation, it's A.Katz on Live Classics.

Very informative thread.  A few comments:

1) The discussions of the Amadues Qt set needs to address the problem with the old DG remastering, which is awful.  I mean awful.  There's no doubt that these are wonderful performances but they are unlistenable on CD.  Is the new set with the new cover a remastering?  If not, no one should be getting this set. 

2) I recently got Domus doing the 3 piano quartets.  An unusual performance, but a pretty good one once you get used to the rubato, the rather echo-y recording and the often understated playing.  I don't think it's definitive but it's quite good.

3) I'll say it: the quartets are the least interesting and successful part of Brahms' chmaber music.  JB must have suffered from ghost of LvB looking over his shoulder.  Of course, it's not bad music.  But it's not as good as his other chamber music, which ranges from the very good to the supreme.

Quote from: cosmicj on May 29, 2010, 11:17:25 AM3) I'll say it: the quartets are the least interesting and successful part of Brahms' chmaber music.  JB must have suffered from ghost of LvB looking over his shoulder.  Of course, it's not bad music.  But it's not as good as his other chamber music, which ranges from the very good to the supreme.

They were the most difficult for me to come to terms with, but I find them to be among the best of his output, these days.  I think it would be fascinating if these works were to be performed by a string orchestra, as the late Beethoven and some Schubert quartets often are.

I'll agree that all of the Amadeus Quartet recordings sound horrid in their DG CD masterings.  I'm curious if they sounded better when they were on LP.  I don't loose any sleep over it, I just generally can't stand them anyway.

Quote from: cosmicj on May 29, 2010, 11:17:25 AM
Very informative thread.  A few comments:

1) The discussions of the Amadeus Qt set needs to address the problem with the old DG remastering, which is awful.  I mean awful.  There's no doubt that these are wonderful performances but they are unlistenable on CD.  Is the new set with the new cover a remastering?  If not, no one should be getting this set. 

If you mean this set
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oDEPLBuPL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
apparently not.  I know all the sets in this series, including the AQ Mozart, that I have were not remastered.

But in light of your comment, it was amusing to read this comment in one of the reviews on that Amazon page
I have an inexpensive CD player, but this music emerges from it with the sharpness of etched glass, the smoothness of warmed honey, and the softness of rivers of silver in moonlight.

Perhaps your problem is simply having too good a sound system :)

Quote from: cosmicj on May 29, 2010, 11:17:25 AM
Very informative thread.  A few comments:

1) The discussions of the Amadues Qt set needs to address the problem with the old DG remastering, which is awful.  I mean awful.  There's no doubt that these are wonderful performances but they are unlistenable on CD.  Is the new set with the new cover a remastering?  If not, no one should be getting this set. 

Are you talking about the string quartets of this set?

(http://www.classicstoday.com/images/coverpics/7670_coverpic.jpg)
ORIGINAL MASTERS: AMADEUS QUARTET 1951-57
Various String Quartets by Haydn, Schubert, Mendelssohn, & Brahms
Amadeus Quartet
Deutsche Grammophon- 474 730-2(CD)

Now reissued on Brilliant under this aspect:

(http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Feb09/Amadeus_93807.jpg)
The Legendary Amadeus Quartet
String quartets by Brahms, Haydn, Hoffstetter, Mendelssohn & Schubert
rec. London 1951-57.
BRILLIANT CLASSICS 93807 [7 CDs: 463:37]

Because AFAIK the versions included in the set below are different:

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008RWRG.jpg)

I don't have the older set (DG and Brilliant offer the same recordings), but the information is: rec. 1951-1957, Conway Hall, Abbey Road, and Hampstead Parish Church, London and Beethovensaal, Hanover.

On the other hand, the string quartets in the newer set -which I own-, were recorded in September 1959 and January 1960, but I have never had big objections about its sound quality. At least, IMO, they are not unlistenable at all.

:)

Quote from: cosmicj on May 29, 2010, 11:17:25 AM
3) I'll say it: the quartets are the least interesting and successful part of Brahms' chmaber music.  JB must have suffered from ghost of LvB looking over his shoulder.  Of course, it's not bad music.  But it's not as good as his other chamber music, which ranges from the very good to the supreme.

Well, the "ghost" thing is dubious, here. Brahms overcame Beethoven's ghost to write four absolute gems of symphonies so why should it hinder him so much when it came to the string quartet?

No, to me it can all be laid squarely at the feet of the musicians performing these works. At least on disc. There's a LOT of detail in the string quartets and deciphering it all while keeping up the momentum is not an easy task. The successful Brahms string quartet performance - for this completely untrained musician - must tie in all the rigorous demands of the score while maintaining the organic quality of the musical line. Tough feat I'd say but to me it isn't something every string quartet manages on record. 

I recently made some headway in listening to the string quartets. No. 2, listening to it while waiting for a train. ;D It was so good, and since I couldn't fully listen to it while on the train, I came home and gave it a second listen. I don't know if this had anything to with my listening to Zemlinksy quartets prior to the A minor.

FYI: I listened to the ABQ (Teldec); I also have the Amadeus Quartet on DG (1960), which I have not listened to in some time.

Takes awhile, generally, to warm up to Brahms's string quartets, but they are wonderful and are just as great as the rest of his chamber output.

Quote from: Opus106 on May 30, 2010, 12:01:22 AM
FYI: I listened to the ABQ (Teldec); I also have the Amadeus Quartet on DG (1960), which I have not listened to in some time.

That (superb) ABQ rendition on Teldec is my favorite version for those string quartets, Navneeth:


Now also here:


The ABQ recorded the quartets for second time on EMI in the early 90s (an expensive version remastered in Japan is currently available on different websites):


I don't know the versions on EMI; but, IIRC, Q –who also loves the Teldec recordings- clearly preferred the Teldec versions here.

:)

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 30, 2010, 09:12:19 AM
I don't know the versions on EMI; but, IIRC, Q –who also loves the Teldec recordings- clearly preferred the Teldec versions here.

I had the EMI set when it was available in the US for cheap, and IMO they are terrible.  The Teldec is far superior.  The performances on the EMI are too dry, and the sonics are too bright.  Teldec set is just so so much better. :)

I can't believe the dissing on the DG collector's edition of Amadeus Q.  I mean it's not as transparent as a modern recording, it has an audible noise floor, but other than that it sounds excellent IMO. :)

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 30, 2010, 09:12:19 AM
That (superb) ABQ rendition on Teldec is my favorite version for those string quartets, Navneeth:

Now also here:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41g-xD0FxyL._SS400_.jpg)

That's the one I have. I call it My Box of Vienna. :)

Quote from: DavidW on May 30, 2010, 09:18:04 AM
I can't believe the dissing on the DG collector's edition of Amadeus Q.  I mean it's not as transparent as a modern recording, it has an audible noise floor, but other than that it sounds excellent IMO. :)

I totally agree, David. But I think Cosmicj was talking about the DG "Original Masters" Edition. Apparently, the string quartets sound quite bad there.

BTW, what do you think about the Piano Quintet included in the Collector's Edition?

Quote from: Opus106 on May 30, 2010, 09:21:53 AM
That's the one I have. I call it My Box of Vienna. :)

I have considered that enticing box, but I separately have four CDs included there (Brahms and Haydn).  :(

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 30, 2010, 09:36:06 AM
I totally agree, David. But I think Cosmicj was talking about the DG "Original Masters" Edition. Apparently, the string quartets sound quite bad there.

BTW, what do you think about the Piano Quintet included in the Collector's Edition?

I think it is clear cosmicj was talking about the collectors edition, and I agree with him completely, the DG mastering has a "fingernails on a chalkboard" sonic which I found utterly unlistenable.  I had the set soon after it was released but sold it off as soon as I came upon alternate recordings.  I also find myself annoyed with the Amadeus Quartet aesthetic, which is that every single note must be played with exaggerated expressiveness, even a playful minuet or scherzo.
 

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 30, 2010, 09:40:31 AM
I have considered that enticing box, but I separately have four CDs included there (Brahms and Haydn).  :(

I think I have everything in that box.  The Mozart is a particular favorite.  The ensemble is unrecognizable in their later EMI recordings - recording perspective too close and dry and multiple personnel changes in the quartet.

Quote from: Scarpia on May 30, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
I think it is clear cosmicj was talking about the collectors edition, and I agree with him completely, the DG mastering has a "fingernails on a chalkboard" sonic which I found utterly unlistenable.  I had the set soon after it was released but sold it off as soon as I came upon alternate recordings.  I also find myself annoyed with the Amadeus Quartet aesthetic, which is that every single note must be played with exaggerated expressiveness, even a playful minuet or scherzo.

If that's the case, it's a nonsense, IMO.

P.S.: I'm just talking about the sound quality, for sure; although I also like their interpretations.

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 30, 2010, 09:36:06 AM
BTW, what do you think about the Piano Quintet included in the Collector's Edition?

With Eschenbach playing?  Oh I love it! :)  I see that some don't like their playing.  But for Brahms, I think it's a complete match with the style.  I might be reaching far more often for the Festetics Q in Mozart or Haydn, but when it comes to someone like Brahms I find Amadeus Q highly satisfying. :)  Actually maybe I should give them a spin today! ;D

Quote from: DavidW on May 30, 2010, 09:56:20 AM
With Eschenbach playing?  Oh I love it! :)  I see that some don't like their playing.  But for Brahms, I think it's a complete match with the style.  I might be reaching far more often for the Festetics Q in Mozart or Haydn, but when it comes to someone like Brahms I find Amadeus Q highly satisfying. :)  Actually maybe I should give them a spin today! ;D

We are in full agreement here, David.

BTW, I also love that Piano Quintet, but if any day you consider to search another version, please don't forget this:

Alrighty it's bookmarked. :)

Quote from: Scarpia on May 30, 2010, 09:43:02 AM
I think I have everything in that box.  The Mozart is a particular favorite.  The ensemble is unrecognizable in their later EMI recordings - recording perspective too close and dry and multiple personnel changes in the quartet.

Perhaps this is just one of those cliche's people keep telling each other. I bought the Telefunken ABQ Mozart box as it came out in LPs. At some point I got tired of it. Among other recordings I preferred the Amadeus Qt.

Later, in the digital age, I never felt like getting the EMI ABQ records. They had become the German ueberquartett, just as the Amadeus had been, a generation before. Last year, however, I got a couple of the later Mozart quartets in the EMI series, and I have to say they are splendid. They are better than the Teldec recordings, and I have a really hard time figuring out what the negatives on these recordings are.

About the Amadeus Qt performances, I was referring to the older re-issue, with the orange-and-yellow box and the ubiquitous shadow of Brahms strolling while enjoying a smoke (not the Collector's Edition).  The remastering ruins a very fine set of performances (and they're bad on both an audiophile and a more mid-priced system - they've grated on me on both).  So far, Scarpia is describing the sonics of the Collectors Edition as unlistenable while others are claiming it is fine.  I am a bit confused here.

Re the quartets, a lot of sophisticated people have chimed in to support them on this thread so I am going to reserve judgement.  I promise to listen to them in the near future with an open mind.

Quote from: cosmicj on May 30, 2010, 12:10:31 PM

Re the quartets, a lot of sophisticated people have chimed in to support them on this thread so I am going to reserve judgement.  I promise to listen to them in the near future with an open mind.

I've had a hard time getting much out of those, too... but there have been recordings that started to win me over. Most notably the Mandelring Quartet and Apollon Musagete...
http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=230 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=230), http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2028 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=2028)


...though less by the (otherwise always favorite) Takacs and (not usually favorite) Emerson: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=210 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=210), http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=422 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=422)

Quote from: Brahmsian on May 30, 2010, 06:38:22 AM
Takes awhile, generally, to warm up to Brahms's string quartets, but they are wonderful and are just as great as the rest of his chamber output.

I just listened to the Bb major quartet with a score in my hands after reading that post.
To be honest, I think it is utterly boring. Especially the last movement with its many repeats.

Quote from: cosmicj on May 30, 2010, 12:10:31 PM
About the Amadeus Qt performances, I was referring to the older re-issue, with the orange-and-yellow box and the ubiquitous shadow of Brahms strolling while enjoying a smoke (not the Collector's Edition).  The remastering ruins a very fine set of performances (and they're bad on both an audiophile and a more mid-priced system - they've grated on me on both).  So far, Scarpia is describing the sonics of the Collectors Edition as unlistenable while others are claiming it is fine.  I am a bit confused here.

To be specific, I had this one:

(http://www.iclassics.com/images/local/300/141E.jpg)

Which I assume is identical to this:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oDEPLBuPL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

My experience is that collectors editions are repackaging of discs already mastered for previous editions.

Unlistenable is subjective,  I found them utterly unbearable, but that's just my reaction.  Certainly if DG regards these recordings highly they should have a more recent master digital master than 1987.  Perhaps the original tapes have deteriorated beyond repair and there's nothing to remaster from anymore.

Quote from: rappy on May 30, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
I just listened to the Bb major quartet with a score in my hands after reading that post.
To be honest, I think it is utterly boring. Especially the last movement with its many repeats.

But the last movement is a set of variations. I rather like it in fact. And I like the ruggedness of the rhythms in the first movement, and the lightness of the ravishing opening of the second movement.

Quote from: Scarpia on May 30, 2010, 12:46:31 PM
To be specific, I had this one:

(http://www.iclassics.com/images/local/300/141E.jpg)

But the set in the image doesn't include the string quartets!  :D

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 30, 2010, 02:09:30 PM
But the set in the image doesn't include the string quartets!  :D

Yes, my memories are of the quintets and sextets.   :-[  I guess if the Quartets were remastered more recently they might sound better.

Quote from: DavidW on May 30, 2010, 11:27:30 AM
Alrighty it's bookmarked. :)

You gave me a perfect pretext to upload this:  :)

Johannes Brahms - Quintett für Pianoforte, zwei Violinen, Viola und Violoncell, f-moll, op. 34
1. Allegro non troppo
La Gaia Scienza
Federica Valli: Pianoforte [Sébastien Erard, Paris, 1842]
Stefano Barneschi: Violine [Sofritti Luigi, Ferrara, 188?]
Carlo de Martini Violine [Anonymous, Italy, 19th century]
Marco Bianchi: Viola [Georgus Kloz, Mittenwald, 1772]
Paolo Beschi: Violoncell [Renato Scrollavezza, Parma, 1982]
Recording: 05/2000
Winter & Winter

Wow that was fantastic! :)

There is nothing wrong with Brahms's string quartets. Maybe you need to bring a little bit of maturity to the table, who knows?

The thrid quartet, for instance, has an exciting first movement, a great viola solo in the scherzo and it is only boring if you are boring.

There we have it.  If you think the Brahms string quartets are inferior to the string sextets or piano quartets, then you are immature and boring.  Clears it all up.

Again, out of all Brahms chamber output, which is great in its entirety (IMHO), it seems the string quartets pose the greatest difficulty for people (either in understanding or appreciation).

With exceptions, Brahms chamber output tends to be well refined, smooth works of art.  However, glaringly the string quartets (particularly the Op. 51 quartets) are rough, rugged, and edgy works.  That is also what makes them unique and great!  :)

I have a hard time thinking of a string quartet movement that is grittier than the first movement of the first string quartet.  At least, as far as pre-Bartok, pre-Shostakovich quartets go.

Quote from: Brahmsian on June 03, 2010, 09:23:46 AM
With exceptions, Brahms chamber output tends to be well refined, smooth works of art.  However, glaringly the string quartets (particularly the Op. 51 quartets) are rough, rugged, and edgy works.  That is also what makes them unique and great!  :)

I agree about Op. 51. But contrary to what you suggest, ruggedness and cragginess can be found in a lot of Brahms chamber works. I don't think of the Piano Quintet, the 3rd Piano Quartet, the 3rd Piano Trio, or the 2nd String Quintet as "smooth."

I find the quartets interesting because the restriction to just 4 independent voices seems to go against Brahms's main compositional style, which is to have a complex texture of many interlocking voices where, above all, every voice sings.  In the sparser texture, Brahms was forced to reinvent himself, to some extent. 

Quote from: Brahmsian on June 03, 2010, 09:23:46 AM
[T]he string quartets (particularly the Op. 51 quartets) are rough, rugged, and edgy works.

Those are words that I don't associate with these works -- especially rugged and edgy. (Of course, our definitions might vary.) For me, the problem is that I feel -- for most of the time -- that the music is not going anywhere. An extreme case of this happens with Bruckner's symphonies in general, but I'm digressing.

Quote from: Opus106 on June 03, 2010, 09:46:39 AM
Those are words that I don't associate with these works -- especially rugged and edgy. (Of course, our definitions might vary.) For me, the problem is that I feel -- for most of the time -- that the music is not going anywhere. An extreme case of this happens with Bruckner's symphonies in general, but I'm digressing.

I disagree with you, Navneeth. I think the description of our Brahmsian is quite exact: "rugged" and "edgy" are exactly the words that come to my mind when I compare the string quartets with other Brahms chamber works. They are not well varnished furniture, but pieces more rustic, even -I would say- a kind of work-in-progress, which is quite strange -or not?  :)-, considering the eagerness of perfection that tormented Brahms in this genre.   :)

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on June 03, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
They are not well varnished furniture

I can go with that.

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on June 03, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
I disagree with you, Navneeth. I think the description of our Brahmsian is quite exact: "rugged" and "edgy" are exactly the words that come to my mind when I compare the string quartets with other Brahms chamber works. They are not well varnished furniture, but pieces more rustic, even -I would say- a kind of work-in-progress, which is quite strange -or not?  :)-, considering the eagerness of perfection that tormented Brahms in this genre.   :)

It depends on the performance. Amadeus seem to smooth Op 67 out, and people seem to like that.  ABQ and maybe the Busch Quartet make it sound spikier.

The strangest, roughest, work-in-progressy type of performance of Op 67  I have heard was from Quarteto Casals. I hated it.

For my part, I like Op 67 a lot, and I quite like Op 51/2. I have never enjoyed that sentimental piece of mush called Op51/1.

Quote from: Antoine Marchand on May 30, 2010, 07:50:52 PM

http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=11539715-8ee

Not bad, piano player tends to falter at times but not a bad performance. Wasn't aware instruments still sounded so raw even as late as Brahms.

Quote from: Mandryka on June 03, 2010, 11:42:33 AM
It depends on the performance. Amadeus seem to smooth Op 67 out, and people seem to like that.  ABQ and maybe the Busch Quartet make it sound spikier.

The strangest, roughest, work-in-progressy type of performance of Op 67  I have heard was from Quarteto Casals. I hated it.

For my part, I like Op 67 a lot, and I quite like Op 51/2. I have never enjoyed that sentimental piece of mush called Op51/1.

Well, it's true, different performances stress different aspects of the music. But I was not talking about the interpretations, but about the structure, the design of these string quartets, with abrupt changes of mood, sudden explotions and certain general lack of "unity" in the conception. I imagine this feature is the reason why, for example, Navneeth feels these quartets as not going anywhere. IMO, they are beautiful works, although a bit troubled, conflicted -as Brahms himself was- and quite heterogeneous, as those things extremely reworked that conserve parts of the original sketches.

:)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 03, 2010, 11:52:04 AM
Not bad, piano player tends to falter at times but not a bad performance. Wasn't aware instruments still sounded so raw even as late as Brahms.

You are not an audience easy to please, Josquin; therefore, I consider your opinion almost a 5-star review. ;)

Quote from: Brahmsian on May 30, 2010, 06:38:22 AM
Takes awhile, generally, to warm up to Brahms's string quartets, but they are wonderful and are just as great as the rest of his chamber output.

The Brahms string quartets may not be "easy" listening at first but as Brahmsian pointed out if we warm up a bit we may discover wonderful music and ideas.
In spite of their musical "density" I always tend to look at the Brahms quartets not as formal exercises of musical construction but as lyrical, almost melancholic pieces. I rarely see any "roughness" in this music and that's why I am less sensible to interpreters that accentuate the "structure" or the formal edges of these pieces, putting more in behind the flowing, the beauty or the colour of the musical phrase. It is perhaps why I usually prefer the readings of the Busch, the Hungarian or the Vegh quartets and not the Alban Berg or the Amadeus quartet just to name some examples.
       
Brahms dedicated the op.51 C minor quartet to his friend Billroth. A surgeon but also an amateur musician,  Billroth used to play the viola in chamber music gatherings that were a common social tradition in the "educated"  Viennese middle-class.   It is curious to see his impression after playing the quartets for the first time.

To Theodor Billroth        Tutzing, July 1873
Dear friend,         
I am in the point of publishing string quartets ... It is not merely from the thought of you and your friendship that I now write your name against the first ... you must be content with the dedication as a pleasant afterthought ... the quartet in question is in the famed key of C minor; ... you now think of it and then fantasize  ... and, subsequently, find the second one better.  ...
Joahnnes Brahms "

" Vienna, 23 November 1873
Brahms's new quartets were played at my house.  They contain much beauty in a concise form; but not only are they enormously difficult technically, neither is the content easy. I'd advise you to prepare yourself with the score ...  There is much to be lost otherwise.   ...
Theodor Billroth " 

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RQEFT2WEL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)   (http://img.sharedmusic.net/files/pics/930/929515/img_1_pr.jpg) (http://www.universalmusicclassical.com/images/local/300/63370E.jpg)

Quote from: Que on April 03, 2009, 11:39:16 PM
Re: Brahms' string quartets

Seconded and seconded. Brahms' string quartets are somewhat of the ultimate in Brahms IMO. They are elusive in the sense that they are very difficult to pull off, though this generally goes for much of his chamber music (Biddulph, OOP)

In other words most of his chamber needs need very good performances.  Some pieces of course sound good virtually with anyone, pieces that sing and with alot of melody like the violin sonatas or the clarinet quintet.  That is why those pieces are so popular.  Other pieces need more than just a player playing the notes they need someone to bring the pieces to life.  So it shouldn't really be a surprise to people here that alot of his chamber work isn't so easy to grasp as people hear an ordinary performance and it just sounds really dull. I heard Pollini in the Piano Quintet, great performance and great stuff.  But another performance and the piece would probably have bored me.  I wonder if this is the case more with romantic period pieces or not. 

Someone earlier said Brahms was very much a classicist and very reticent.  Well he can be that in some pieces but in others he can be very effusive, full of all the gestures of late 19th century romanticism.  Sometimes I wonder if the effusive style is better in orchestral than chamber music as that makes the big gestures sound more convincing, chamber music being a more intimate smaller style of music.

Just skimmed the last few pages......I've never understood the traditional semi-dissing of the quartets. It's a cliche, really, and you find it everywhere, but never, in my experience, justified by recourse to the music itself. Lazy thinking, I feel, perhaps an unquestioning acceptance of received wisdom, that percolates through the years, perhaps starting with a grain of truth in it - 'the quartets are the densest and most unremitting of B's chamber works' - but ending up missing the point wildly, I feel - 'they are his weakest chamber works'. Myself, as the most passionate lover of Brahms and his chamber music in particular, I frequently feel that these are amongst his strongest works, the first two in particular. They are certainly echt-Brahms, technically complex, rewarding, sublime pieces, full of desperate passion and drive, and as a set they explore three facets of his personality very thoroughly, each sustaining its individual tone throughout as the best of his chamber music does.

Perhaps, though, it is true that they need a good, committed performance more than some others of his works, which, relatively speaking, 'play themselves'. I've seen the Julliard Qts reading of them given big thumbs up here and elsewhere, but to me, it totally misses the point of these pieces, it's dry, uninvolved, skeptical, I find it unlistenable. At least compared to my favourite recordings, number one of which is that of the Britten Quartet - a deeply vibrant, full-blooded, halfway-up-the-G-string reading which clearly believes in these pieces 100%.

"...starting with a grain of truth in it - 'the quartets are the densest and most unremitting of B's chamber works'...

...it is true that they need a good, committed performance more than some others of his works, which, relatively speaking, 'play themselves'."

Between those two points, even your very different personal preferences, you can't see why they're not considered--by some--to be at the same level as other String Quartets of that time or at least other chamber works of Brahms? They're certainly not the pieces to introduce people to Brahms with. (Or convert the Brahms-sceptics with.) I know plenty performers who have played and recorded these works and they, too, have their doubts.

In any case, I'm totally convinced by some of the Mandelring performances http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=230 (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=230) (audite, wonderful couplings), and especially this:


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61ODzpVZrJL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Haydn, Brahms, Szymanowski, Shchedrin
Lyric Scenes for String Quartet
Apollon Musagete (ARD 2008 Prize Winner)
Oehms SACD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003D8OA2K?ie=UTF8&tag=goodmusicguide-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=19454&creativeASIN=B003D8OA2K)

which is a smashing performance of op.51/2

Quote from: Luke on June 08, 2010, 01:13:25 AM
halfway-up-the-G-string reading

What does this expression mean?


P.S.: I'm not dirty-minded. 0:)

Quote from: jlaurson on June 08, 2010, 01:54:01 AM
"...starting with a grain of truth in it - 'the quartets are the densest and most unremitting of B's chamber works'...

...it is true that they need a good, committed performance more than some others of his works, which, relatively speaking, 'play themselves'."

Between those two points, even your very different personal preferences, you can't see why they're not considered--by some--to be at the same level as other String Quartets of that time or at least other chamber works of Brahms? They're certainly not the pieces to introduce people to Brahms with. (Or convert the Brahms-sceptics with.) I know plenty performers who have played and recorded these works and they, too, have their doubts.

No, because I don't consider their relative density and 'unremittingness' to be indicative of a lack of quality - which is what being on a different level to other works implies - just characteristics of the works (and in fact, characteristics of all the greatest Brahms - within the confines of the chamber music I would say that at the very least the Piano Quintet, the Clarinet Quintet and Trio are just as motivically rich and dense as the quartets)

BTW - in fact I've converted a few Brahms skeptics precisely with these quartets, usually op 51/2 in the Britten Qtets reading! Those two op 51 quartets are Brahms at his most modern, in some ways - which is why Schoenberg seized upon the first movement of op 51/1 and the second of op 51/2 as such important examples of Brahms' motivic and harmonic richness, and his use of developing variation. My feeling, borne out by experience, is that for plenty of people with ambivalence about Brahms this intensity and drive is precisely the sort of thing that will prove most compelling and attractive. Because if they are ambivalent about the Brahms of the more obvious works, it may well be because they are not sensing the underlying rigour and intensity which the quartets bring so close to the surface.



Halfway-up-the-G-string ;-) - there are a few moments in the Britten's reading of op 51/2 which come precisely to mind every time I talk about these works, moments where the full-throated intensity of a violin swooping up to high positions on low strings is absolutely stomach-churning (in a good way!) to my ears!

Luke, you are a peril to a chap's wallet.

Quote from: Luke on June 08, 2010, 04:10:10 AM
Halfway-up-the-G-string ;-) - there are a few moments in the Britten's reading of op 51/2 which come precisely to mind every time I talk about these works, moments where the full-throated intensity of a violin swopping up to high positions on low strings is absolutely stomach-churning (in a good way!) to my ears!

Thanks.

Luke - I've been listening to these quartets as a result of the controversy here and I think you are mischaracterizing the criticism of the works.  The problem is their incoherence, not their complexity or contrapuntal density.  One of the main characteristics, IMO, of really good music is the construction of paragraphs of music with continuity and 'logic'.  Well, the Brahms quartets seem to fail that test.

(Have you noticed that the pro-quartet side of the argument is resorting to personal criticism at every turn in this debate?  At least, Luke's is only an implicit criticism.  Yes, Virginia, excessive complexity can harm music.) 

I do want to qualify that my view is provisional as I've only listened to Op. 67 (just bad) and Op. 51 #2 (a very good work with many moments of great beauty, but not at the level of the upper tier of Brahms chamber music -- which is of course a high threshold).  The low point in Op. 51 #2 is the slow movement, which makes Schoenberg's emphasis of that number and what I remember as the unsuccessful opening Allegro of Op. 51 #1 somewhat humorous.  It's one of those observations that reveal more about the critic than the art object.

BTW, the live ABQ performance of Op. 51 #2 is a marvel.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 09:47:45 AM
Luke - I've been listening to these quartets as a result of the controversy here and I think you are mischaracterizing the criticism of the works.  The problem is their incoherence, not their complexity or contrapuntal density.  One of the main characteristics, IMO, of really good music is the construction of paragraphs of music with continuity and 'logic'.  Well, the Brahms quartets seem to fail that test.

(Have you noticed that the pro-quartet side of the argument is resorting to personal criticism at every turn in this debate?  At least, Luke's is only an implicit criticism.  Yes, Virginia, excessive complexity can harm music.) 

I do want to qualify that my view is provisional as I've only listened to Op. 67 (just bad) and Op. 51 #2 (a very good work with many moments of great beauty, but not at the level of the upper tier of Brahms chamber music -- which is of course a high threshold).  The low point in Op. 51 #2 is the slow movement, which makes Schoenberg's emphasis of that number and what I remember as the unsuccessful opening Allegro of Op. 51 #1 somewhat humorous.  It's one of those observations that reveal more about the critic than the art object.

Perhaps it would be wise to attribute the supposed "incoherence," not to Brahms' music itself, but to your attempts to understand it. 

Your last sentence quoted above is the most interesting to ponder.  It brings to mind a quote from Matthew, "And why worry about a mote in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?"

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 09:47:45 AM
(Yes, Virginia, excessive complexity can harm music.) 

Well, if that is a personal preference with which you are front-loading the discussion, perhaps you just need to listen to simpler music.

Nothing wrong with that.  But please, spare us all the dogma that any music which you personally find "excessively complex" is somehow intrinsically "faulty."

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 09:47:45 AM
Luke - I've been listening to these quartets as a result of the controversy here and I think you are mischaracterizing the criticism of the works.  The problem is their incoherence, not their complexity or contrapuntal density.  One of the main characteristics, IMO, of really good music is the construction of paragraphs of music with continuity and 'logic'.  Well, the Brahms quartets seem to fail that test.

You see, this is precisely where I disagree most strongly. One of the things that makes my jaw drop about these quartets (and, BTW, I am talking mostly about the op 51 pair, which are a peak of Brahms' chamber music IMO) is exactly that they contain paragraphs with the most awe-inspiring sweep, continuity and logic. Even by Brahms' standards, I think what he acheives here is extraordinary. Take this page (so hard to pick examples from so many) from near the end of the exposition in op 51/2's first movement.  The fluidity of thought here, as a single motive gradually, imperceptibly changes meaning, never fails to impress me deeply. I'm talking in this case about the little figuration we seein the first bar of the second line, first violin (which itself is a variant of the work's motto theme, which saturates the texture throughout the movement like the motto theme of the Thrid Symphony, to which it is related). At figure D the figure appears again, with a lyrical echo in triplets in the second violin (itself picking up from the viola in the previous bars, as the second subject ebbs away - the whole span of music is so seamless!). These two forms of the idea intensify each other, kicking off the 4:3 cross rhythms so that the lyricism of the second subject triplet is gradually injected with energy....third bar of third line the motive appears straight, in octaves, second violin and viola, slurred...from this point on the triplets are discarded for the more energetic straight quavers......then it is transferred to the upper octave, first violin, separate bows....(notice how the articulation markings reinforce this gradually transition)....all the time, with every beat, the same idea is turned over and over and becomes shade by shade ever more intense....the idea invades the lower reaches of the ensemble, thrusting through the texture, and pushing the harmony into more harmonically electric areas....finally, at figure E, the music subsides, with the figure more-or-less inverted. the triplets returning, the bar broadening to 3/2. Over the page, not visible here, is the simple homophonic closing theme which recurs to such shattering effect later in the movement....

Well, this is just one example amongst many. It is such extraordinarily smooth, subtle writing, in which the virtuosity of the motivic play is not used for anything except its visceral impact - this isn't 'clever' music, or eye-music (though there is a fine example of that in this movement, IIRC). And I quote it, BTW, not to show the complexity of the music, which if it was all there was would indeed mean nothing, but because I think the sweep and logic of the music is visible on the page here - an amazing effect of structure and paragraph even from a composer who excels in amazing effects of structure and paragraph, I think, and it could only be acheived by the density and concentration of the writing. I wouldn't sacrifice it for anything! Op 51/1 is an equally concentrated piece, which is why I love it equally, FWIW!

Well, if that is a personal preference with which you are front-loading the discussion, perhaps you just need to listen to simpler music.

Nothing wrong with that.  But please, spare us all the dogma that any music which you personally find "excessively complex" is somehow intrinsically "faulty."
[/quote]

Karl - You're mis-stating my point.  I'm not criticizing the Brahms quartets for being bad because they are too complex.  I'm criticizing them for their lack of (medium- and long-term) coherence.  One of Brahms' best qualities is the ability to build long narrative threads, which just flow together over many measures and phrases.  That quality is notably absent, in my perception, in Op. 51 #2 and Op. 67.  The retort to this criticism is that I (and other quartet skeptics) are not musically acute enough to perceive the coherence.  To which I say that if, after three closely-spaced listenings of Op. 51 #2, that the work is has continuity issues, well, maybe the music is the problem.

Scarpia - You're just repeating the ad hominem attack.  Good work there.  At least it was funny.   

Quote(Have you noticed that the pro-quartet side of the argument is resorting to personal criticism at every turn in this debate?  At least, Luke's is only an implicit criticism.  Yes, Virginia, excessive complexity can harm music.)

Hey, my criticism is merely one of perplexity - I've never really understood how two quartets of such direct appeal so often garner such faint, qualified praise. Certainly nothing personal against anyone here or elsewhere.

QuoteI do want to qualify that my view is provisional as I've only listened to Op. 67 (just bad) and Op. 51 #2 (a very good work with many moments of great beauty, but not at the level of the upper tier of Brahms chamber music -- which is of course a high threshold).  The low point in Op. 51 #2 is the slow movement, which makes Schoenberg's emphasis of that number and what I remember as the unsuccessful opening Allegro of Op. 51 #1 somewhat humorous.  It's one of those observations that reveal more about the critic than the art object.

I must admit that the slow movement of 51/2 is my least favourite movement of the quartet. Schoenberg was referring to something very specific in this movement, though he could have taken any other of this quartet or its sister work for example if he'd wished to. The opening movements of the two quartets seem to me to be the most astonishing, for precisely the tangible sense flow and logic that I was talking about earlier - the way that this incredible technique is used to create music of a lucid rigour rare even in Brahms; the last movements of both also amaze me for the way in which he closes the circle in each. No lazy cyclic returns here - the sense of the opening music looming in the air in each of these movements is hard-earned and deep, and comes from the motivic and harmonic consistency of the pieces and the way Brahms is able to move in and out of range of these basic harmonies and motives. Listen to that brief passage of high, static chords before the final helter-skelter bars of op 51/2, and the way it brings to mind the opening movement without actually stating its material That is compositional genius, IMO!

Quotemaybe the music is the problem

I doubt it.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
I'm criticizing them for their lack of (medium- and long-term) coherence.  One of Brahms' best qualities is the ability to build long narrative threads, which just flow together over many measures and phrases.  That quality is notably absent, in my perception, in Op. 51 #2 and Op. 67.

...to which my example, I hope, serves as a counter-argument - it deals with precisely this point; in fact, the nicely-chosen words you use to describe Brahms 'abilty to build long narrative threads...over many measures and phrases' are exactly, exactly, exactly why I feel these are such astonishing pieces!...

QuoteThe retort to this criticism is that I (and other quartet skeptics) are not musically acute enough to perceive the coherence.  To which I say that if, after three closely-spaced listenings of Op. 51 #2, that the work is has continuity issues, well, maybe the music is the problem.

Well, in my case anyway, the retort was to give  a score sample showing one place among many where I feel that incredible continuity is blazingly clear. I'm not saying that if you don't hear it, you have 'problems'. I'm just saying - there is it, it's visible on the page and it's audible in the music, in my experience.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 10:43:28 AMTo which I say that if, after three closely-spaced listenings of Op. 51 #2, that the work is has continuity issues, well, maybe the music is the problem.

Good thing I wasn't sipping my hot tea when I read this, otherwise I'd have third degree burns inside my nose.  People have been studying these works for well over one hundred years.  Luke has just provided a very detailed analysis of the structure of the work, as he understands it.  You didn't get it after listening three times, therefore the work is faulty?   Those who find it the epitome of Brahms' chamber music are just deluding themselves?   Why don't you just admit--you don't like it--and leave it at that.

Luke - Thanks for your thoughtful response.  I appreciate the working out of the eighth-note theme which you have highlighted.  Now I don't dispute for a second that this work has many beautiful things in it and that you can identify many significant passages which show flow and coherence.  BUT the transition from bars 2 to 3 in the fourth line in your .jpg strikes me as just one of those moments when the line is broken up with a strange and unsuccessful decision by the composer.  Yes, I know JB was eliding a strong cadence on C.  But to me the flow doesn't work.  It's jarring and discontinuous.  That's an example of the flaws I see in even this beautiful work.     

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 10:57:17 AMIt's jarring and discontinuous.  That's an example of the flaws I see in even this beautiful work.   

Chamber music is supposed to be free of all jarring and discontinuous elements? 

Quote from: Scarpia on June 08, 2010, 10:56:11 AM
Good thing I wasn't sipping my hot tea when I read this, otherwise I'd have third degree burns inside my nose.  People have been studying these works for well over one hundred years.  Luke has just provided a very detailed analysis of the structure of the work, as he understands it.  You didn't get it after listening three times, therefore the work is faulty?   Those who find it the epitome of Brahms' chamber music are just deluding themselves?   Why don't you just admit--you don't like it--and leave it at that.

Scarpia - Let me guess.  You're an undersocialized introvert who can't debate a topic without insulting those who disagree with you.  I'm not sure you deserve a response but I'll try anyway: the fact that a work has been studied for a long time doesn't immunize it from criticism.  I've actually stated that I like the a-minor quartet but think it isn't without flaws (which I take to be a pretty reasonable point of view).  You didn't read my response to Luke's post before lashing out.  My previous exchange with you concerned an idiotic yet arrogant statement you made about stereo amplification.  You are continuing the pattern here. 

QuoteI appreciate the working out of the eighth-note theme which you have highlighted.  Now I don't dispute for a second that this work has many beautiful things in it and that you can identify many significant passages which show flow and coherence.  BUT the transition from bars 2 to 3 in the fourth line in your .jpg strikes me as just one of those moments when the line is broken up with a strange and unsuccessful decision by the composer.  Yes, I know JB was eliding a strong cadence on C.  But to me the flow doesn't work.  It's jarring and discontinuous.  That's an example of the flaws I see in even this beautiful work. 

But then that's simply a matter of opinion, no more than that, I think - personally I think that passage works marvellously well, the slightly stuttering half-closes which almost hold the music up as it climbs, but not quite, not this time, not till they recur up the octave at the end of the line and are followed by that descent at letter E. The Britten Quartet make these bars you mention sound inevitable and wonderful - but it's not their doing, however fine their performance, it's that of the composer who wrote these notes...

Luke - It's always a matter of opinion, of perception and personal taste. 

Quote from: Scarpia on June 08, 2010, 10:59:06 AM
Chamber music is supposed to be free of all jarring and discontinuous elements?

No, of course not.  So does every passage by Brahms reflect perfect intuition and instinct, with each note perfect and beyond reproach?  If not, pick some examples that you think are flawed.  One of mine is that elided cadence in Luke's example.

I am not tall enough to stand over Brahms' shoulder and correct his mistakes.

But, YMMV.

People can argue over how they evaluate the string quartets, on how negatively or positively they wish to look at the music...that's their choice.  But it is true that they have not been as popular as other pieces by Brahms such as the clarinet quintet or the violin sonatas.  They seem to have touched a more universal chord with people than the quartets? 

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 11:03:40 AM
Scarpia - Let me guess.  You're an undersocialized introvert who can't debate a topic without insulting those who disagree with you.

And you are the one who claims to be the victim of ad hominem attacks?

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 11:13:22 AM
No, of course not.  So does every passage by Brahms reflect perfect intuition and instinct, with each note perfect and beyond reproach?  If not, pick some examples that you think are flawed.  One of mine is that elided cadence in Luke's example.

I don't think it makes sense to describe works of art in terms of "flaws."   Brahms created a piece of music which, unlike 99.9% of what was created during his time, continues to inspire performances, passion, and analysis more than 100 years later.   Some of it speaks very directly to me, some of it baffles me.  I am not foolish enough to claim that the parts that baffle me are "flaws."    They are things that I don't understand, and which I may appreciate someday, or which I may never appreciate. 

Scarpia/Franco - The decision to suspend critical judgement strikes me as odd and one that is not natural as debates about the quality of music are nearly always present in music talk and thought.  Quality judgements are also implicit in our listening/playing decisions, so it's not clear that it's a practical approach. 

Brahms is a genius but that doesn't make him an object of worship.  While I very much love Brahms' work, I personally try to actively engage in the music I hear, and part of that (only part of that) involves judgements about quality.  If I change my mind about that opinion in the future, that's fine - it's all provisional, anyway.  Do you listen to the first Serenade with as much pleasure as the 2nd piano concerto?  I don't - so I ask myself why, naturally.   

Nobody has done it yet, so allow me:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VRVD3HE2L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

All the detail you want, and then some. Personally i don't think those quartets are all that different from his other chamber works, he just doubled the contrapuntal texture. Vertically, they are almost as strict as a Renaissance mass. Horizontally however they are very typical Brahms. Personally i wish all his chamber music was as densely polyphonic as this (the hell with all the Romantic trappings), but then, i'm a counterpoint junkie. Either way, whatever you may think of the Op. 51, the Op. 67 IS an extremely elegant piece.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 11:48:54 AM
Scarpia/Franco - The decision to suspend critical judgement strikes me as odd and one that is not natural as debates about the quality of music are nearly always present in music talk and thought.  Quality judgements are also implicit in our listening/playing decisions, so it's not clear that it's a practical approach. 

Brahms is a genius but that doesn't make him an object of worship.  While I very much love Brahms' work, I personally try to actively engage in the music I hear, and part of that (only part of that) involves judgements about quality.  If I change my mind about that opinion in the future, that's fine - it's all provisional, anyway.  Do you listen to the first Serenade with as much pleasure as the 2nd piano concerto?  I don't - so I ask myself why, naturally.   

I agree about not worshiping composers.  However great a composer is they are still human and therefore aren't about to churn out only 'masterpieces'.  I think it is a matter of perspective, if someone feels more committed to a composer they may see the positive in works more than those who are less committed to him or her.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 11:48:54 AM
Scarpia/Franco - The decision to suspend critical judgement strikes me as odd and one that is not natural as debates about the quality of music are nearly always present in music talk and thought.  Quality judgements are also implicit in our listening/playing decisions, so it's not clear that it's a practical approach. 

Brahms is a genius but that doesn't make him an object of worship.  While I very much love Brahms' work, I personally try to actively engage in the music I hear, and part of that (only part of that) involves judgements about quality.  If I change my mind about that opinion in the future, that's fine - it's all provisional, anyway.  Do you listen to the first Serenade with as much pleasure as the 2nd piano concerto?  I don't - so I ask myself why, naturally.   

I do not worship Brahms or any composer.  I have even less interest in personal opinions about the quality of a Brahms string quartet.  My interest concerning discussing music ends when people have told me what composers and works and specific recordings of those works they enjoy, I am particularly not interested in their opinion as to the flaws in any work.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 08, 2010, 11:48:54 AM
Scarpia/Franco - The decision to suspend critical judgement strikes me as odd and one that is not natural as debates about the quality of music are nearly always present in music talk and thought.  Quality judgements are also implicit in our listening/playing decisions, so it's not clear that it's a practical approach. 

Brahms is a genius but that doesn't make him an object of worship.  While I very much love Brahms' work, I personally try to actively engage in the music I hear, and part of that (only part of that) involves judgements about quality.  If I change my mind about that opinion in the future, that's fine - it's all provisional, anyway.  Do you listen to the first Serenade with as much pleasure as the 2nd piano concerto?  I don't - so I ask myself why, naturally.   

I am more or less in agreement with Franco here.  I do not "suspend critical judgement."  I certainly judge certain works or passages by Brahms or any other composer as more effective than others.  However, I recognize that I am judging how I respond to the music, and that others might respond differently.  It is certainly interesting to discuss such passages with others who are interested, to uncover what they find interesting or uninteresting about the same music.  I don't flatter myself by imagining that when I find a passage ineffective, that I have uncovered a "flaw" in the work.   The fact that you would regard a passage by Brahms that you find unconvincing as "flawed" suggests you mistake your reaction to the work for the work itself.

I think what I am responding to as well is a sense of the hubris explicit in some of these kinds of discussions.  We have our CD collections with various recordings of a work and think of them as our possessions, free to voice our opinions about them, and render quite remarkable judgments.  I can't do that; I always imagine that Brahms were sitting there listening to me, sizing me up, wondering who is this ass talking about his work.

Quote from: Franco on June 08, 2010, 04:43:43 PM
I think what I am responding to as well is a sense of the hubris explicit in some of these kinds of discussions.  We have our CD collections with various recordings of a work and think of them as our possessions, free to voice our opinions about them, and render quite remarkable judgments.  I can't do that; I always imagine that Brahms were sitting there listening to me, sizing me up, wondering who is this ass talking about his work.

excellent attitude.

Quote from: Luke on June 08, 2010, 01:13:25 AM
Perhaps, though, it is true that they need a good, committed performance more than some others of his works, which, relatively speaking, 'play themselves'.

Well, thanks for considering my point in my earlier posts. :)

QuoteI've seen the Julliard Qts reading of them given big thumbs up here and elsewhere, but to me, it totally misses the point of these pieces, it's dry, uninvolved, skeptical, I find it unlistenable. At least compared to my favourite recordings, number one of which is that of the Britten Quartet - a deeply vibrant, full-blooded, halfway-up-the-G-string reading which clearly believes in these pieces 100%.

I guess it was inevitable that just as a solid coalition of Brahms quartets admirers gains a foothold we devolve into partisan bickering about which recording least represents the pieces (or most 'misrepresents' the pieces). :o ;D

So what do we do? Do we splinter right off the bat and form "recording camps" with partisan bickering lingering long into the night or do we leave it to rest since the works are having a hard enough time as it is just finding a foothold amongst the canonical? :D

Dunno, but since it was me that initially brought up the Juilliard set I admit to feeling a slight twinge that the performances are being characterized as "dry, uninvolved, and skeptical". IOW, the Juilliard somehow doesn't actually believe in the pieces and hence nothing but the stunted and stillborn is the inevitable result. 

Not that I'll lose any sleep if anyone doesn't like the Juilliard's performances (read: I don't care one iota about partisan camps) but I'm curious how anyone can tell by just listening whether a group doesn't believe in a work. Or what middle ground other groups might inhabit in such a belief system with a curve of sorts that's definable by verifiable traits.

Listener bias of course by definition CAN'T be a factor in such an analysis. It's measurements we're after.

I mean, such a chart would be fun to read. ;D
 

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on June 08, 2010, 09:42:21 PM
Well, thanks for considering my point in my earlier posts. :)

As I said, I skimmed through the previous few pages - I knew someone had said something along those lines, and I agreed totally.  :)

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on June 08, 2010, 09:42:21 PMI guess it was inevitable that just as a solid coalition of Brahms quartets admirers gains a foothold we devolve into partisan bickering about which recording least represents the pieces (or most 'misrepresents' the pieces). :o ;D

So what do we do? Do we splinter right off the bat and form "recording camps" with partisan bickering lingering long into the night or do we leave it to rest since the works are having a hard enough time as it is just finding a foothold amongst the canonical? :D

Dunno, but since it was me that initially brought up the Juilliard set I admit to feeling a slight twinge that the performances are being characterized as "dry, uninvolved, and skeptical". IOW, the Juilliard somehow doesn't actually believe in the pieces and hence nothing but the stunted and stillborn is the inevitable result. 

Not that I'll lose any sleep if anyone doesn't like the Juilliard's performances (read: I don't care one iota about partisan camps) but I'm curious how anyone can tell by just listening whether a group doesn't believe in a work. Or what middle ground other groups might inhabit in such a belief system with a curve of sorts that's definable by verifiable traits.

Listener bias of course by definition CAN'T be a factor in such an analysis. It's measurements we're after.

I mean, such a chart would be fun to read. ;D

...and, of course, as you know, such a chart would also be impossible to make  :D  I'm afraid listener bias can be the ONLY fator in such analysis - the JQ's perfomance of the Brahms Quartets leaves me with precisely the feeling I described, hence my earlier post, but that signifies little, unless you (meaning anyone reading) know me (meaning anyone who writes their opinions here) and know that you tend to have the same reaction to recordings as I do, and therefore find my opinion useful as a guide to what yours might be. I suppose I could go a little further, be a wee bit more analytical - I don't have time to relisten to the JQ right now, but from my last listening I remember the feeling that they were rushing over pivotal points, not allowing key phrases to register, not using a particularly wide range of colours... Maybe later I will listen again, and give some examples, or indeed declare that I"ve changed my mind. I'm open to all possibilities  ;)

But hey, no partisan camps here, I merely expressed my own preferences. We agree on the pieces themselves!

Quote from: Franco on June 08, 2010, 03:37:26 PMI do not worship Brahms or any composer.  I have even less interest in personal opinions about the quality of a Brahms string quartet.  My interest concerning discussing music ends when people have told me what composers and works and specific recordings of those works they enjoy, I am particularly not interested in their opinion as to the flaws in any work.

Quote from: Scarpia on June 08, 2010, 03:47:06 PMI am more or less in agreement with Franco here.  I do not "suspend critical judgement."  I certainly judge certain works or passages by Brahms or any other composer as more effective than others.  However, I recognize that I am judging how I respond to the music, and that others might respond differently.  It is certainly interesting to discuss such passages with others who are interested, to uncover what they find interesting or uninteresting about the same music.  I don't flatter myself by imagining that when I find a passage ineffective, that I have uncovered a "flaw" in the work.   The fact that you would regard a passage by Brahms that you find unconvincing as "flawed" suggests you mistake your reaction to the work for the work itself.

Eminent good sense here.

Composers themselves can be very critical of their works, so why can't others be as well?  Indeed many might disagree with some composer's opinions, Beethoven dismissed some of his earlier work and many now would disagree with him.  Perhaps he didn't have an unbiased perspective and had felt his music had changed so much that he couldn't relate to the earlier music.  Similarly the latest he had done he would have been very proud and supportive of as that was what he had just completed.  Brahms actually destroyed alot of his early work.  The best way to judge a piece is certainly to other pieces in the same style (and by extension often other pieces by the same composer).

Listening to the New Budapest I think they manage to make something of the A minor and the B Flat.  The C minor however still seems a difficult one for them to communicate and I wonder if it's that piece which is the real cinderella among this group.  The Takacs didn't impress me in these pieces.

Quote from: starrynight on June 09, 2010, 04:47:09 AM
Composers themselves can be very critical of their works, so why can't others be as well?  Indeed many might disagree with some composer's opinions, Beethoven dismissed some of his earlier work and many now would disagree with him.

The fallacy here is in equating the two modes of "criticism."  The first and abvious difference is in their function.  The self-criticism which an artist applies in thinking of his work is part of the process of the artist doing the best work of which he is capable.

The "criticism" in the present thread of the Brahms quartet is just a listener who fails to connect with an artistic artifact, claiming that this disconnect is a shortcoming in the artistic work.

For the thousandth time:  the fact that a listener, at a certain point in his life, fails to appreciate a work of art, means next to nothing about the artwork itself.  The listener's ears will change over his lifetime.

karl: "For the thousandth time:  the fact that a listener, at a certain point in his life, fails to appreciate a work of art, means next to nothing about the artwork itself."

So what you're saying is that listeners shouldn't comment about music?  If you feel that way, log off and don't read the forum any more. 

Scarpia - Just for the record, I am clear about the difference between my subjective reactions and the music itself.  I understood the distinction when I was 16 years old and still do so today.

Quote from: Franco on June 08, 2010, 04:43:43 PM
I think what I am responding to as well is a sense of the hubris explicit in some of these kinds of discussions.  We have our CD collections with various recordings of a work and think of them as our possessions, free to voice our opinions about them, and render quite remarkable judgments.  I can't do that; I always imagine that Brahms were sitting there listening to me, sizing me up, wondering who is this ass talking about his work.

Franco - I understand what you're saying.   A work by Brahms is such an exquisite creation that discussion of its (perceived) flaws seems impudent.  The logical reply -- that praise of some music implicitly contains criticism of others, so discussion of music with negative commentary is honest - probably doesn't quite satisfy you. 

Discussing music actually changes preferences and reactions and helps us understand it better.  I can count many instances of having my musical tastes changed (and usually positively) by verbal commentary.  This discussion made me go back to the Brahms quartets - believe me, they were not on my "listening stack" before this thread -- and I appreciate the a-minor quartet much more than before and understand that the counterpoint in the work - which I think of as clotted -- is admired by some people here.  That's educational for me.  Likewise, I think some in the pro-quartet camp will agree (maybe privately) that there are these discontinuous phrases and transitions that mar the work unlike the really, really good Brahms pieces. 

So that's my response - discussing music helps us understand it and the discussion should be honest.  And it's only honest to state openly what bothers us about some music.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 09, 2010, 05:15:51 AM
karl: "For the thousandth time:  the fact that a listener, at a certain point in his life, fails to appreciate a work of art, means next to nothing about the artwork itself."

So what you're saying is that listeners shouldn't comment about music?

No, and most readers would not take what I have actually said as meaning any such thing.

So apply some self-critical thinking, and revisit the possible meaning of what I have actually said.  Do yourself, in some small measure, what your exalted aesthetic sense bids Brahms do.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 09, 2010, 05:16:18 AM
And it's only honest to state openly what bothers us about some music.

Yes, absolutely.

What is dishonest is taking one's feeling about some music as the gold standard, and in flagrant disregard for (in the case of Brahms) the considered opinion of (at the very least) actual musicians.

Taking one's dislikes and flinging them about as "flaws" in the artwork is a tawdry and common form of dishonesty these days.  If you think about it, you really would not want us to respect that.

Would you?

Really the funniest thing about this thread is the sloppy thinking and discourse on display by people who set themselves up as judges of "flaws" in Brahms's composition.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2010, 05:06:57 AM
The fallacy here is in equating the two modes of "criticism."  The first and abvious difference is in their function.  The self-criticism which an artist applies in thinking of his work is part of the process of the artist doing the best work of which he is capable.

The "criticism" in the present thread of the Brahms quartet is just a listener who fails to connect with an artistic artifact, claiming that this disconnect is a shortcoming in the artistic work.

For the thousandth time:  the fact that a listener, at a certain point in his life, fails to appreciate a work of art, means next to nothing about the artwork itself.  The listener's ears will change over his lifetime.

The receiver of a work of art isn't 'just a listener' though, I think an artist would do well to listen to what other people think of his/her work.  It's good to have another outside opinion.  And we now have an even more distanced and fuller perspective.  We can put Brahms' work in the context of his overall output, compare it to others of his time, compare what happened before and after, be at leisure to listen to different recordings whenever we want, even just pick out parts of a work and hear them.

Of course a listener's ears change somewhat over time (as they get to understand the style in question).  Once they understand the style and therefore have an idea what an artist is trying to do perhaps they can be in a position to make a more informed judgement.  As always though the performer needs to communicate the work in a manner which is most sympathetic to it for a listener to best understand the music.  Indeed maybe a performer can bring out things the composer didn't even fully see (or hear).

QuoteThe receiver of a work of art isn't 'just a listener' though

I think they are just that - just listeners.  They certainly are not co-creators.

Just as those most circumspect about going to war are generals, since they know first hand the horrors of battle, other composers, and musicians, appreciate the achievement of a composer such as Brahms probably better than "just a listener" - and are more tempered in how they discuss the works.

We've come all the way from: "Hey, Brahms' string quartets are not really any less good than his other chamber work" to "No listener may ever dare critique a composition by an acknowledged master". And that in a forum rife with nothing but personal, subjective opinion. Very droll.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2010, 05:51:25 AMSo apply some self-critical thinking, and revisit the possible meaning of what I have actually said.  Do yourself, in some small measure, what your exalted aesthetic sense bids Brahms do.[/font]

Karl - I've reread your post another couple of times and have no idea what you are saying to listeners other than "shut up and admire whatever major composers do."  Want to try again?

Quote from: jlaurson on June 09, 2010, 06:11:59 AM
We've come all the way from: "Hey, Brahms' string quartets are not really any less good than his other chamber work" to "No listener may ever dare critique a composition by an acknowledged master". And that in a forum rife with nothing but personal, subjective opinion. Very droll.

Brahms' string quartets are not really any less good than his other chamber work is reasonable.

As to: No listener may ever dare critique a composition by an acknowledged master . . . who's said it?  Let's smack that idiot around.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 09, 2010, 06:14:12 AM
Want to try again?

I don't think so. Your perceptive apparatus is apparently flawed. But thanks.

But maybe people like Karl have a point.  In the future, I will try to mutely admire every note written by Brahms or Stravinsky or Myaskovsky as the perfect choice.  Any dissatisfaction I feel will be treated as a personal weakness, even sinfulness.  Like disagreement with the Bible, a lack of total satisfaction with a work like Richard Strauss' 'Feuersnot' is a sign of lack of knowledge and wisdoem.  Feuersnot will be treated as equal to the Jupiter symphony, created by exalted deities striding among the wretched sinning humans they try to redeem. 

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2010, 06:18:23 AM
I don't think so. Your perceptive apparatus is apparently flawed. But thanks.

I don't think it's my "perceptive apparatus" that is flawed, I think it's the way you phrased that particular post.  But a revealing comment.  Those who don't intuit what you really mean after a couple of rereadings are at fault, like the listeners who don't properly appreciate Brahms' music (or presumably yours).

Quote from: starrynight on June 09, 2010, 06:02:24 AM
The receiver of a work of art isn't 'just a listener' though, I think an artist would do well to listen to what other people think of his/her work.

That's fine, I agree entirely.

And those here who are navel-gazing upon their sacrosanct "I don't get this piece by Brahms" are failing to listen to what some intelligent participants (some of them, gosh, actual musicians) think of the work under advisement.

The warm-&-fuzzy "gee, don't we all have an opinion?" blather does not address even the slightest of the highly musical and articulate remarks by Luke.

Again, not all opinions are created equal.  There are reasons why Luke's comments here command my respect, and why the tendentious "gosh, Karl, 'what you're really saying' is [insert strawman here]" is just methane in the pub.

"No listener may ever dare" blah blah is a cheap debating trick, used here to evade invitations to rethink one's own contribution to the discourse.

I am grateful to all the participants here; this really is the funniest thread we've had in a while.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 09, 2010, 06:19:16 AM
But maybe people like Karl have a point.  In the future, I will try to mutely admire every note written by Brahms or Stravinsky or Myaskovsky as the perfect choice.  Any dissatisfaction I feel will be treated as a personal weakness, even sinfulness.  Like disagreement with the Bible, a lack of total satisfaction with a work like Richard Strauss' 'Feuersnot' is a sign of lack of knowledge and wisdoem.  Feuersnot will be treated as equal to the Jupiter symphony, created by exalted deities striding among the wretched sinning humans they try to redeem.

You are either willfully misunderstanding, or you are just not the sharpest tool in the shed. 

No one has suggested even the slightest muting of critical remarks about Brahms or any other work is necessary.  What is being suggested is that it makes more sense to say, "I find the abrupt transitions is such and such a work lacking in grace, particularly compared to such and such a work" rather than "I have discovered a flaw in Brahms' string quartet."  If you expect your claim that you have discovered a flaw in the work itself to be taken seriously, you will have to support it with something more specific than "I listened to the CD three times and I still don't like it."   A well reasoned discussion, as was provided by Luke above, would be a good start.

QuoteBut maybe people like Karl have a point.  In the future, I will try to mutely admire every note written by Brahms or Stravinsky or Myaskovsky as the perfect choice.  Any dissatisfaction I feel will be treated as a personal weakness, even sinfulness.  Like disagreement with the Bible, a lack of total satisfaction with a work like Richard Strauss' 'Feuersnot' is a sign of lack of knowledge and wisdoem.  Feuersnot will be treated as equal to the Jupiter symphony, created by exalted deities striding among the wretched sinning humans they try to redeem.

Thank you for demonstrating afresh how flogging a strawman is but a shoddy substitute for intelligent discussion.

(Doesn't reflect well on your reading skills, either, BTW.)

One thing this thread has gotten me to do is to listen again to the Brahms Op. 51 , No. 1 Quartet - and with the score at hand.  A thoroughly rewarding experience. 

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2010, 06:26:06 AM

Again, not all opinions are created equal.

Of course.  I hate relativism either in opinion or composition.  It takes effort and time to be a good composer, same to be a good listener.  Composers often try new things and develop new ways of doing things, listeners try to expand their listening horizons.  Snap judgements aren't healthy, but considered and educated ones are.

Quote from: starrynight on June 09, 2010, 07:16:04 AM
Of course.  I hate relativism either in opinion or composition.  It takes effort and time to be a good composer, same to be a good listener.  Composers often try new things and develop new ways of doing things, listeners try to expand their listening horizons.  Snap judgements aren't healthy, but considered and educated ones are.

QFT

Quote from: Scarpia on June 09, 2010, 06:44:28 AM
You are either willfully misunderstanding, or you are just not the sharpest tool in the shed. 

No one has suggested even the slightest muting of critical remarks about Brahms or any other work is necessary.  What is being suggested is that it makes more sense to say, "I find the abrupt transitions is such and such a work lacking in grace, particularly compared to such and such a work" rather than "I have discovered a flaw in Brahms' string quartet."  If you expect your claim that you have discovered a flaw in the work itself to be taken seriously, you will have to support it with something more specific than "I listened to the CD three times and I still don't like it."   A well reasoned discussion, as was provided by Luke above, would be a good start.

Scarpia - If my use of the word "flaw" in an internet post is the problem, than I apologize for the miswording.  My editors and thesis advisors shouldn't have let it pass.  I read Luke's nice post and responded with a precise couple of bars in the score that represented an instance of my problem with the a-minor quartet, a work which I credit with many strengths.  How is that not being reasonable or responding with specific information about the piece?

The answer is that it is in fact reasonable and specific.  The barrage of (once again) personal criticism indicates to me (and apparently others) that the real problem is any criticism of a work by a major composer.  Hence, my sarcastic rejoinder. 

Karl - You don't know anything about me and continue to make assumptions about my musical knowledge despite that fact.

Quote from: jlaurson on June 09, 2010, 06:11:59 AM
We've come all the way from: "Hey, Brahms' string quartets are not really any less good than his other chamber work" to "No listener may ever dare critique a composition by an acknowledged master". And that in a forum rife with nothing but personal, subjective opinion. Very droll.

QFT

And I don't like how everyone gained up on him.  I love the Brahms SQs, but so what if someone thinks that they are flawed?  The replies to cosmic do sound like "how dare you!" and how many posters does it take to set him in his place anyway?

Quote from: DavidW on June 09, 2010, 07:29:46 AM
And I don't like how everyone [ganged] up on him.

You don't like how everyone "ganged up" on someone who slings personal remark, and brings scarcely anything to the table apart from snarky strawmen?

Yes, he's such a victim, isn't he? Poor sod.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 09, 2010, 07:29:25 AM
I read Luke's nice post and responded with a precise couple of bars in the score that represented an instance of my problem with the a-minor quartet, a work which I credit with many strengths.  How is that not being reasonable or responding with specific information about the piece?

I think alot of this is a matter of perspective as I said earlier.  Most of us would say there is some good music in these quartets,  but some of us emphasize things we don't like as well.  I think that is fair enough.  At present I do prefer other chamber works like his clarinet quintet.  At present I tend to feel the C minor might not be as good as the other two, but that doesn't mean I've given up on it (not saying that others have either).  I like the opening where it starts quietly and then builds up to the main theme forte (reminds me of the start of Beethoven's 9th. :)  ).

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2010, 07:38:10 AM
You don't like how everyone "ganged up" on someone who slings personal remark, and brings scarcely anything to the table apart from snarky strawmen?

Yes, he's such a victim, isn't he? Poor sod.

Yup that is pretty much it.  You're not thinking that much about it, but your posts are exuding alot of venom.  You can certainly be the better man here. :)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2010, 07:38:10 AM
You don't like how everyone "ganged up" on someone who slings personal remark, and brings scarcely anything to the table apart from snarky strawmen?

Yes, he's such a victim, isn't he? Poor sod.

Karl - I started being more aggressive after a series of negative remarks by various posters here, when I got tired of turning the other cheek.  It might help if you actually read the thread. 

My advice to you is to step away from the keyboard because you're getting pretty heated (and not contributing much of anything yourself). 

I'll add that this has been a terrible job of salesmanship here.  Luke excepted, the comments have failed to try to convey any idea of what is to be appreciated about the quartets.  If the posts had conceded some weaknesses in the quartets while emphasizing that they still had strengths, it would be much more persuasive.  Just a tip.

Karl is on his way of becoming like me. Pretty soon he'll start hating women and post nothing more then barbed, venomous one liners.

Quote from: DavidW on June 09, 2010, 07:53:47 AM
Yup that is pretty much it.  You're not thinking that much about it, but your posts are exuding a lot of venom.

There's someone who's told me that I'm better off signing off the forum and leaving it to those capable of critical thought, and who caricatures those who point out the musical value of the piece under advisement that they are "worshipping" the composers.

The source of the venom ain't me.  What you see in my posts is antivenin, perhaps.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 09, 2010, 09:14:50 AM
Karl is on his way of becoming like me. Pretty soon he'll start hating women and post nothing more then barbed, venomous one liners.

I am told that I did become you, only I've lost all memory of it.

Quote from: cosmicj on June 09, 2010, 05:15:51 AM
karl: "For the thousandth time:  the fact that a listener, at a certain point in his life, fails to appreciate a work of art, means next to nothing about the artwork itself."

So what you're saying is that listeners shouldn't comment about music?  If you feel that way, log off and don't read the forum any more. 

I don't think Karl was 'commenting' about 'comments' but about a certain type of 'comment'. The kind of 'comment' that says Brahms (or fill in any other composer) is 'boring', or, more benignly put, 'just doesn't hold my attention'.

Of course this may be true, but at some other point it may not be true; maybe sometimes people are in a boring mood. I have a vivid recollection of being in the car with my mother, 35 years ago. Some Brahms was on the FM, and I said Brahms was boring. I felt pretty good about saying that.

Three or four years later I was the happy owner of a copy of the big brown Philips LP box with chambermusic, and I loved it.

These days I rarely listen to Brahms. Beats me why, but I don't think it's Brahms's fault.

In commenting (there's that word again) on art works it doesn't hurt to keep in mind that the maker of the work has spent so much time on this work, and has probably thought of everything you have say about it, and yet chose to make it the way he made it. Art is also an invitation to humblitude.

I think part of the problem is that some people are just too easily dismissive. There's no obligation to like a particular piece but there's no excuse for at least not making an effort.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 09, 2010, 11:45:13 AM
I think part of the problem is that some people are just too easily dismissive. There's no obligation to like a particular piece but there's no excuse for at least not making an effort.

No excuse for not making an effort?  I am required to attempt to listen to every piece of music written, whether I want to or not?

I guess if I didn't make an effort, I shouldn't be bending everyone's ear by complaining about the piece. 

Quote from: Herman on June 09, 2010, 10:36:00 AM
I don't think Karl was 'commenting' about 'comments' but about a certain type of 'comment'. The kind of 'comment' that says Brahms (or fill in any other composer) is 'boring', or, more benignly put, 'just doesn't hold my attention'.

I would not quibble about such statements, as long as it is claimed that that it bored me and didn't hold my attention.  That's where the thread got off the rails, here.

Quote from: Scarpia on June 09, 2010, 11:50:29 AM
No excuse for not making an effort?  I am required to attempt to listen to every piece of music written, whether I want to or not?

I do, and i always want to discover new music as well. Perhaps i'm just weird. The argument is moot of course, since its Brahms we are talking about, not some random piece of music from a third rate nobody. If you can't even make an effort to appreciate the greats, why bother pursuing this hobby at all? Isn't the entire point of this activity to discover and appreciate great music? If there is even the slightest chance a piece may eventually become a source of great enjoyment in the future, why would you refuse to pursuit that possibility based on some cursory impression? Do you think that knowledge of great music just falls from the sky, that you don't have to work to acquire it?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 09, 2010, 12:47:19 PM
I do, and i always want to discover new music as well. Perhaps i'm just weird. The argument is moot of course, since its Brahms we are talking about, not some random piece of music from a third rate nobody. If you can't even make an effort to appreciate the greats, why bother pursuing this hobby at all? Isn't the entire point of this activity to discover and appreciate great music? If there is even the slightest chance a piece may eventually become a source of great enjoyment in the future, why would you refuse to pursuit that possibility based on some cursory impression? Do you think that knowledge of great music just falls from the sky, that you don't have to work to acquire it?

I like Brahms and would willing listen to almost anything he wrote.  There are many other composers who I understand are also "great" but who do not appeal to me in the slightest.  The is, for instance the real Josquin des Prez.  I do not feel obliged to listen to any of it.

We have dramatically opposed habits. I listen to everything, even stuff i don't like. I often rave about the hills of contemporary music but i can't stop myself from buying it and listening to it. Its like an obsession. Everything has to be assimilated, resistance is futile.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 09, 2010, 01:07:29 PM
We have dramatically opposed habits. I listen to everything, even stuff i don't like. I often rave about the hills of contemporary music but i can't stop myself from buying it and listening to it. Its like an obsession. Everything has to be assimilated, resistance is futile.

Well, there are some performance styles that I know from experience I do not enjoy, and I will make an occasional attempt, but don't feel obliged to go farther than that.  Of course, boundaries do expand.   Not to long ago I though of 19th century French music as rather dull, but I've come to appreciate it.  But some things show no promise, to me.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 09, 2010, 11:45:13 AM
I think part of the problem is that some people are just too easily dismissive. There's no obligation to like a particular piece but there's no excuse for at least not making an effort.

That's reasonable.

Again, (and Herman just gave an on-topic example of this) there are pieces I like a great deal today, for which I had no patience when I first heard them.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on June 09, 2010, 01:07:29 PM
We have dramatically opposed habits.

Well, and that's all right, too.

To all fans of Brahms (not the haters):  Is there a weak piece in Brahms' formidable chamber arsenal?  I honestly cannot think of a single one.

Perhaps my least favorite chamber piece is the Piano Quartet No. 2, but I certainly would not consider it a weak piece. 

Quote from: ChamberNut on May 10, 2011, 05:59:22 AM
Perhaps my least favorite chamber piece is the Piano Quartet No. 2, but I certainly would not consider it a weak piece.

What a coincidence: I had the exact same thought this morning! My problem is that, despite the high quality of its material, it is way more long-winded than Brahms usually is. I find it very hard to get thru at one sitting.

Quote from: Velimir on May 11, 2011, 02:59:48 AM
What a coincidence: I had the exact same thought this morning! My problem is that, despite the high quality of its material, it is way more long-winded than Brahms usually is. I find it very hard to get thru at one sitting.

Right, it is a much longer piece than the other 2 piano quartets.  I think I just need to listen to it more often than I do, and I will eventually warm up to it more.

I love all of his chamber works, I'm sure he has some weak ones but he burned them in his fire place. :)

Quote from: haydnfan on May 11, 2011, 05:17:34 AM
I love all of his chamber works, I'm sure he has some weak ones but he burned them in his fire place. :)

I suspect he burned some strong ones as well.  I've read somewhere that Brahms' string quartet "No 1" was actually something like the fifth.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on May 11, 2011, 06:10:07 AM
I suspect he burned some strong ones as well.  I've read somewhere that Brahms' string quartet "No 1" was actually something like the fifth.

A cd set containing Brahms string quartets 1-4 and Sibelius' 8th symphony would be a fantastic treat. 8)

I think the French have a real way with Brahms.  I've been digging the Capucon's recordings of late.

Quote from: Tyson on May 14, 2011, 08:18:56 PM
I think the French have a real way with Brahms.  I've been digging the Capucon's recordings of late.

You mean the trios with Nicholas Angelich? They are very good indeed. I enjoyed the sonatas too, but not as much as the trios.

Yep, those are the ones.... They also did a great clarinet quintet w/Meyer, and the 3 piano quartets w/ Causse.  Oh yeah, and the violin sonatas.  All at a similar high level.

Ah right -- I haven't heard the clarinet quintet or the quartets. Must correct that.

Well, I've finally discovered the Piano Quartets, and have decided that they are what I've been missing. So THIS is where HeavyMetal came from? :o

Now, of course, I need your help. The Borodin Trio on Chandos look inexpensively tempting, but then, the Hyperion discs HAVE to be awesome. I would be willing to break them up, too.

That Gaia Scienza cd of the PQ sounded awesome!

Also, I used to have the Trio Fontenay in Brahms a looong time ago. What do you think of them?

Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2011, 07:32:29 AM
Well, I've finally discovered the Piano Quartets, and have decided that they are what I've been missing. So THIS is where HeavyMetal came from? :o

Now, of course, I need your help. The Borodin Trio on Chandos look inexpensively tempting, but then, the Hyperion discs HAVE to be awesome. I would be willing to break them up, too.

That Gaia Scienza cd of the PQ sounded awesome!

Also, I used to have the Trio Fontenay in Brahms a looong time ago. What do you think of them?

Gaia Scienza -- that sounds interesting. I haven't heard it but their Schubert Op. 100 piano trio is very special. Possibly my favourite. They really did rethink the piece right through from scratch and the result is different and, I think, convincing. If they've done that for Brahms then that'll be worth hearing. The clips (on amazon) do indeed sound good. (As a Brit, I can't bring myself to use the word "awesome", except maybe for God.)

They have recorded some Schumann and Haydn too -- I'm  very tempted to explore. Has anyone got these CDs?

For the Brahms I like the recording with Ranki and Kovacs and of course there's the old one with Serkin and Busch Bros. That last one is IMO a real major contribution. There's also the piano reduction of Op 34.The one with Zilberstein and Argerich is one of the most exciting performances of anything I know.

Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2011, 07:32:29 AM
Well, I've finally discovered the Piano Quartets, and have decided that they are what I've been missing. So THIS is where HeavyMetal came from? :o

Now, of course, I need your help. The Borodin Trio on Chandos look inexpensively tempting, but then, the Hyperion discs HAVE to be awesome. I would be willing to break them up, too.

That Gaia Scienza cd of the PQ sounded awesome!

Also, I used to have the Trio Fontenay in Brahms a looong time ago. What do you think of them?

Trio Fontenay were OK, but you could do better.

My personal favourites are Suk/Katchen/Starker.
Depending on your taste and importance attached to more modern sound, you could also consider the Florestan Trio. Unfortunately no HIP in sight, yet... :-\ But of course I strongly encorage you to try Gaia Scienza in the piano quinet. :)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513cr1QgXIL._SS500_.jpg)

Q

Quote from: ~ Que ~ on May 16, 2011, 09:17:49 AM
Trio Fontenay were OK, but you could do better.

My personal favourites are Suk/Katchen/Starker.
Depending on your taste and importance attached to more modern sound, you could also consider the Florestan Trio. Unfortunately no HIP in sight, yet... :-\ But of course I strongly encorage you to try Gaia Scienza in the piano quinet. :)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513cr1QgXIL._SS500_.jpg)

Q

Oh yes I jyust see what happened. I can make to strong recommendation for the piano quartets - the Menuhin Festival Piano Quartet on Claves, and,  in Op 26 , Busch and Serkin again. 

Or is it that snyprr's looking for guidance on the trios -- I'm confused. If so there's Angelich and the Capusons for a complete set. But there are some excellent oldies for the first too -- Rubinstein, pre-War with Pro Arte and post-War with Guarneris, the refined and restrained Elly Ney, and the fast Rubinstein/Heifetz/Feuermann (shame about Heifitz -- but the other two are super.)

Quote from: Mandryka on May 16, 2011, 09:44:28 AM

Or is it that snyprr's looking for guidance on the trios -- I'm confused.

I think he wants guidance on the quartets - but it's not always easy to tell with snyprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr  ???

I have the Domus set of all 3 P4tets. Does anyone have an opinion on these? I'm happy, but it's always good to know about alternatives.

Quote from: Velimir on May 16, 2011, 09:55:45 AM


I have the Domus set of all 3 P4tets. Does anyone have an opinion on these? I'm happy, but it's always good to know about alternatives.

I have their  1 & 3 cd, and I'm not too hot about it, which is strange, because the Domus is usually great.

I can't help thinking that for the Piano Quartets the Beaux Arts Trio with Walter Trampler is still a major place to go.

I'm listening to it right now.

Quote from: Velimir on May 16, 2011, 09:55:45 AM
I think he wants guidance on the quartets - but it's not always easy to tell with snyprrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr  ???

I have the Domus set of all 3 P4tets. Does anyone have an opinion on these? I'm happy, but it's always good to know about alternatives.

The Florestan on Hyperion is perhaps my favorite chamber music recording of all time.  The BAT is very close.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on May 16, 2011, 10:12:41 AM
The Florestan on Hyperion is perhaps my favorite chamber music recording of all time.  The BAT is very close.

Are you talking about the trios?  I don't think the Florestan Trio teamed up with anyone on the quartets.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 16, 2011, 09:44:28 AM
Oh yes I jyust see what happened. I can make to strong recommendation for the piano quartets - the Menuhin Festival Piano Quartet on Claves, and,  in Op 26 , Busch and Serkin again. 

Or is it that snyprr's looking for guidance on the trios -- I'm confused. If so there's Angelich and the Capusons for a complete set. But there are some excellent oldies for the first too -- Rubinstein, pre-War with Pro Arte and post-War with Guarneris, the refined and restrained Elly Ney, and the fast Rubinstein/Heifetz/Feuermann (shame about Heifitz -- but the other two are super.)

Hey, at this point, a Review War on any Brahms Chamber Work would be helpful! I like the Clarinet Quintet the best, but, like I said, the PQ4ts (pee-quaats??) were just Revealed! As I YouTube on...

I don't know if I'm too hot on the Cello Sonatas, or Violin Sonatas, or even the last PT,... however, that Gaia Scienza group turned Op.34 around for me, which is a piece I just can't seem to care about.

I heard the samples for the Domus/Brahms, and didn't really like the sound I was hearing. I'd get the Hollywood set if it weren't $80!! :o :o

Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2011, 10:28:31 AM


I heard the samples for the Domus/Brahms, and didn't really like the sound I was hearing. I'd get the Hollywood set if it weren't $80!! :o :o

It's only money.

Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2011, 10:28:31 AM
Hey, at this point, a Review War on any Brahms Chamber Work would be helpful! I like the Clarinet Quintet the best, but, like I said, the PQ4ts (pee-quaats??) were just Revealed! As I YouTube on...

I don't know if I'm too hot on the Cello Sonatas, or Violin Sonatas, or even the last PT,... however, that Gaia Scienza group turned Op.34 around for me, which is a piece I just can't seem to care about.

I heard the samples for the Domus/Brahms, and didn't really like the sound I was hearing. I'd get the Hollywood set if it weren't $80!! :o :o

I don't understand you here -- what weed are you smoking? You have Gaia Scienza's Brahms then? If so, please say some more as I am tempted to buy it. I'm surprised anyone can not like the violin sonatas -- there are so many fine recordings.

I got to know this music through the Hollywoods.  $80 seems steep.  You could probably hear most of it through youtube.

Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2011, 10:28:31 AM
Hey, at this point, a Review War on any Brahms Chamber Work would be helpful! I like the Clarinet Quintet the best, but, like I said, the PQ4ts (pee-quaats??) were just Revealed! As I YouTube on...

I don't know if I'm too hot on the Cello Sonatas, or Violin Sonatas, or even the last PT,... however, that Gaia Scienza group turned Op.34 around for me, which is a piece I just can't seem to care about.

I heard the samples for the Domus/Brahms, and didn't really like the sound I was hearing. I'd get the Hollywood set if it weren't $80!! :o :o

For the Piano Trios (and the last one is utterly amazing): just get the Suk Trio or the BAT, and that will be a starting point for you. I have lived with those for thirty years.

The Violin Sonatas are fantastic and unsurpassed. They have rivals but no superiors. You could do worse than Arthur Grumiaux.

I am urging you to get these (cheap) recordings, since you have been known to dither and post a lot of weird messages while you were dithering.

Quote from: Herman on May 16, 2011, 12:30:43 PM
For the Piano Trios (and the last one is utterly amazing): just get the Suk Trio or the BAT, and that will be a starting point for you. I have lived with those for thirty years.

The Violin Sonatas are fantastic and unsurpassed. They have rivals but no superiors. You could do worse than Arthur Grumiaux.

I am urging you to get these (cheap) recordings, since you have been known to dither and post a lot of weird messages while you were dithering.

Honestly, the BAT weren't an issue until the other day, when I started to hear some grumbles around here ::) ::) ::) about them,... and,... I scare easy that way. Otherwise, I would probably just go up and get it ALL BAT without thinking. I just need someone to walk me through this Repertoire Trolling. Is there a BAT to stay clear of? Or, a best one?

Quote from: haydnfan on May 16, 2011, 10:20:20 AM
Are you talking about the trios?  I don't think the Florestan Trio teamed up with anyone on the quartets.

Yes, I'm a bit mixed up, I mean the trios.  The Florestan Trio is essentially a reorganization of Domus anyway.

Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
Honestly, the BAT weren't an issue until the other day, when I started to hear some grumbles around here ::) ::) ::) about them,... and,... I scare easy that way. Otherwise, I would probably just go up and get it ALL BAT without thinking. I just need someone to walk me through this Repertoire Trolling. Is there a BAT to stay clear of? Or, a best one?

If BAT stands for Beaux Arts Trio, there is nothing to stay clear of.  They have a glowing, romantic sound which may not be everyone's cup of tea, particularly for Mozart and Haydn.  But what they did they did superbly.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on May 16, 2011, 12:58:32 PM
If BAT stands for Beaux Arts Trio, there is nothing to stay clear of.  They have a glowing, romantic sound which may not be everyone's cup of tea, particularly for Mozart and Haydn.  But what they did they did superbly.

Yup, for me they are BATting 1.000!!  Their recordings of Brahms, Schubert, Beethoven and Schumann piano trios are all top notch.  I think the Schumann piano trios may just have recently risen to # 1 spot on my list.  They may just be my favorites of his chamber output.

Quote from: ChamberNut on May 16, 2011, 07:44:50 PM
Yup, for me they are BATting 1.000!!  Their recordings of Brahms, Schubert, Beethoven and Schumann piano trios are all top notch.  I think the Schumann piano trios may just have recently risen to # 1 spot on my list.  They may just be my favorites of his chamber output.

Tired of Taneyev already?   ???

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on May 16, 2011, 07:47:17 PM
Tired of Taneyev already?   ???

:D  Oh no!  But, didn't Taneyev only compose 1 Piano Trio?  If so, it is very good, though I much prefer his Piano Quintet, and his string quartets.  Still haven't heard his Piano Quartet(s) and String Trios, and that must be remedied.

Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on May 16, 2011, 12:58:32 PM
If BAT stands for Beaux Arts Trio, there is nothing to stay clear of.  They have a glowing, romantic sound which may not be everyone's cup of tea, particularly for Mozart and Haydn.  But what they did they did superbly.

I'd rather say they are the quintessential classical era trio, all about poise and polish.

their forays into post-Brahms music I find less successful

Quote from: Herman on May 16, 2011, 11:31:01 PM
I'd rather say they are the quintessential classical era trio, all about poise and polish.

their forays into post-Brahms music I find less successful

Well, the Piano Quartets' performances were too much for me at the moment (will probably haaave to go for Leopold/Hamelin on Hyperion), so I got the Eastman Qrt/VoxBox for $2!!

Quote from: snyprrr on May 17, 2011, 05:36:03 AM
Well, the Piano Quartets' performances were too much for me at the moment (will probably haaave to go for Leopold/Hamelin on Hyperion), so I got the Eastman Qrt/VoxBox for $2!!

the Leopold/Hamelin is on my to listen pile, I'll give you a shout when I get there.

Piano Quartets:  Ax, Laredo, Ma and Stern!!!   8)

Op. 25 and Op. 60 are definitely both in my Top 10 of Brahms' Chamber Music.

Quote from: snyprrr on May 17, 2011, 05:36:03 AM
Well, the Piano Quartets' performances were too much for me at the moment (will probably haaave to go for Leopold/Hamelin on Hyperion), so I got the Eastman Qrt/VoxBox for $2!!

Well, I have the sets below and would encourage the Hamelin purchase on Hyperion (pricey but 2 discs); the Domus recordings are quite good and less than half the price of the other on the Amazon MP - good luck in your selection(s) -  :)


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hp7PEOL6L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)  (http://ec5.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pL8dHiQwL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

Quote from: ChamberNut on May 17, 2011, 05:46:42 AM
Piano Quartets:  Ax, Laredo, Ma and Stern!!!   8)

not for me.

What did you thaink of the Frères Capuçon/Angelich trios, Herman? (If you have heard them)

Quote from: Mandryka on May 17, 2011, 09:38:38 AM
What did you thaink of the Frères Capuçon/Angelich trios, Herman? (If you have heard them)

I have to admit the Renaud Capuçon / Angelich violin sonatas didn't give me the feeling I had to have the trios, perhaps I was wrong.

Quote from: Herman on May 17, 2011, 10:55:28 AM
I have to admit the Renaud Capuçon / Angelich violin sonatas didn't give me the feeling I had to have the trios, perhaps I was wrong.

I don't know. I just listened to Op 101 and thought it was a wonderful performance in the central movements, but somehow just didn't seem to hang together in the final movement -- there was somehow not enough narrative flow to keep me interested.

Subjective, naturally,  and maybe next listening I will feel differently.

I was very impressed by Angelich's Schumann (Fantasiestueke) recently in concert in London. Less so by his Brahms (Intermezzi), strangely..

There are lots of great recordings of the first trio of course.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 16, 2011, 09:44:28 AM
I can make to strong recommendation for the piano quartets - the Menuhin Festival Piano Quartet on Claves....

:o Wow! How good to see someone else rec this fantastic two-fer! I thought I was the only one who knew about it!

Yes, my favorite set as well, if perhaps just a tad overly aggressive in sound: the instruments a bit forward and "in your face". Absolute niggles, however, in the face of such fine musicianship. 



(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-T9zku0rL._SS500_.jpg)

Quote from: Mandryka on May 17, 2011, 09:38:38 AM
What did you thaink of the Frères Capuçon/Angelich trios, Herman? (If you have heard them)

I have their recording of the Piano Quartets  (Gerard Causse as viola), with the Faure Quartet recording of Opp. 25 and 60 to compare it to.
I prefer the Capucon, but not by much: they are capable, but if you told me someone else was better, I wouldn't be surprised.  Of course, the quartets themselves are not my favorites--the quintets and sextets get that title.

Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
Honestly, the BAT weren't an issue until the other day, when I started to hear some grumbles around here ::) ::) ::) about them,... and,... I scare easy that way. Otherwise, I would probably just go up and get it ALL BAT without thinking. I just need someone to walk me through this Repertoire Trolling. Is there a BAT to stay clear of? Or, a best one?

If it's a one-stop you're looking for the BAT is probably a safe bet. But it's a double edged sword. Yes you get the safety net of the BAT but then what you miss out on is all the other great chamber (trio & quartet) recordings/ensembles out there just as worthy and often more so.

I haven't heard the BAT's Brahms but in the piano quartets I've already mentioned my favorite set above. For the trios the Golub-Kaplan-Carr set on Arabesque has a timeless quality to it that trumps even the Florestan Trio set (which I also own and enjoy).




(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41T-FUCkJjL._SS500_.jpg)

Quote from: ChamberNut on May 17, 2011, 05:46:42 AM
Piano Quartets:  Ax, Laredo, Ma and Stern!!!   8)

Op. 25 and Op. 60 are definitely both in my Top 10 of Brahms' Chamber Music.

I heard recently the op.25 from this team while driving in my car and found much to enjoy in the performance. If I had a need for more Brahms piano quartets I'd probably opt for these guys. :)

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on May 17, 2011, 05:39:06 PM
:o Wow! How good to see someone else rec this fantastic two-fer! I thought I was the only one who knew about it!

Yes, my favorite set as well, if perhaps just a tad overly aggressive in sound: the instruments a bit forward and "in your face". Absolute niggles, however, in the face of such fine musicianship. 

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-T9zku0rL._SS500_.jpg)

Interesting recommendation. :) I'm still partial to Rubinstein's recordings with the Guarneri Quartet - reissued in superb sound. but I've been behind on new recordings for a while.

[asin]B00005427M[/asin]

[asin]ASIN: B00005427T[/asin]

Q

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on May 17, 2011, 06:24:58 PM
If it's a one-stop you're looking for the BAT is probably a safe bet. But it's a double edged sword. Yes you get the safety net of the BAT but then what you miss out on is all the other great chamber (trio & quartet) recordings/ensembles out there just as worthy and often more so.

I haven't heard the BAT's Brahms but in the piano quartets I've already mentioned my favorite set above. For the trios the Golub-Kaplan-Carr set on Arabesque has a timeless quality to it that trumps even the Florestan Trio set (which I also own and enjoy).




(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41T-FUCkJjL._SS500_.jpg)

I will try to hear that -- they are really underestimated I think. I've two things by them -- their Faure amd their Schubert, and I think they are both very very fine -- the best Faure trio I know, in fact.

The Schubert Op 100 is interesting because it includes all the music usually cut from the final movement.

Are you recommending just Vol 2 of the Brahms trios, or Vol 1 too?

We have similar tastes here DD -- Menuhen Festival and GKC.

An excellent set of all the trios by the Odeon Trio:
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000001WTG.01.L.jpg)

I love this group of players: Leonard Hokanson, piano; Kurt Guntner, violin; Angelica May, cello.  Sadly, Leonard Hokanson died in 2003.

The horn and clarinet trios are played in the versions for viola here, which are at least worth hearing.

Quote from: ~ Que ~ on May 17, 2011, 09:53:11 PM
Interesting recommendation. :) I'm still partial to Rubinstein's recordings with the Guraneri Quartet - reissued in superb sound. but I've been behind on new recordings for a while.

I really love the recording they did of the Brahms and Schumann quintets.  I have a feeling that I would like these recordings as well. :)

Quote from: ~ Que ~ on May 17, 2011, 09:53:11 PM
Interesting recommendation. :) I'm still partial to Rubinstein's recordings with the Guarneri Quartet - reissued in superb sound. but I've been behind on new recordings for a while.

[asin]B00005427M[/asin]

[asin]ASIN: B00005427T[/asin]

Q

I think the Menuhin Festival recording of Op 25 is superior   to Rubinstein/Guaneri  in many important  ways-- superior for dramatic contrast, for moments of aching beauty, for variety of feeling, for tension, for story telling skills, for recorded sound.

I think the Menuhin Festival recording of Op 25  is the equal of Rubinstein/Guaneri  in one important  way --  for the coherence of the ensemble. They both play as a team.

I think Rubinstein/Guaneri in Op 25  is superior  to  the Menuhin Festival recording in one important  way - the calibre of the pianist. Even though he's lost the youthful vigour of the one he made with Pro Arte, he is still pretty damn good here.

Quote from: Mandryka on May 17, 2011, 10:00:13 PM
I will try to hear that -- they are really underestimated I think. I've two things by them -- their Faure amd their Schubert, and I think they are both very very fine -- the best Faure trio I know, in fact.

The Schubert Op 100 is interesting because it includes all the music usually cut from the final movement.

Yes, very much an underrated trio. A trio oozing integrity in every bar they play. It's their ability to probe deep yet come up sounding completely spontaneous - with warmth! - that gets me. Light's out stuff!

Thanks for the Faure rec. Need to check that out.

And I too have their Schubert. Their rendition of the D.929 is one of the highlights of my classical collection.

QuoteAre you recommending just Vol 2 of the Brahms trios, or Vol 1 too?

Oh, yes, sorry, both volumes of GKC's Brahms are certainly recommended.



(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P-TpbLO0L._SS500_.jpg)

QuoteWe have similar tastes here DD -- Menuhen Festival and GKC.

Quite right!

Quote from: ~ Que ~ on May 17, 2011, 09:53:11 PM
Interesting recommendation. :) I'm still partial to Rubinstein's recordings with the Guarneri Quartet - reissued in superb sound. but I've been behind on new recordings for a while.

You might enjoy a new, 'modern' set, Q. Just for kicks, I guess.

For me, I like my Brahms feeling as if it had sprung from the good 'ol hearth, if that makes any sense. Undiluted, diverting, buoyant, and perhaps a bit taxing. But the end result is sensuous. That's what I hear in the Menuhin Festival set.

The Fauré trio is one of the hardest pieces to get right, has been my experience over the decades, though generally people tend to love the version they happen to have, because the music is so special.

Quote from: Herman on May 19, 2011, 12:28:35 AM
The Fauré trio is one of the hardest pieces to get right, has been my experience over the decades, though generally people tend to love the version they happen to have, because the music is so special.

Have you heard the Fontenay disc (mirrors the Florestan)?

Quote from: Herman on May 19, 2011, 12:28:35 AM
The Fauré trio is one of the hardest pieces to get right, has been my experience over the decades, though generally people tend to love the version they happen to have, because the music is so special.

What do you mean "get right"?

Sextets & Quintets??

Maybe a mellower performance?

Quote from: SonicMan46 on May 17, 2011, 05:47:50 AM
Well, I have the sets below and would encourage the Hamelin purchase on Hyperion (pricey but 2 discs); the Domus recordings are quite good and less than half the price of the other on the Amazon MP - good luck in your selection(s) -  :)


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hp7PEOL6L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)  (http://ec5.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pL8dHiQwL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

WoW! This Hamelin/Leopold Trio disk of Brahms is fantastic.

:o

Quote from: Mandryka on May 19, 2011, 07:17:17 AM

What do you mean "get right"?

it has to be serene and passionate at the same time.

the rhythm is quite steady, and yet it has sound as if the piece is created and invented as you're listening.

there's all kinds of problems in oerforming Fauré.

Quote from: Herman on May 21, 2011, 12:37:30 PM
it has to be serene and passionate at the same time.

the rhythm is quite steady, and yet it has sound as if the piece is created and invented as you're listening.

there's all kinds of problems in oerforming Fauré.

Yes. I thought you would reply like that. I think Via Nova's is just what you say. But you've played it (I guess), so your going to be aware of things which elude me  :)

I think you put me on to this programme  ages ago -- I guess you have heard it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fjm8h

The discussion with Nectoux about Paul Verlaine at the end is very amusing, but as far as I remember there's nothing about the trio.

Quote from: Leo K on May 21, 2011, 09:38:44 AM
WoW! This Hamelin/Leopold Trio disk of Brahms is fantastic.

:o

Maybe not so shocking. I've never heard the Leopold Trio but Hamelin's record of Op 119 is good.

I'm playing the late Brahms String quintet Op 111 with Hefetz and Pennario and Piatigorsky. I like it: I especially like the almost total absence of that autumnal feeling that people feel inclined to give late Brahms. It's the only recording of Op 111 I can put my hands on -- I have the Juilliards somewhere but I just can't find it.

Someone I know was at a Haitink concert last night in Chicago and they said that in the pre concert talk Haitink said that the opening to this piece was originally a 5th symphony. For some reason Brahms destroyed the symphony though.

Hence my motivation for digging out this music -- and what a pleasure it is!

Quote from: Mandryka on May 29, 2011, 07:25:14 AM
I'm playing the late Brahms String quintet Op 111 with Hefetz and Pennario and Piatigorsky. I like it: I especially like the almost total absence of that autumnal feeling that people feel inclined to give late Brahms. It's the only recording of Op 111 I can put my hands on -- I have the Juilliards somewhere but I just can't find it.

The 111, G major is a happy work. The quintets are not amply available in the catalogue.

Quote from: Leo K on May 21, 2011, 09:38:44 AM
WoW! This Hamelin/Leopold Trio disk of Brahms is fantastic.
:o

Fantastic, yes. But that's not saying that Domus is a lesser recording. In fact, if I absolutely had to chose between the two...

Quote...That's stiff competition for the players on the Hyperion set, the Leopold String Quartet (Marianne Thorsen, Lawrence Power, and Kate Gould) who perform with that most nimble-fingered of all pianists, Marc-André Hamelin. And for a recording of all three Quartets, their strongest competition might not be the Beaux Arts or Wanderer Trio, but the Piano Quartet "Domus" on a budget Virgin re-issue.


Although I've cherished the Domus recording for many years now, I've never bothered to look up (or remember) its members. What a surprise then – or rather: how perfectly logical – to find that Domus is essentially the expanded Florestan Trio with Susan Tomes (piano) and Richard Lester (cello), violist Timothy Boulton and, instead of Anthony Marwood, the genial duo partner of Tomes', Krysia Osostowicz, on violin. (Before disbanding, Domus had also been taken onto Hyperion's artists roster.)


Hamelin's slightly dryer and more enunciated playing and the closer recording make the Leopold String Trio's performances more straight-faced and less reverberant than the modestly indulgent Domus. The chugging cello line of the op.25 second movement sounds so refined with the Leopold's Ms. Gould, she could pass as playing the viola. And while the Leopold/Hamelin combination sounds incredibly and impressively fast in the concluding Rondo alla Zingarese, there's not the sense of a turbulent, hair-down execution as with Domus (much less Argerich & Co.). For those in favor of leaner, longer lines in Brahms, the immaculate and civilized Leopold/Hamelin combination (exploring technical extremes without ever sounding challenged) might be the preferred version. Whatever the case, few would likely complain if these were their only versions of the Quartets... (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=424)

Quote from: jlaurson on May 29, 2011, 08:53:14 AM
Fantastic, yes. But that's not saying that Domus is a lesser recording. In fact, if I absolutely had to chose between the two...

Fantastic, yes, indeed... but please don't forgive the most exhilarating version available of the Op. 60, coupled with the piano quintet in F minor, opus 34. Of course, La Gaia Scienza, on period intruments.  :D

[asin]B00005CCZ0[/asin]

8)

Quote from: Herman on May 29, 2011, 08:44:42 AM
The 111, G major is a happy work. The quintets are not amply available in the catalogue.

I've been playing the Hagen Quartet's CD continuously in the car for the past couple of days and I am very very impressed. This is nice music.

It's made me see that the Heifetz is completely weird and rather shallow, but nevertheless quite fun, rather like that Mozart sting quintet he recorded. Hagen finds much more feeling and the phrasing seems totally right. They seem to be responding to each other as they play; there's a sort of space between the players -- the tones are sort of balanced, all the voices seem to settle and sit together, everything has room to breath. I'm not expressing myself well here, and anyway I'm not sure how much is due to the sound engineering and how much is due to the ensemble. Bottom line -- I like it.

I also found a recording by the Leipzig Qurtet which left no impact on me whatsoever. My Juilliard CD is still missing.
[asin]B0000012YW[/asin]

Quote from: Mandryka on June 02, 2011, 09:40:20 AM
I've been playing the Hagen Quartet's CD continuously in the car for the past couple of days and I am very very impressed. This is nice music.

It's made me see that the Heifetz is completely weird and rather shallow, but nevertheless quite fun, rather like that Mozart sting quintet he recorded. Hagen finds much more feeling and the phrasing seems totally right. They seem to be responding to each other as they play; there's a sort of space between the players -- the tones are sort of balanced, all the voices seem to settle and sit together, everything has room to breath. I'm not expressing myself well here, and anyway I'm not sure how much is due to the sound engineering and how much is due to the ensemble. Bottom line -- I like it.

I also found a recording by the Leipzig Qurtet which left no impact on me whatsoever. My Juilliard CD is still missing.
[asin]B0000012YW[/asin]

Talk about MAKING me buy something!! :o pant pant

Quote from: Mandryka on June 02, 2011, 09:40:20 AM
I've been playing the Hagen Quartet's CD continuously in the car for the past couple of days and I am very very impressed. This is nice music.

It's made me see that the Heifetz is completely weird and rather shallow, but nevertheless quite fun, rather like that Mozart sting quintet he recorded. Hagen finds much more feeling and the phrasing seems totally right. They seem to be responding to each other as they play; there's a sort of space between the players -- the tones are sort of balanced, all the voices seem to settle and sit together, everything has room to breath. I'm not expressing myself well here, and anyway I'm not sure how much is due to the sound engineering and how much is due to the ensemble. Bottom line -- I like it.

I also found a recording by the Leipzig Qurtet which left no impact on me whatsoever. My Juilliard CD is still missing.
[asin]B0000012YW[/asin]

Sold

Quote from: ~ Que ~ on May 16, 2011, 09:17:49 AM
Trio Fontenay were OK, but you could do better.

My personal favourites are Suk/Katchen/Starker.
Depending on your taste and importance attached to more modern sound, you could also consider the Florestan Trio. Unfortunately no HIP in sight, yet... :-\ But of course I strongly encorage you to try Gaia Scienza in the piano quinet. :)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513cr1QgXIL._SS500_.jpg)

Q

I got cd1 of that set,...mmm,... I just don't care for Brahms PTs, I think. I feel like they're just these big pieces of lasagna. I did take right quick to Mozart PTs though, and also Schubert,... but not Brahms, or, strangely enough, Mendelssohn,... why is that? Yes, no, I'm not even interested in hearing LvB,... but I did like the Tchaikovsky somewhat,... maybe what I think is that since there are so many capable Composers doing PTs, I really get to just pick those whom I instantaneously are drawn to: how was I to know I'd like Mozart over Mendelssohn (and so forth)?

I'm in a very dismissive phase of my Romantic Period Chamber Music Survey. So far, Mozart has been the big surprise!


I did take immediately to the Brahms Piano Quartets, though (though not the PTs,... can anyone figure out why?). These pieces are like LvB Op.95, and the only pieces I've heard that remind me of it. I was especially surprised by the Invention of Heavy Metal in Op.60, 1st mvmt.

I'm also not fond of Brahms Cello Sonatas and Violin Sonatas

Quote from: snyprrr on June 05, 2011, 08:52:10 PM


I did take immediately to the Brahms Piano Quartets, though (though not the PTs,... can anyone figure out why?). These pieces are like LvB Op.95, and the only pieces I've heard that remind me of it. I was especially surprised by the Invention of Heavy Metal in Op.60, 1st mvmt.

I'm also not fond of Brahms Cello Sonatas and Violin Sonatas

Brahms's Piano Trios, particularly nr 2 and nr 3, are phenomally good. The sonatas are very good too.

Your problem is you feel you need to have an opinion immediately. This is gets in the way of listening.

Quote from: Philoctetes on June 03, 2011, 11:21:59 PM
I don't know if this disc has been mentioned, but it definitely should be mentioned. It's easily my favorite recording of these works. They brim with intensity. They're vibrant and fresh. I can't say enough good things about these two performers.

[asin]B004IA25HE[/asin]

You, sir, have excellent taste!

Quote from: Herman on June 06, 2011, 12:17:45 AM
Brahms's Piano Trios, particularly nr 2 and nr 3, are phenomally good. The sonatas are very good too.

Your problem is you feel you need to have an opinion immediately. This is gets in the way of listening.

I put on PT Op.8 yesterday, after your post,... and,... it DID put me to sleep. I'm just saying',...

some Brahms = snoozy time music

I haaaave had the Brahms PTs before (Fonentay), and now don't, so, I must have come to a conclusion (for me) about these pieces before. It is out of the bottomless grace of my heart that I took Bruce's/Que's advice and got this cd, to give it another go, and, as I heard it, I remembered that I just had an 'eh' reaction to these PTs. Perhaps, to me, these seem the epitome of that High Romantic snoozy time music that I just can't 'do'.

(shoulder shrugging smilee, the "I don't know what to say" smilee)

Quote from: snyprrr on June 07, 2011, 05:27:04 AM
I put on PT Op.8 yesterday, after your post,... and,... it DID put me to sleep. I'm just saying',...

some Brahms = snoozy time music

I have to agree with Herman here. "Phenomenally good," a judgment which is valid for most of B's chamber music. The 3rd trio (Op. 101), is one of the tightest, most perfectly constructed chamber pieces I know - not a note wasted. The Op. 8 is more expansive and maybe not quite as perfect, but it's a great monument to Weltschmerz: check out the wonderful trio to the scherzo, or the bleak piano and cello themes of the slow mvt. Amazing to think such world-weary music was written by a guy in his early 20s.

Maybe you should stop listening to "things that are crisp and spritely" for a while - it's interfering with your appreciation of Brahms' style.

Quote from: Velimir on June 09, 2011, 01:55:06 AM
I have to agree with Herman here. "Phenomenally good," a judgment which is valid for most of B's chamber music. The 3rd trio (Op. 101), is one of the tightest, most perfectly constructed chamber pieces I know - not a note wasted. The Op. 8 is more expansive and maybe not quite as perfect, but it's a great monument to Weltschmerz: check out the wonderful trio to the scherzo, or the bleak piano and cello themes of the slow mvt. Amazing to think such world-weary music was written by a guy in his early 20s.

Maybe you should stop listening to "things that are crisp and spritely" for a while - it's interfering with your appreciation of Brahms' style.

haha,...Brahms, the musical equivalent of adding extra cream! How will I keep my figure if I listen to Brahms? What is the general weight of Brahms fans? Now, when I think Brahms, I think ricotta.

Will listen again to Op.8.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 09, 2011, 07:05:03 AM
haha,...Brahms, the musical equivalent of adding extra cream! How will I keep my figure if I listen to Brahms? What is the general weight of Brahms fans? Now, when I think Brahms, I think ricotta.

In reality Velimir said Brahms wrote some of the "tightest, most perfectly constructed chamber pieces I know  -  not a note wasted."

So your response is a little weird.

Quote from: Herman on June 09, 2011, 10:26:06 AM
So your response is a little weird.

Accurate translation from Snipperese can be a problem on this board. (In plain English, I don't know what he means.) Personally, I think of Brahms as akin to rich heavy dark beer.

Quote from: Velimir on June 10, 2011, 01:22:08 AM
Accurate translation from Snipperese can be a problem on this board. (In plain English, I don't know what he means.) Personally, I think of Brahms as akin to rich heavy dark beer.

Translation Complete!! That's what I'm sayin'.

Brahms may not have wasted a note, but it seems to me that his notes are made out of Whole Milk, and not Skim! He just 'sounds' fattening!!

btw- I'm really just talking about the first two PTs (and Cello Sonatas) here. ;D

Very good recording of the first cello sonata here, which I have listened to quite a few times over the past week or so:

[asin]B00004RJSU[/asin]

Has anyone heard this (Miklos Perenyi and Zoltan Kocsis) :

(http://cdn.classicsonline.com/images/cds/others/HCD12123.gif)

Someone was thinking Op.26 might be Brahms' weak link, but I think I'm liking it more and more. I like the fact that the themes are fairly unassuming, and that the movements are very long, and in the major key, again, fairly unassuming,... yet, each movement does appear to me to fill the timeslot without really seeming too long to me. Perhaps that's The Pettersson Effect?? ??? :o ;D

I also think that it really IS such a blatantly large work. Obviously there must be some comment from the time? But, that it seems such a tranquil work amongst such Dramatic mates, and the Quintet, makes it the big draw for me. I find it very relaxed and genial, like taking the Rolls for a stroll. It reminds me of Schubert?

I'd say it's misunderstood, invisible in plain sight. It seems to have the feel of an automobile for me, a very very luxurious one, driving slowly on a nice day. Objective, not subjective.

I have found myself totally ignoring the other two PQ4ts. This one I just like to have on.


QUESTION: This is what I imagine Taneyev sounding like, though maybe a little thicker. How would you work this angle? Yes, no, different guy,...?? I don't think I've heard a MAJOR KEY work by Taneyev.

Quote from: snyprrr on June 13, 2011, 09:43:32 PM
Someone was thinking Op.26 might be Brahms' weak link, but I think I'm liking it more and more [etc]

My thoughts on the piece are similar. Down to the comparison with Schubert. If I didn't know it was by Brahms, I would have assumed it was by Schubert. It has that smoothed-out, long-winded Schubertian tone.

Early, Hamburg-period Brahms is like this: expansive, melodious, relaxed (but not free of drama), and structurally looser. Compare for example the serenades vs. the symphonies; the Trio Op. 8 vs. the two later ones; the P4tets Opp. 25 and 26 vs. the Op. 60; the Handel Variations vs. the late piano pieces. His later work is tighter, craggier, more forward-looking.

Since I'm an old curmudgeon from the Sixties, I like Karl Leister's playing on these DGG sets -

(http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-2201005-1327611398.jpeg)  (http://s17.postimage.org/6c4ea58in/Brahms_Clarinet_Trio.jpg)

and the sonatas can be found on (also on a huge CD box) -

(http://78.46.76.238/pix/20100404/160420395201.jpg)

Strong, pretty well-recorded playing.

:)

Since the Amadeus Quartet is no more, we must rely on records ... Karl Leister is a smooth-toned, slightly self-effacing clarinettist in the Clarinet Quintet,
-- Gramophone [12/1987]

Brahms' studies with Mühlfeld partly led to the composition of these masterpieces.

The images are shown as broken links to me. Could you just write the name of the recordings underneath them?

So who's done the reading in Brahms?  He himself adapted the Op120 for viola, yes?  And I suppose because there was a violist for whom it was an apt task. Why, oh, why?  I mean, I don't absolutely mind . . . it just jars when a violist calls them the viola sonatas, when they're clarinet sonatas . . . .

FWIW, the Op120 in the Brilliant box is played by Karl Leister . . . a different recording to the OP's, since it seems to have been licensed from Nimbus (in the first place) and was recorded ii.1997 (in the second).

Yes, different recording.

I think he's done the Quintet at least three times.

But since I have my CDCDCD under control, I don't replace recordings I'm satisfied with.  Mostly.

The images are displaying fine in Opera, SeaMonkey, Camino, Safari, Chrome, and Firefox - maybe empty your cache, refresh the browser?

Quote from: Scion7 on April 18, 2012, 06:31:40 AM
Yes, different recording.

I think he's done the Quintet at least three times.

Hey, if I knew a quartet who were game to do the Op115, I'd play it as often as possible!

Quote from: karlhenning on April 18, 2012, 06:18:53 AM
. . . it just jars when a violist calls them the viola sonatas, when they're clarinet sonatas . . . .

I've never heard those transcriptions - agree, they are most definitely clarinet sonatas, and violists should refer to them as transcriptions.

Well, but they're such beautiful pieces . . . you can hardly fault them for wanting to claim them.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 18, 2012, 06:18:53 AM
So who's done the reading in Brahms?  He himself adapted the Op120 for viola, yes?  And I suppose because there was a violist for whom it was an apt task. Why, oh, why?  I mean, I don't absolutely mind . . . it just jars when a violist calls them the viola sonatas, when they're clarinet sonatas . . . .

From what I recall he transcribed them due to a suggestion by his publisher who felt that they would receive much more attention as viola pieces.

Quote from: Geo Dude on April 20, 2012, 03:30:17 PM
From what I recall he transcribed them due to a suggestion by his publisher who felt that they would receive much more attention as viola pieces.

Whoops!

Quote from: Scion7 on April 18, 2012, 06:11:37 AM

(http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-2201005-1327611398.jpeg)

Shows just an X for me too...

Get Gilels' Piano Quartet in G minor. It can be found on DG Originals coupled with the Op. 10 Ballades. Gilels made some really great chamber music recordings; get his Schubert Trout Quintet while you're at it.

so today i heard the clarinet trio for the first time and also wept with brahms for the first time

that second mvmt is almost not from this world.  i was looking at peach trees full of blossoms swaying in the wind as i listened and it was the most amazing combination of sight and sound ive experienced in a long time

ive always respected the intellectual profundity, emotional intensity and sensuous richness of brahms, but i gotta say this is the first time i could relate to him as a human being

Quote from: xochitl on May 04, 2012, 12:04:45 AM
so today i heard the clarinet trio for the first time and also wept with brahms for the first time

that second mvmt is almost not from this world.  i was looking at peach trees full of blossoms swaying in the wind as i listened and it was the most amazing combination of sight and sound ive experienced in a long time

ive always respected the intellectual profundity, emotional intensity and sensuous richness of brahms, but i gotta say this is the first time i could relate to him as a human being

What a wonderful experience! Thanks for sharing that :)

Quote from: xochitl on May 04, 2012, 12:04:45 AM
ive always respected the intellectual profundity, emotional intensity and sensuous richness of brahms, but i gotta say this is the first time i could relate to him as a human being

Do you know the Op. 8 Piano Trio? Pretty relatable stuff, if you ask me. But anyway, that's a great story and maybe it's a breakthrough that will deepen your relationship with a lot of Brahms's music...

Quote from: PaulSC on May 04, 2012, 10:05:56 AM
Do you know the Op. 8 Piano Trio? Pretty relatable stuff, if you ask me. But anyway, that's a great story and maybe it's a breakthrough that will deepen your relationship with a lot of Brahms's music...

it's on the same album as the clarinet trio but i havent heard it yet.  im just starting to get into chamber music in general, there are huge gaping holes in my knowledge of pretty much every composer's chamber music except Beethoven

Quote from: karlhenning on April 18, 2012, 06:21:03 AM
FWIW, the Op120 in the Brilliant box is played by Karl Leister . . . a different recording to the OP's, since it seems to have been licensed from Nimbus (in the first place) and was recorded ii.1997 (in the second).

Leister has recorded the Brahms pieces so many times. He plays them beautifully; one might say he emphasizes the autumnal aspect a little too much.

Obviously the autumnal character is in the music; you cannot make it go away. But there's a lot of passion too (for instance the railing first theme in 114), and one shouldn't bury it under autumn leaves.

Quote from: Que on April 29, 2007, 09:14:21 PM
Forgive me my copy & paste.. :)

clarinet sonatas & trio: only for those who like the challenge of finding it : Walter Boeykens/Vanden Eynden/Dieltiens on Ricercar (OOP)

Thanks for your list, Que!

As I cannot find the Boeykens, what do you suggest as an alternate? For the sonatas, I have read good things about the Cohen/Ashkenazy. For the Trio, Pieterson/BAT or Balogh on Naxos?

Also, Clarinet Quintet? Leister? (with Leipzig or Brandis QT?)

I'm currently watching Bob Greenberg's DVD biography of Brahms (Teaching Company) - the Horn Trio is being emphazied on a later episode - STATED is that JB preferred the 'natural horn' - WELL, I own two performances of this wonderful work but both are on valved horns - OH, the shame!  ;) ;D

SO, for those into this work and knowing of performances on the 'natural horn' - any recommendations?  Thanks - Dave :)

Quote from: SonicMan46 on December 11, 2012, 04:29:43 PM
I'm currently watching Bob Greenberg's DVD biography of Brahms (Teaching Company) - the Horn Trio is being emphazied on a later episode - STATED is that JB preferred the 'natural horn' - WELL, I own two performances of this wonderful work but both are on valved horns - OH, the shame!  ;) ;D

SO, for those into this work and knowing of performances on the 'natural horn' - any recommendations?  Thanks - Dave :)

[asin]B0019ZF2PS[/asin]

haha! almost a minute apart.  ;)

BOY, you guys are 'fast on the draw'!  ;D

I'll wait a few more seconds to see what others may be suggested!   ;) :D   Dave

Quote from: SonicMan46 on December 11, 2012, 04:39:11 PM
BOY, you guys are 'fast on the draw'!  ;D

I'll wait a few more seconds to see what others may be suggested!   ;) :D   Dave

I don't think there are others, apart from Lubin & co., but that's OOP. available for 4.95 € (http://www.amazon.es/Music-Horn-Lowell-Greer/dp/B00005MNIW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355276736&sr=8-1)
[asin]B00005MNIW[/asin]

I am interested in this Busch/Serkin/et al collection

[asin]B0018OKHL4[/asin]

which seems to contain some key recordings, esp. (I think) that Horn Trio.  One online friend told me that Andromeda produces poor quality transfers, though.  Still thought I would ask about this particular set.

Thanks everyone for contribution to this thread; I'm having to construct a Xmas 2013 list of Brahms alone.  Already broken down and purchased a few things I didn't know I needed.

Octave,

If you are interested mainly in the Horn Trio, then check out the Testament release of that same recording paired with the Brahms Clarinet Quintet with Reginald Kell, another landmark recording.

[asin]B000003XHK[/asin]

Needless to say, those Amazon prices are not the lowest you can find.

Thanks for that recommendation, liuzerus87.  Indeed, not sure what's wrong with Amazon/MP on the Testament front....some items that are not totally OOP afaik are selling for astronomical prices, it's insane.  That Testament disc is almost certainly the one I'm going to get.

Because I could not quite decide yet on the Naxos historicals and my Brahms chamber shelf is, while well stocked, not quite as crowded as some others and this is a save spacing box, I ordered the following. I already own recordings involving the Busch's and Rubinstein from the respective collections but I figured that at bargain price there were enough recordings left that are not easy to get separately and are supposedly very good. (I also sometimes think that Brahms, more than Beethoven or Mozart, is a composer where the older generations of musicians tend to have an edge over contemporary ones.)

[asin]B01B6904JA[/asin]

Quote from: Jo498 on February 05, 2017, 02:42:14 AM
Because I could not quite decide yet on the Naxos historicals and my Brahms chamber shelf is, while well stocked, not quite as crowded as some others and this is a save spacing box, I ordered the following. I already own recordings involving the Busch's and Rubinstein from the respective collections but I figured that at bargain price there were enough recordings left that are not easy to get separately and are supposedly very good. (I also sometimes think that Brahms, more than Beethoven or Mozart, is a composer where the older generations of musicians tend to have an edge over contemporary ones.)

[asin]B01B6904JA[/asin]

An interesting thought. Would that be due to the gravitas required in the performances do you think? I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on that.

Quote from: aligreto on February 05, 2017, 08:40:02 AM
An interesting thought. Would that be due to the gravitas required in the performances do you think? I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on that.

Well, Brahms was much closer in time to the musical culture of the early 20th century, with people who studied under persons who knew Brahms recording the music, whereas that Late Romantic tradition was quite far from Beethoven and Mozart.

Quote from: North Star on February 05, 2017, 08:50:08 AM
Well, Brahms was much closer in time to the musical culture of the early 20th century, with people who studied under persons who knew Brahms recording the music, whereas that Late Romantic tradition was quite far from Beethoven and Mozart.

A valid point Karlo  ;)

Of course it is some stretch to claim that Rubinstein in 1965 played Brahms chamber music in a superior fashion only or mainly because he was old enough to have played with friends/pupils of Brahms in his youth. (If pressed, I'd just say that Rubinstein was very good in Brahms, whatever the reasons.)
But the Busch/Serkin recordings from the 1930s are historically quite close and all these musicians received their training before WW I, basically grew up with the old or recently deceased Brahms the most important instrumental/chamber composer still around and often studied with close friends or pupils of Brahms. So while there are also "oral" traditions and heritages claiming closeness to Liszt or Chopin, I'd say that Brahms we can be reasonably certain to have such a connection.

tbh the stuff in the box that is not Busch/Serkin/Rubinstein has probably no good claim to specific closeness to Brahms and his circle. As the link does not give the contents:

Johannes Brahms
Brahms musique de chambre

CD1
Sonate pour violon et piano no 1 en sol majeur op. 78
Josef Suk (violon), Josef Hala. 1956

Sonate pour violon et piano no 2 en la majeur op. 100
Adolf Busch (violon), Rudolf Serkin (piano). 1932

Sonate pour violon et piano no 3 en ré mineur op. 108
Gioconda De Vito (violon), Edwin Fischer (piano). 1954

Scherzo en ut mineur WoO 2 (de la Sonate "F.A.E."
Nathan Milstein (violon), Carlo Bussotti (piano). 1954

BONUS
Regenlied op. 59 no 3
Elisabeth Grümmer (soprano), Gerald Moore (piano). 1959

Wie Melodien zieht es mir
Immer leiser wird mein Schlummer
Lisa Della Casa (soprano), Karl Hudez (piano). 1952

Auf dem Kirchhofe
Lotte Lehmann (soprano), Paul Ulanowsky (piano). 1941

CD2
Sonate pour violoncelle et piano no 1 en mi mineur op. 38
Gregor Piatigorsky (violoncelle), Arthur Rubinstein (piano). 1936
Janos Starker (violoncelle), György Sebök (piano). 1959

Sonate pour violoncelle et piano no 2 en fa majeur op. 99
Janos Starker (violoncelle), György Sebök (piano). 1959

CD3
Sonate pour clarinette et piano no 1 en fa mineur op. 120 no 1
Sonate pour clarinette et piano no 2 en mi bémol majeur op. 120 no 2
Reginald Kell (clarinette), Mieczyslaw Horszowski (piano). 1949

Sonate pour alto et piano no 1 en fa mineur op. 120 no 1
William Primrose (alto), Jesus Maria Sanroma (piano). 1939
Sonate pour alto et piano no 2 en mi bémol majeur op. 120 no 2
William Primrose (alto), Rudolf Firkusny (piano). 1958

CD4
Quintette pour clarinette et cordes en si mineur op. 115
Leopod Wlach (clarinette), Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett. 1953

Trio pour clarinette, violoncelle et piano en la mineur op. 114
Reginald Kell (clarinette), Frank Miller (violoncelle), Mieczyslaw Horszowski
   (piano). 1950

CD5
Trio pour piano, violon et violoncelle no 1 en si majeur op. 8
Edwin Fischer (piano), Wolfgang Schneiderhan (violon), Enrico Mainardi
   (violoncelle). 1954

Trio pour piano, violon et violoncelle no 2 en ut majeur op. 87
Gary Graffman (piano), Berl Senofsky (violon), Shirley Trepel (violoncelle).
   1959

BONUS
Sonate pour violon et piano no 2 en la majeur op. 100
Szymon Goldberg (violon), Artur Balsam (piano). 1953

CD6
Trio pour piano, violon et violoncelle no 3 en ut mineur op. 101
Eugene Istomin (piano), Isaac Stern (violon), Leonard Rose (violoncelle). 1966

Trio pour piano, violon et cor en mi bémol majeur op. 40
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Michael Tree (violon), Myron Bloom (cor). 1960
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Adolf Busch (violon), Audrey Brain (cor). 1933

CD7
Quatuor à cordes no 1 en ut mineur op. 51 no 1
Quatuor Amadeus. 1959

Quatuor à cordes no 2 en la mineur op. 51 no 2
Quatuor de Hollywood. 1952

CD8
Quatuor à cordes no 3 en si bémol majeur op. 67
Quatuor de Budapest. 1933

Quintette pour piano et cordes en fa mineur op. 34
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Quatuor Busch. 1938

CD9
Quatuor pour piano et cordes no 1 en sol mineur op. 25
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Quatuor Busch. 1949
Arthur Rubinstein (piano), Quatuor Pro Arte. 1932

CD10
Quatuor pour piano et cordes no 2 en la majeur op. 26
Clifford Curzon (piano), Quatuor de Budapest. 1952

Quatuor pour piano et cordes no 3 en ut mineur op. 60
Arthur Rubinstein (piano), Quatuor Guarneri. 1967

CD11
Quintette à cordes no 1 en fa majeur op. 88
Quatuor de Budapest, Alfred Hobday (alto). 1937

Quintette à cordes no 2 en sol majeur op. 111
Quatuor de Budapest, Hans Mahlke (alto). 1932

BONUS
Sonate pour violon et piano no 3 en ré mineur op. 108
Joseph Szigeti (violon), Egon Petri (piano). 1935

CD12
Sextuor à cordes no 1 en si bémol majeur op. 18
Academy of St Martin-in-the-Fields Chamber Ensemble. 1992

Sextuor à cordes no 2 en sol majeur op. 36
Pina Carmirelli, Jon Toth (violons), Caroline Levine, Philipp Naegele (altos),
   Dorothy Reichenberger, Fortunato Arico (violoncelles). 1967

Quote from: Jo498 on February 05, 2017, 12:20:14 PM
Of course it is some stretch to claim that Rubinstein in 1965 played Brahms chamber music in a superior fashion only or mainly because he was old enough to have played with friends/pupils of Brahms in his youth. (If pressed, I'd just say that Rubinstein was very good in Brahms, whatever the reasons.)
But the Busch/Serkin recordings from the 1930s are historically quite close and all these musicians received their training before WW I, basically grew up with the old or recently deceased Brahms the most important instrumental/chamber composer still around and often studied with close friends or pupils of Brahms. So while there are also "oral" traditions and heritages claiming closeness to Liszt or Chopin, I'd say that Brahms we can be reasonably certain to have such a connection.

tbh the stuff in the box that is not Busch/Serkin/Rubinstein has probably no good claim to specific closeness to Brahms and his circle. As the link does not give the contents:

Johannes Brahms
Brahms musique de chambre

CD1
Sonate pour violon et piano no 1 en sol majeur op. 78
Josef Suk (violon), Josef Hala. 1956

Sonate pour violon et piano no 2 en la majeur op. 100
Adolf Busch (violon), Rudolf Serkin (piano). 1932

Sonate pour violon et piano no 3 en ré mineur op. 108
Gioconda De Vito (violon), Edwin Fischer (piano). 1954

Scherzo en ut mineur WoO 2 (de la Sonate "F.A.E."
Nathan Milstein (violon), Carlo Bussotti (piano). 1954

BONUS
Regenlied op. 59 no 3
Elisabeth Grümmer (soprano), Gerald Moore (piano). 1959

Wie Melodien zieht es mir
Immer leiser wird mein Schlummer
Lisa Della Casa (soprano), Karl Hudez (piano). 1952

Auf dem Kirchhofe
Lotte Lehmann (soprano), Paul Ulanowsky (piano). 1941

CD2
Sonate pour violoncelle et piano no 1 en mi mineur op. 38
Gregor Piatigorsky (violoncelle), Arthur Rubinstein (piano). 1936
Janos Starker (violoncelle), György Sebök (piano). 1959

Sonate pour violoncelle et piano no 2 en fa majeur op. 99
Janos Starker (violoncelle), György Sebök (piano). 1959

CD3
Sonate pour clarinette et piano no 1 en fa mineur op. 120 no 1
Sonate pour clarinette et piano no 2 en mi bémol majeur op. 120 no 2
Reginald Kell (clarinette), Mieczyslaw Horszowski (piano). 1949

Sonate pour alto et piano no 1 en fa mineur op. 120 no 1
William Primrose (alto), Jesus Maria Sanroma (piano). 1939
Sonate pour alto et piano no 2 en mi bémol majeur op. 120 no 2
William Primrose (alto), Rudolf Firkusny (piano). 1958

CD4
Quintette pour clarinette et cordes en si mineur op. 115
Leopod Wlach (clarinette), Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett. 1953

Trio pour clarinette, violoncelle et piano en la mineur op. 114
Reginald Kell (clarinette), Frank Miller (violoncelle), Mieczyslaw Horszowski
   (piano). 1950

CD5
Trio pour piano, violon et violoncelle no 1 en si majeur op. 8
Edwin Fischer (piano), Wolfgang Schneiderhan (violon), Enrico Mainardi
   (violoncelle). 1954

Trio pour piano, violon et violoncelle no 2 en ut majeur op. 87
Gary Graffman (piano), Berl Senofsky (violon), Shirley Trepel (violoncelle).
   1959

BONUS
Sonate pour violon et piano no 2 en la majeur op. 100
Szymon Goldberg (violon), Artur Balsam (piano). 1953

CD6
Trio pour piano, violon et violoncelle no 3 en ut mineur op. 101
Eugene Istomin (piano), Isaac Stern (violon), Leonard Rose (violoncelle). 1966

Trio pour piano, violon et cor en mi bémol majeur op. 40
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Michael Tree (violon), Myron Bloom (cor). 1960
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Adolf Busch (violon), Audrey Brain (cor). 1933

CD7
Quatuor à cordes no 1 en ut mineur op. 51 no 1
Quatuor Amadeus. 1959

Quatuor à cordes no 2 en la mineur op. 51 no 2
Quatuor de Hollywood. 1952

CD8
Quatuor à cordes no 3 en si bémol majeur op. 67
Quatuor de Budapest. 1933

Quintette pour piano et cordes en fa mineur op. 34
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Quatuor Busch. 1938

CD9
Quatuor pour piano et cordes no 1 en sol mineur op. 25
Rudolf Serkin (piano), Quatuor Busch. 1949
Arthur Rubinstein (piano), Quatuor Pro Arte. 1932

CD10
Quatuor pour piano et cordes no 2 en la majeur op. 26
Clifford Curzon (piano), Quatuor de Budapest. 1952

Quatuor pour piano et cordes no 3 en ut mineur op. 60
Arthur Rubinstein (piano), Quatuor Guarneri. 1967

CD11
Quintette à cordes no 1 en fa majeur op. 88
Quatuor de Budapest, Alfred Hobday (alto). 1937

Quintette à cordes no 2 en sol majeur op. 111
Quatuor de Budapest, Hans Mahlke (alto). 1932

BONUS
Sonate pour violon et piano no 3 en ré mineur op. 108
Joseph Szigeti (violon), Egon Petri (piano). 1935

CD12
Sextuor à cordes no 1 en si bémol majeur op. 18
Academy of St Martin-in-the-Fields Chamber Ensemble. 1992

Sextuor à cordes no 2 en sol majeur op. 36
Pina Carmirelli, Jon Toth (violons), Caroline Levine, Philipp Naegele (altos),
   Dorothy Reichenberger, Fortunato Arico (violoncelles). 1967

Thank you very much for the response and the information  :)

Quote from: Jo498 on February 05, 2017, 02:42:14 AM
Because I could not quite decide yet on the Naxos historicals and my Brahms chamber shelf is, while well stocked, not quite as crowded as some others and this is a save spacing box, I ordered the following. I already own recordings involving the Busch's and Rubinstein from the respective collections but I figured that at bargain price there were enough recordings left that are not easy to get separately and are supposedly very good. (I also sometimes think that Brahms, more than Beethoven or Mozart, is a composer where the older generations of musicians tend to have an edge over contemporary ones.)

[asin]B01B6904JA[/asin]

Please let us know how the transfers are when you set arrives?

I cannot guarantee that I find the time for comparisons but as already mentioned I have all the items involving Rubinstein or the Busches in the big Rubinstein and the A. Busch/Busch Qt. box respectively, so I could check if these sound better/different.

Quote from: Jo498 on February 05, 2017, 01:41:06 PM
I cannot guarantee that I find the time for comparisons but as already mentioned I have all the items involving Rubinstein or the Busches in the big Rubinstein and the A. Busch/Busch Qt. box respectively, so I could check if these sound better/different.

All I would need to know if if you hear a good amount of surface noise throughout. I hate overfiltered historical recordings.

you can listen to snippets at German amazon or jpc.de. In my impression there is some filtering but it is hard to tell from the snippets whether it is problematic. The simple point is, though, that it is to be doubted that there are easily available better transfers of e.g. pre-war Budapest Q opp.67, 88, 111, or the Fischer/Mainardi op.8 etc.

I received the box. As expected, it is quite minimalist - the booklet is French only with personal commentaries by the Diapason critics who apparently picked the recordings (unfortunately I do not really read enough French to get the finer points). Only the newest recordings (opp.60,101 and the sextets) are with kind permission from the original labels.
The others are "uncredited" except for transfers and remastering "Isabelle Davy, Circé" (a recording/mixing/mastering studio in Paris).
I have not yet done comparisons or headphone listening but the level of surface noise/filtering seems to be not uniform. The Busch/Serkin op.100 is much quieter than the early e minor cello sonata with Piatigorsky/Rubinstein.

So if someone is a completist one would want to get e.g. the violin sonatas complete with De Vito and Goldberg on Testament. And if wants the absolutely best transfers this set might not be the first choice. Of course it is questionable if one will find some of the recordings at all (e.g. the prewar Budapest opp. 67,88,111) and in a better transfer (for some stuff, e.g. Suk/Hala violin sonatas there are cheap downloads). And the set is the price of less than two Testament discs and about 3-4 Naxos discs.

(http://www.arkivmusic.com/graphics/covers/non-muze2/large/2215057.jpg)
Thanks to amw's recommendation, I've added this version to my favorites list of Op 51 No 1 String Quartet. It's hard to find any faults to the recent Artemis (hi-res), Ebene and Leipziger recordings of which I've been trying recently, too, but this middle-period Beethoven killer of a composition seems to thrlve at the hands of Belcea, maybe thanks to their serious approach to its "minor-key mood".
Piece of cake.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71+Oy0yv12L._SL500_.jpg)

Recently I listened to the Alban Berg set of the Brahms SQs and found the music (or sound) grating. I just got this set because sound samples online seemed easier on the ear. Listening to it now, on my stereo, I am not so sure. I don't know exactly why, but I have a hard time appreciating romantic chamber music. I usually comes off as too "in your face," too grating and hard on my ears. Weird because I love romantic concertos, symphonies and solo piano music and I don't get this affect with these genres at all. And for what it's worth, this is not a new issue for me and this music.

George,

Both ABQ and Budapest deliver intense performances.  If that is not your thing then please try the Alexander Quartet.  They are still interesting but more relaxed.

Quote from: DavidW on September 04, 2023, 06:50:09 AMGeorge,

Both ABQ and Budapest deliver intense performances.  If that is not your thing then please try the Alexander Quartet.  They are still interesting but more relaxed.

I haven't listened in ages, but the Quartetto Italiano can usually be depended on to find the lyrical side of music.

Quote from: DavidW on September 04, 2023, 06:50:09 AMGeorge,

Both ABQ and Budapest deliver intense performances.  If that is not your thing then please try the Alexander Quartet.  They are still interesting but more relaxed.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on September 04, 2023, 06:53:36 AMI haven't listened in ages, but the Quartetto Italiano can usually be depended on to find the lyrical side of music.

Thanks, guys. Will keep that in mind.

I was just reading about the Brahms quartets on a few different sites and it seems that they are not nearly regarded as much of his other chamber music. So now I am wondering if maybe I just don't like the music. I'll keep listening. The set I posted above has a number of other works I can try, like the clarinet quintets, the piano quintet and the string quintets - all works that seem to be highly regarded.   

These might be to your taste: 

Quote from: George on September 04, 2023, 07:11:05 AMThanks, guys. Will keep that in mind.

I was just reading about the Brahms quartets on a few different sites and it seems that they are not nearly regarded as much of his other chamber music. So now I am wondering if maybe I just don't like the music. I'll keep listening. The set I posted above has a number of other works I can try, like the clarinet quintets, the piano quintet and the string quintets - all works that seem to be highly regarded.   

Speaking only for myself, the string quartets are just as highly regarded as his other chamber music. :)

Most recently I listened to the Amadeus Quartet recordings and was mesmerized, particularly by the first two quartets.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on September 04, 2023, 07:20:48 AMSpeaking only for myself, the string quartets are just as highly regarded as his other chamber music. :)

Most recently I listened to the Amadeus Quartet recordings and was mesmerized, particularly by the first two quartets.

OK, thanks. I plan to revisit. I recall that Brahms symphony 4 took a number of listens for it to to click.

Quote from: George on September 04, 2023, 07:26:00 AMOK, thanks. I plan to revisit. I recall that Brahms symphony 4 took a number of listens for it to to click.

I have to confess it too me a bit more time to absorb the quartets, compared with the sextets. The quintets gave me the most difficulty, as I recall.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on September 04, 2023, 07:41:06 AMI have to confess it too me a bit more time to absorb the quartets, compared with the sextets. The quintets gave me the most difficulty, as I recall.

Yes the string quartets really challenged me.  I found the piano quartets to be the easiest because it had that richness that the piano concertos had... and Brahms has a real talent with the piano.

Quote from: George on September 03, 2023, 05:29:53 PMRecently I listened to the Alban Berg set of the Brahms SQs and found the music (or sound) grating.

ABQ Teldec or EMI? I ask because the former is much to be preferred and does the music more justice IMO.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51L1QW4uECL._UF500,500_QL80_.jpg)  (https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/512KHFAdkVL._UF500,500_QL80_.jpg)

I find the ABQ Teldec rather warm sounding. While it was never my own stance I can understand people finding the string quartets among the tougher pieces. Another nice sounding, not too intense recording is with the Vogler quartet (RCA, on 3 single discs with Schumann). A great early stereo (but some strident sounds on my oldish CD, maybe LPs or more recent CDs sound better) of op.51 is with the Janacek Qt. (Supraphon)

My favorite is the a minor qt and find it of about average accessibility among Brahms' chamber works.

The most accessible are probably the trio op.8, the piano quartets and violin sonatas, and maybe the clarinet works.

Quote from: Que on September 04, 2023, 09:17:05 AMABQ Teldec or EMI? I ask because the former is much to be preferred and does the music more justice IMO.

Hi Que. I have the Teldec.

A set that could be under the radar for many is this:

(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiODQwNDM5NC4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6OTAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE1MjQ0OTIwMjV9)

It includes the Clarinet Quintet but not the Piano Quintet. These performances are uniformly excellent in very good sound.

Quote from: Symphonic Addict on September 07, 2023, 06:03:41 PMA set that could be under the radar for many is this:

(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiODQwNDM5NC4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6OTAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE1MjQ0OTIwMjV9)

It includes the Clarinet Quintet but not the Piano Quintet. These performances are uniformly excellent in very good sound.

I have most (maybe all) of the original releases of those recordings and I agree that they are very well done.

Where's the chair for the sixth player?