GMG Classical Music Forum

String quartets have been on my mind lately, since hearing last week's Bartok marathon at Ravinia.

A couple of caveats to the question:

1. Even though most of Shostakovich's quartets are post-1950, I am not including him, because I think he would run away with this poll. So feel free to interpret this as "second-best cycle" if you like.

2. Definition of "cycle": at least 3 completed works. This rules out some notable quartets, such as Lutoslawski's one-and-only, and the 2 by Ligeti.

Other: Ferneyhough. 6 numbered quartets so far I think, each highly individual and very expressive to me. And the Sonatas for String Quartet are excellent too!

Another composer to be mentioned is Heitor Villa-Lobos.  He wrote 6 from 1950 till his death.

I am very partial to Bloch's quartets, mainly from the early '50's. I also like Malipiero's, but IIRC they are mainly from the '40's with a gap from 1950 for #7 to 1964 for #8, so they don't qualify.

Bloch, then. :)

8)

I'd guess Ferneyhough off the top of my head. Carter would probably fit nicely in the top 3-5 though. Lachenmann has perhaps said the most with the least allowable number of quartets (3).

Ferneyhough, Dillon or Lachenmann I guess. Or Radulescu pending future releases in the Mode series

Of those named I have actually only heard Carter.
But Tippett's cycle certainly should be in the running.

There's also Holmboe, although the first two or three were composed before the date limit.

Of those I know, Carter blows them all away. Even above Shosty, IMHO.

I'm certainly learning a lot from these responses. Maybe I should check out Ferneyhough next?

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 14, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
Of those I know, Carter blows them all away. Even above Shosty, IMHO.

I've been exploring the Carter cycle in detail over the last several months, and I may agree with you on this. Although DSCH has the edge on sheer variety, with 15 very different 4tets to choose from - a DSCH 4tet for every mood or occasion!

First choice: Carter. Second: Lachenmann. Don't know some of these other interesting choices, like Bloch and Ferneyhough, though I know other works by them.

--Bruce

I don't know if she's be my top choice, but I want to give a shout out to Gloria Coates.

Quote from: Thatfabulousalien on September 14, 2016, 08:11:44 PM
Would Xenakis count? Since they're not numerically named

...if he composed, post 1950, three or more works for any combination of the four instruments from the Viol family (Vn, Va, Vc, Vbass), then, yeah :-)

Quote from: sanantonio on September 14, 2016, 03:49:53 PM
For me, Krzysztof Meyer.

+1- I also like Bloch.

A few people have mentioned some other great quartet cycles that I admire so much and would definitely add to my initial vote for Ferneyhough:
Lachenmann
Coates
Haas
Carter

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 14, 2016, 08:38:39 PM
...if he composed, post 1950, three or more works for any combination of the four instruments from the Viol family (Vn, Va, Vc, Vbass), then, yeah :-)

I think you mean the violin family, though, not viol family - this isn't about gamba quartets, as far as I know.  8)


I'd pick Carter, Ferneyhough, Schnittke, and Xenakis (in that order), but I'm not all that familiar with post-'50 SQ cycles.

Quote from: North Star on September 15, 2016, 02:24:56 AM
I think you mean the violin family, though, not viol family - this isn't about gamba quartets, as far as I know.  8)

(http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/jpegs/composers/paul-hindemith.jpg)

Quote from: North Star on September 15, 2016, 02:24:56 AM
violin family

(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/24/11024-004-E4A848DD.jpg)
TRIGGERED

Considering the etymology first: i think it really should be called the 'viola family' not the violin family. In the Italian the word for 'violin' referred to a small viola!  :P :P :P :P :P :P

Quote from: jessop on September 15, 2016, 02:52:38 AM
TRIGGERED

Considering the etymology first: i think it really should be called the 'viola family' not the violin family. In the Italian the word for 'violin' referred to a small viola!  :P :P :P :P :P :P

Ha! Hindemith is not amused?  8) Yes, etymologically violin is derived from viola. But since viola has been used to refer to instruments of both families (viola da gamba), it's sensible to call the violin family just that (and, face it, Paul - the violin is more popular :P )

Just to add some more amazing cycles not yet mentioned:

Scelsi

Gubaidulina

Sciarrino

Anyway my top choice would probably be Carter

Quote from: North Star on September 15, 2016, 03:21:39 AM
Ha! Hindemith is not amused?  8) Yes, etymologically violin is derived from viola. But since viola has been used to refer to instruments of both families (viola da gamba), it's sensible to call the violin family just that (and, face it, Paul - the violin is more popular :P )

'smol viola family' :P

(Disclaimer: as a former student, I am clearly an interested party.)

While I don't know that I would propose them for The Best (although, again, this remains rather a squishy pursuit), I find all four of Wuorinen's quartets excellent.

(So, for fun, I have voted Someone Else.)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 15, 2016, 05:07:09 AM
(Disclaimer: as a former student, I am clearly an interested party.)

While I don't know that I would propose them for The Best (although, again, this remains rather a squishy pursuit), I find all four of Wuorinen's quartets excellent.

Your disclaimer honors you, Karl, but I am definitely not a former student, and also consider Wuorinen an excellent composer (must explore his SQs, though).

Quote from: GioCar on September 15, 2016, 03:26:51 AM
Just to add some more amazing cycles not yet mentioned:

Scelsi

Gubaidulina

Sciarrino

Anyway my top choice would probably be Carter

I had thought about Sciarrino but I can't decide if he has 8 quartets or 3 quartets. Yes, 3 is allowed, but 8 is a much cooler number.

While we're mentioning things even if they aren't our top choices, I haven't seen anyone mention Dusapin yet.

Quote from: nathanb on September 15, 2016, 11:57:45 AM
I had thought about Sciarrino but I can't decide if he has 8 quartets or 3 quartets. Yes, 3 is allowed, but 8 is a much cooler number.

While we're mentioning things even if they aren't our top choices, I haven't seen anyone mention Dusapin yet.

I like Dusapin based on the few works that I've heard. I haven't listened to his string quartets yet! Something I'll have to investigate :)

I've spent some time listening to the perhaps musically conservative and therefore unfashionable Simpson cycle, and I'm now really convinced that it is excellent. It is gritty and doesn't reveal its riches very quickly, but the power of something like the 7th Quartet could march just about anyone. The 5th, 8th and 9th quartets are also awesome.

Among more conservative composers I suspect Simpson and Holmboe have the most significant cycles.

For the record I'm also a dan of Elliott Carter (particularly for some reason the odd numbered quartets), and was recently quite impressed by a couple of the Ferneyhough quartets. Simpson's musical language is obviously far more conservative, but probably not easier in some ways. Like the other two it has a complexity of structure that can be a little daunting (the 9th quartet is an hour long set of 32 palindromic variations plus fugue on a palindromic theme by Haydn). I mean I think all three of these composers are similar in putting structure and complexity in the foreground rather than emotion/humanity - but that doesn't mean they are unemotional when you spend time wit them. That is a contrast with someone like Shosty or even Schnittke (both of whom I also love), who let it all hang out, so to speak.

Whether I want atonal or not, obviously emotional or not, depends what mood I'm in. Perhaps that makes me weird - hey, ho.

Quote from: Androcles on September 17, 2016, 12:55:56 PM
I've spent some rime listening to the perhaps musically conservative and therefore unfashionable Simpson cycle, and I'm now really convinced that it is excellent. It is gritty and doesn't reveal its riches very quickly, but the power of something like the 7th Quartet could march just about anyone. The 5th, 8th and 9th quartets are also awesome.

I liked Simpson's symphonies more than his quartets initially, but I like his quartets more as time goes on. I started with the disc of 10/11 and didn't much like it, but the 9th is an awesome achievement, and the two "Razumovsky" rewrites that I know (nos. 4 and 6) are excellent too. Don't know the later quartets at all.

Although I am grateful to Hyperion for recording him, I think his work would really benefit from multiple and competing recordings. Some of the Hyperion recordings sound rather tentative to me.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on September 17, 2016, 01:46:44 PM
I liked Simpson's symphonies more than his quartets initially, but I like his quartets more as time goes on. I started with the disc of 10/11 and didn't much like it, but the 9th is an awesome achievement, and the two "Razumovsky" rewrites that I know (nos. 4 and 6) are excellent too. Don't know the later quartets at all.

Although I am grateful to Hyperion for recording him, I think his work would really benefit from multiple and competing recordings. Some of the Hyperion recordings sound rather tentative to me.

Yes - I think I can second that. I quite like at least some of the Simpson symphonies, but on closer acquaintance with the Quartets I think they are the more impressive works. Their appeal is less obvious - they are not as big and noisy - but I'm not sure they are less powerful. Simpson's symphonies for me stand alongside Brian, Rubbra, and Bax as music thats worth hearing and rewarding, often powerful and dramatic, with a  personal voice, but ultimately not quite premier league. Simpson's Quartets are, by contrast, some of the best written in the 20th century (I think). You are right that they need more and potentially better recordings.

About the later Quartets - the 10th and 11th improve on (many) repeated hearings. The 10th in particular is an example of the quieter more conciliatory, at times somewhat ecstatic music you find in works like the 11th Symphony (which in my view is his best) and the late Flute and Cello Concertos. The 12th is probably the best of the bunch, the first movement is slow moving and extremely intense. The last three are rugged powerhouses that at times remind me of heavy metal... They are certainly worth hearing. The 13th and 14th in particular have quiet 'ecstatic' sections which contrast well with their otherwise rugged, contrapuntal natures. 

Get hold of the 5th Quartet. Its better than the 4th and 6th, although those aren't exactly pedestrian... The two Quintets are well worth a look at, too.

Quote from: Androcles on September 17, 2016, 02:46:17 PM

About the later Quartets - the 10th and 11th improve on (many) repeated hearings. The 10th in particular is an example of the quieter more conciliatory, at times somewhat ecstatic music you find in works like the 11th Symphony (which in my view is his best) and the late Flute and Cello Concertos. The 12th is probably the best of the bunch, the first movement is slow moving and extremely intense. The last three are rugged powerhouses that at times remind me of heavy metal... They are certainly worth hearing. The 13th and 14th in particular have quiet 'ecstatic' sections which contrast well with their otherwise rugged, contrapuntal natures. 

Thanks for this overview. I don't know the quartets past #11 at all. Do you mean to say that #12 is the best of the later quartets, or the best of all the quartets?

Also, I dig "heavy metal" sounding quartets in general, so maybe I should check out these later ones just for that reason.

I think R. Murray Schafer has written quite a lot of String Quartets too. Has anyone got any opinions?

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on September 17, 2016, 02:54:08 PM
Thanks for this overview. I don't know the quartets past #11 at all. Do you mean to say that #12 is the best of the later quartets, or the best of all the quartets?

Also, I dig "heavy metal" sounding quartets in general, so maybe I should check out these later ones just for that reason.

Sorry - writing too quickly :-) - I mean the 12th is the best of the later ones. It also comes with the first String Quintet which is very impressive - in one massive 35 minute movement - and seems to me to be musically related to the Symphony No. 9. It was certainly written at about the same time as that work. Of the Quartets, I personally think No. 7 is the best of all. Its also one of the shorter ones. The disc with 7 and 8 would be my major recommendation overall. Although for rugged, 'heavy metal' sounds, the disc with 14 and 15 would be a pretty good place to go.

Quote from: Androcles on September 17, 2016, 02:57:41 PM
I think R. Murray Schafer has written quite a lot of String Quartets too. Has anyone got any opinions?

Are they anything like Epitaph for Moonlight? 8)

Carter's deserve first rank, I believe, but think I will instead, at least provisionally, put forth Daniel Jones' series of eight, not merely because I like them very much but because his work deserves to be heard as something quite singular, intricate and meticulous (NB : his first was written in 1946, close enough not to disqualify him, I trust, but the others much later, 2nd in 1957 and the last in 1993).

[asin]B000000B11[/asin]

Holmboe for me of course, though I freely confess to knowing very little of post-1950s chamber music besides him, Shostakovich and Vine. This thread could prove a fruitful source of inquiry!

Vine's 3rd string quartet is particularly good by the way.

Well, the Holmboe cycle is mighty strong.

Quote from: ørfeø on September 17, 2016, 05:19:33 PM
Holmboe for me of course, though I freely confess to knowing very little of post-1950s chamber music besides him, Shostakovich and Vine. This thread could prove a fruitful source of inquiry!

Vine's 3rd string quartet is particularly good by the way.

Well if you like Holmboe, you should definitely try Simpson. Musically they have a lot in common. Holmboe was himself one of the founding members of the Robert Simpson Society.Personally I think Holmboe's symphonies are marginally better, but Simpson's Quartets are marginally better. That might be just personal taste - Simpson seems perhaps more autumnal than Holmboe. Both composers are 'conservative', but not easy going. With Simpson, start with 7th and 8th Quartets... :-)

I voted for Carter (obviously) but would also like to mention the Sallinen string quartets which no one has mentioned yet. 

Quote from: Androcles on September 18, 2016, 11:35:59 AM
Well if you like Holmboe, you should definitely try Simpson. Musically they have a lot in common. Holmboe was himself one of the founding members of the Robert Simpson Society.Personally I think Holmboe's symphonies are marginally better, but Simpson's Quartets are marginally better. That might be just personal taste - Simpson seems perhaps more autumnal than Holmboe. Both composers are 'conservative', but not easy going. With Simpson, start with 7th and 8th Quartets... :-)

Simpson's chamber music is on the to do list. I have his symphonies, but as performed on Hyperion they are lacking something for me.

Quote from: Ghost Sonata on September 17, 2016, 03:29:25 PM
Carter's deserve first rank, I believe, but think I will instead, at least provisionally, put forth Daniel Jones' series of eight, not merely because I like them very much but because his work deserves to be heard as something quite singular, intricate and meticulous (NB : his first was written in 1946, close enough not to disqualify him, I trust, but the others much later, 2nd in 1957 and the last in 1993).

[asin]B000000B11[/asin]

Very interesting. I am tempted to investigate. On the subject of fine Welsh music, I see Alun Hoddinott also wrote five string quartets, so potentially could count, but I have to confess I have never heard any of them.

Quote from: ørfeø on September 18, 2016, 01:09:28 PM
Simpson's chamber music is on the to do list. I have his symphonies, but as performed on Hyperion they are lacking something for me.

Yes - I have mixed feelings about the Simpson symphonies. For raw power, nothing really matches the 5th and 8th Symphonies. But to me the orchestration seems a bit unconvincing, and at times they're just a bit too noisy. The 9th and 10th are large pieces that have a sort of massive architectural appeal, but I don't like the Scherzo section of Symphony No. 9 and the second two movements of Symphony No. 10 are more interesting than the first two. 7 is better than 6, but a bit lacking in melodic interest. Of the earlier symphonies 1 and 2 sound a bit derivative to me and 3 and 4 feel like a composer starting to get a symphonic voice. The only unqualified masterpiece for me here is Symphony No. 11, which is a fantastic work worthy to stand alongside other greats of the Nordic symphonic tradition. Although it may be that they need more recordings and interpretation to plumb their depths.

The Quartets are harder to get into, but ultimately better (in my opinion). Its a pity that they're starting to get deleted.

Another vote for Bloch 2-5. i really wish a group like the Pacifica would do these.

I'd also recommend David Post's very enjoyable quartets.

Does György Kurtág count, or does it have to say "String Quartet No. n"?  If so, then maybe James Dillon.

I was just going to say Kurtág when you posted, Gaspard. I've enjoyed his works for string quartet above many other contenders mentioned above. Gubaidulina, Elizabeth Maconchy whose 6th quartet was written in 1950 and her 13th in 1984 and Grazyna Bacewicz whose quartets 4 - 7 are post 1950 are also interesting. Carter I'm less sure I enjoy (or make aural sense of). Schnittke's and Ferneyhough's string quartets I like a lot. Of Haas and Rihm, Dillon, Coates, Philippe Manoury and Simpson, I enjoy what I've heard, which is by no means everything, especially of Robert Simpson. Yet!

Quote from: Turbot nouveaux on November 09, 2016, 06:26:26 AM
I was just going to say Kurtág when you posted, Gaspard. I've enjoyed his works for string quartet above many other contenders mentioned above. Gubaidulina, Elizabeth Maconchy whose 6th quartet was written in 1950 and her 13th in 1984 and Grazyna Bacewicz whose quartets 4 - 7 are post 1950 are also interesting. Carter I'm less sure I enjoy (or make aural sense of). Schnittke's and Ferneyhough's string quartets I like a lot. Of Haas and Rihm, Dillon, Coates, Philippe Manoury and Simpson, I enjoy what I've heard, which is by no means everything, especially of Robert Simpson. Yet!

Bacewicz is incredible! I didn't think she would count since half her cycle is outside of the time frame but but she is definitely a favorite SQ composer of mine. And I love all that Gubaidulina does. Haas and Rihm are other good choices as well.

I like Carters first quartet a lot but the others just don't do it for me either.
I'll have to give Ferneyhough another try though and check out Maconchy while I'm at it.

Quote from: sanantonio on November 20, 2016, 11:47:14 AM
The same could be said of pre-1950 cycles.  But, taking you at your word, which works?

Pre-1950. Bartók's cycle is great. Nothing post-1950 comes close as a cycle to that, in fact in the entire history of western composition, few touch them  .. don't care what anyone says otherwise. Then you have major contenders like Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Shostakovich, Ravel, Janáček .. all wrote great music for the medium. Truly great. Post-1950 ..

Both of Ligeti's are truly wonderful.

Other than that what we get is uneven cycles, so perhaps a work from Ferneyhough, Dillon, Lachenmann, Dutilleux, Rihm, Nancarrow, Carter and some others.

Quote from: sanantonio on November 20, 2016, 12:30:44 PM
Schoenberg's 4 are uneven, both stylistically and artistically.

I disagree.  Any of them is far better than any of Shostakovich's, and I'd place them on par with Bartok's, easily, fit to stand comparison with the Beethoven and Haydn and Mozart cycles.  They're no more stylistically uneven than the Bartok or Beethoven quartets are.

Not to say that I agree with James, either, though; Carter's cycle is certainly excellent.

I also like Carter quartets.  As individual piece, my preference goes to "Ainsi va la nuit", Henri Dutilleux (1977).  It captures quite nicely some of the sensations I have at night.

sanantonio, the artists I mentioned, I was referring to great quartets ... not necessarily cycles. The artists mentioned wrote at least 1 bonafide masterpiece for the medium - often far surpassing the vast majority of post-1950 attempts thus far. I was only referring to the Bartok as a complete, truly great cycle. Carter's cycle (or music overall) in no way, shape or form comes close to Bartok. Most would agree.

Quote from: Spineur on November 20, 2016, 12:39:39 PM
I also like Carter quartets.  As individual piece, my preference goes to "Ainsi va la nuit", Henri Dutilleux (1977).  It captures quite nicely some of the sensations I have at night.

Another vote for the Carter quartets here...A formidable cycle! I must get to know the Dutilleux better, though.

And I urge anyone interested in late 20th century SQs to explore those of Cristóbal Halffter (7 out of the 8 have been recorded)...a very intersting and consistent cycle..

Quote from: ritter on November 20, 2016, 12:44:49 PMI must get to know the Dutilleux better, though.

A great one, certainly more musical anything Carter did.

Quote from: James on November 20, 2016, 12:25:39 PM
Let's just say when it comes to certain things I have an unwavering position.

Lol so basically you're knowingly stubborn ;D

Quote from: James on November 20, 2016, 12:48:52 PM
A great one, certainly more musical anything Carter did.

I agree that it's a great one, but just very musically different to Carter. I think you just don't like Carter as much. :P

Quote from: James on November 20, 2016, 11:12:08 AM
If the already existing SQs of a yet to be determined end of a cycle aren't that good, any newly created SQs won't change that.

As Dorothy Parker once said in an entirely different context, "how can they [or rather you in this instance] tell?

Quote from: Androcles on September 18, 2016, 02:40:13 PM
Yes - I have mixed feelings about the Simpson symphonies. For raw power, nothing really matches the 5th and 8th Symphonies. But to me the orchestration seems a bit unconvincing, and at times they're just a bit too noisy. The 9th and 10th are large pieces that have a sort of massive architectural appeal, but I don't like the Scherzo section of Symphony No. 9 and the second two movements of Symphony No. 10 are more interesting than the first two. 7 is better than 6, but a bit lacking in melodic interest. Of the earlier symphonies 1 and 2 sound a bit derivative to me and 3 and 4 feel like a composer starting to get a symphonic voice. The only unqualified masterpiece for me here is Symphony No. 11, which is a fantastic work worthy to stand alongside other greats of the Nordic symphonic tradition. Although it may be that they need more recordings and interpretation to plumb their depths.

The Quartets are harder to get into, but ultimately better (in my opinion). Its a pity that they're starting to get deleted.

I find them a mixed bag too, but I think 9 is one of the greatest symphonies. I agree about 10.

For this thread I have only heard the Carter cycle complete of those listed, but also nearly all the Simpson. I prefer Simpson but Carter is going to run away with this poll.

Incidentally I protest the definition. If we allow Shostakovich then he is my choice, by a mile.

Shostakovich gets my vote. Quite simply one of the most astonishing achievements of chamber music in the 20th Century IMHO.

Quote from: Johnnie Burgess on September 14, 2016, 02:43:14 PM
Another composer to be mentioned is Heitor Villa-Lobos.  He wrote 6 from 1950 till his death.

I was going to ask about that, I don't know when they were all composed but they're a fine set of quartets. There are some good ones by Glass and Nyman too.

Quote from: James on November 20, 2016, 10:16:57 AM
There is no great post-1950 cycle. Only isolated works .. so this thread is a non-starter.

I think you can see Lachenmann's three as a cycle, as charting a movement towards consonance and melody. Anyway, what I really want to say is that whether some music is cyclical depends partly on the imagination  of the listener, whether the listener can construct a convincing narrative which makes the pieces of music sound in some meaningful  way interrelated. I can do that for the four Brahms symphonies, for example ( a narrative based on the form of a romantic symphony) but not for the nine Beethoven symphonies.

Quote from: sanantonio on November 20, 2016, 02:16:37 PMI don't know if most would agree with you.  I also don't know what criteria would be used to make a comparison of Bartok quartets and Carter's.  I consider both cycles great.

Most would agree, believe me. Carter's SQs don't say much to anyone. Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Shostakovich, Ravel etc. say a lot more and are far more successful.

Carter's dry formal and technical experiments certainly aren't 'great' .. with the 1st quartet, he takes 40 minutes to find his voice. In the 2nd he continues on what he established in the Cello Sonata, instruments oppose each other, the musical effect is, well not that musical. 12 years later we get the strenuous & technical 3rd .. he splits the ensemble into 2 contrasting duos this time, running against each other, like 2 pieces of different music playing simultaneously from beginning to end .. the result of which isn't that musical or great. The 4th & 5th continue along the lines of what they first 3 did  .. but with less than memorable results, they don't say much. As a cycle (and as a composer) nowhere near Bartok (the century's great cycle, his greatest achievement in fact).

Quote from: ahinton on November 22, 2016, 07:26:39 AM
Now can we get back to discussing the thread topic, please?!

Do you know the Wuorinen quartets?

Quote from: sanantonio on November 22, 2016, 07:35:05 AM
Have those been collected in one place?  There're 3, right?

In one place, I do not think so.  Four quartets as yet (and two piano quintets).

Philip Glass.


(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-s9YbGLz4M/TpS4FWsYp6I/AAAAAAAABHw/UF51Tpol0BM/s1600/kronos.jpg)

#2 up on this one....so no true cycle.  But the cycle is out there by The Smith Quartet.

Quote from: sanantonio on November 22, 2016, 07:44:50 AM
I found the 3rd here:

(http://www.arkivmusic.com/graphics/covers/full/05/53362.jpg)

and 1 and 2 are on Naxos. 

And yes, I had forgotten about this recording of the 4th - which I even have:

(http://www.charleswuorinen.com/site/assets/files/3099/3099-cover.200x200.jpg)

Winning!

It should also be noted that there are no oddly shaped pearls in baroque music.

Has anyone yet mentioned Henze's five (of which only the first is pre-1950)? Or Krzysztof Meyer (13 to date)? Or Dusapin (7)?

If we consider just UK composers, what about David Matthews, who has to date contributed 13 quartets to the repertoire or his brother Colin who has five? Or Goehr (4), Maxwell Davies (11), Harvey (4), McCabe (7), Ferneyhough (7 pus other works for quartet), Dillon (7)...

In no particular order: Meyer, Jones, Schafer, Carter, Glass.

Straddling the 1950 divide: Tippett, Milhaud, Rosenberg.

Rautavaara (4), Gorecki (3) and Riley (12+) have written around 20 between them.

The Glass set by Kronos (2 - 5) is solid. He has written No. 6 and No. 7, but they remain unrecorded.

There's also Myaskovsky's large set (13) written in the years leading up to 1950.

Back to discussion of post-1950 quartet cycles. Keep it on topic, folks, and civil. Thank you.

--Bruce

Quote from: ahinton on November 22, 2016, 08:06:13 AM
Has anyone yet mentioned Henze's five (of which only the first is pre-1950)? Or Krzysztof Meyer (13 to date)? Or Dusapin (7)?

If we consider just UK composers, what about David Matthews, who has to date contributed 13 quartets to the repertoire or his brother Colin who has five? Or Goehr (4), Maxwell Davies (11), Harvey (4), McCabe (7), Ferneyhough (7 pus other works for quartet), Dillon (7)...

If nothing else, this thread is an excellent reminder of how many post-1950 quartets I haven't heard. Need to fix. (I love Jonathan Harvey, but don't think I've ever heard any of his.) And just saw sanantonio's post above -- another composer new to me.

Want to add Toshio Hosokawa to the list, even though I might not pick it as "#1" (I chose Carter). This superb recording by Quatuor Diotima has all of his quartets to date.

[asin]B00AGMT76U[/asin]

--Bruce

Well I listened to Rosenberg 12. I liked it well enough, but I can't say it overwhelmed me either. When were Miaskovsky's last quartets written? They are splendid.

Quote from: ahinton on November 22, 2016, 08:06:13 AM
Has anyone yet mentioned Henze's five (of which only the first is pre-1950)? Or Krzysztof Meyer (13 to date)? Or Dusapin (7)?

I have a couple of Dusapin quartets.  He is good at creating motion and leaves also an appealing sense of mystery.  But as I mentionned in the "listen-to" thread, this piece of Wolfgang Rihm 'Et Lux' for Vocal ensemble and string quartet, wins the show as far as I am concerned
[asin]B00TTUOALC[/asin]

Quote from: North Star on September 15, 2016, 02:24:56 AM
I think you mean the violin family, though, not viol family - this isn't about gamba quartets, as far as I know.  8)


I'd pick Carter, Ferneyhough, Schnittke, and Xenakis (in that order), but I'm not all that familiar with post-'50 SQ cycles.

violin
viola
violincello

Violin / Viol Family, yeah.  I was being, uh, familial.


Best regards

Quote from: Brewski on November 22, 2016, 11:17:54 AM
If nothing else, this thread is an excellent reminder of how many post-1950 quartets I haven't heard. Need to fix. (I love Jonathan Harvey, but don't think I've ever heard any of his.) And just saw sanantonio's post above -- another composer new to me.

Want to add Toshio Hosokawa to the list, even though I might not pick it as "#1" (I chose Carter). This superb recording by Quatuor Diotima has all of his quartets to date.

[asin]B00AGMT76U[/asin]

--Bruce

Toshio Hosokawa writes brilliantly for strings, I find. I think there are also a number of works with an additional instrument added to the usual quartet ensemble which I like very much but probably won't qualify for this thread.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 22, 2016, 12:56:08 PM
violin
viola
violincello

Violin / Viol Family, yeah.  I was being, uh, familial.


Best regards

Should it not be called the 'viola' family? 'Violino,' of course, uses a diminutive suffix meaning that it is really a 'small viola' 8)

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 22, 2016, 12:56:08 PM
violin
viola
violincello

Violin / Viol Family, yeah.  I was being, uh, familial.


Best regards

The viol family is distinct from viola family. The instruments of the Viol family are generally tuned with strings separated by a 4th (like a lute or guitar), compared with the Viola family where they are separated by a 5th. There are other differences in the construction of the instruments.  As was mentioned above, the viola da gamba is a viol. In the modern orchestra, only the contrabass is a viol.

Quote from: jessop on November 22, 2016, 03:08:27 PM
Toshio Hosokawa writes brilliantly for strings, I find. I think there are also a number of works with an additional instrument added to the usual quartet ensemble which I like very much but probably won't qualify for this thread.

I own his Landscape I on a disc from the Lotus Quartet and have to agree that Hosokawa has a wonderful imagination for timbre.  I forget which one of the works uses shou (Landscape II maybe?) but anything with shou appeals to me, that work included.  It's a beautiful instrument.

Quote from: Mahlerian on November 22, 2016, 03:38:46 PM
I own his Landscape I on a disc from the Lotus Quartet and have to agree that Hosokawa has a wonderful imagination for timbre.  I forget which one of the works uses shou (Landscape II maybe?) but anything with shou appeals to me, that work included.  It's a beautiful instrument.

Landscape V, according to a recording made by the arditti quartet. That one is my favourite.

Resurrecting this thread in hopes to find more great compositions, and not derail it further.

In my order of preference:
Carter
Lachenmann
Ferneyhough

In fact Carter's quartets are some of my favorite compositions of all time. There is a huge gap between Carter and Lachenmann in my preference. Lachenmann's quartets are very interesting, but I find them too repetitive in their use of gestures, if you could call them that. Same could be said of Ferneyhough's music. Of course, I am glad that both Lachenmann and Ferneyhough's compositions exist.

I freely admit that I'm not familiar with a lot of SQ cycles past 1950, but one cycle that I've been quite impressed with has been Vasks'. The Wergo recordings are excellent.

Quote from: André on November 22, 2016, 08:16:40 AM
In no particular order: Meyer, Jones, Schafer, Carter, Glass.

Straddling the 1950 divide: Tippett, Milhaud, Rosenberg.

Strongly supportive of Meyer and Rosenberg here.

I don't know many post-1950 SQs besides those of Shostakovich, but the three of Aaron Jay Kernis have greatly impressed me. They're the perfect blend of individuality and accessibility.

Quote from: kyjo on January 04, 2018, 07:58:42 AM
I don't know many post-1950 SQs besides those of Shostakovich, but the three of Aaron Jay Kernis have greatly impressed me. They're the perfect blend of individuality and accessibility.

You should check out Vasks' SQs, Kyle.

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 04, 2018, 08:06:19 AM
You should check out Vasks' SQs, Kyle.

Indeed I should!

Some other recent quartets that have impressed me are those by Carl Vine and Leon Kirchner.

Quote from: kyjo on January 04, 2018, 08:14:28 AM
Indeed I should!

Some other recent quartets that have impressed me are those by Carl Vine and Leon Kirchner.

Ah yes, I forgot about Vine and since we're talking about Aussies, Sculthorpe's are quite good, too.

I think Rădulescu gets my vote overall at this point.... though I don't know all of his quartets (and nor does anyone else). Ole-Henrik Moe, Ferneyhough, Xenakis, Kurtág, Lachenmann are second place contenders, and in third place I'd put Dillon, Carter, Sciarrino, Shostakovich or Johnston. But imo Rădulescu expanded the possibilities of the string quartet medium in ways that few others really tried to (Moe and Lachenmann come closest) and with results I find musically very compelling.

Quote from: kyjo on January 04, 2018, 07:58:42 AM
I don't know many post-1950 SQs besides those of Shostakovich, but the three of Aaron Jay Kernis have greatly impressed me. They're the perfect blend of individuality and accessibility.

+ 1

I didn't realise there was a third Kernis quartet—I'm only familiar with the two the Jasper Quartet has recorded. Very much "guilty pleasure" music but I also like eating ice cream straight from the container >.>

Quote from: amw on January 04, 2018, 07:18:38 PM
I didn't realise there was a third Kernis quartet—I'm only familiar with the two the Jasper Quartet has recorded.

It hasn't been commercially recorded yet - I heard the Jasper Quartet perform it live.

Quote from: amw on January 04, 2018, 07:04:27 PM
I think Rădulescu gets my vote overall at this point.... though I don't know all of his quartets (and nor does anyone else). Ole-Henrik Moe, Ferneyhough, Xenakis, Kurtág, Lachenmann are second place contenders, and in third place I'd put Dillon, Carter, Sciarrino, Shostakovich or Johnston. But imo Rădulescu expanded the possibilities of the string quartet medium in ways that few others really tried to (Moe and Lachenmann come closest) and with results I find musically very compelling.

Which Radulescu SQ is your favorite?

No.4, which also has a long and pretentious subtitle (as do all of his compositions). Nos.5 and 3 close behind.

Quote from: amw on January 04, 2018, 07:04:27 PM
Ole-Henrik Moe,

I looked up this guy out of curiosity. He is so obscure that his Wikipedia page is in Norwegian only, and he frequently gets confused in search results with Ole Henrik Moe, a pianist who lacks the other Moe's hyphen. He sounds like the equivalent of one of those indie bands that are cool as long as nobody actually knows about them.

His music has been featured at the Donaueschinger Musiktage, Wittener Tage für Neue Kammermusik, etc, and three works for string quartet recorded by the Ardittis on Aurora. He also improvises/performs noise music as well as classical stuff. It's true that he's not well known outside of Norway, but that's a mistake imo. (Also like.... lots of other composers mentioned in this thread are totally obscure outside their country of origin: doubt many people outside Wales are familiar with Daniel Jones for instance.)

Sallinen's 5 quartets take just over 70 minutes and fit on a sigle disc. Let not that be counted a weakness, though, they are all superb.

Quote from: André on January 05, 2018, 04:03:32 PM
Sallinen's 5 quartets take just over 70 minutes and fit on a sigle disc. Let not that be counted a weakness, though, they are all superb.

That's a superb set indeed!

Quote from: André on January 05, 2018, 04:03:32 PM
Sallinen's 5 quartets take just over 70 minutes and fit on a sigle disc. Let not that be counted a weakness, though, they are all superb.

Damn you! I am trying to buy nothing!

;)

I have his symphonies and some chamber works and a bit of choral too. Now I am sorely tempted...

Dusapin, perhaps?

I have one, coupled with Dutilleux, and actually prefer it to his older colleague's. He wrote others since.

Quote from: André on January 16, 2018, 03:14:55 PM
I have one, coupled with Dutilleux, and actually prefer it to his older colleague's. He wrote others since.

Yes, and a recent Gramophone win heralds his cycle's importance as among the best of the past 50 years.

I knew Carter would get the general vote, but I just had to put in one for Rihm... As other members, I too was surprised to not see Ferneyhough, Scelsi, Dusapin and Harvey on the list.

Mieczyslaw Weinberg (11 of his 17 are post-1950)

Sarge

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 04, 2018, 04:42:43 AM
Mieczyslaw Weinberg (11 of his 17 are post-1950)

Sarge

Strong candidate, indeed.

Quote from: amw on January 04, 2018, 07:04:27 PM
I think Rădulescu gets my vote overall at this point....

Just got suckered into listening to Radulescu 5 because Naxos Music Library said it was only 5:20 in length and I was like "Cool! That fits right in with amw's comment about how he breaks the mold of the traditional quartet!" And then like 12 minutes later I was like "hey wait a minute"

Quote from: Brian on October 12, 2018, 06:38:42 AM
Just got suckered into listening to Radulescu 5 because Naxos Music Library said it was only 5:20 in length and I was like "Cool! That fits right in with amw's comment about how he breaks the mold of the traditional quartet!" And then like 12 minutes later I was like "hey wait a minute"

Ha!

Quote from: Brian on October 12, 2018, 06:38:42 AM
Just got suckered into listening to Radulescu 5 because Naxos Music Library said it was only 5:20 in length and I was like "Cool! That fits right in with amw's comment about how he breaks the mold of the traditional quartet!" And then like 12 minutes later I was like "hey wait a minute"

Oops :p I'm glad you made it at least 12 minutes in though. Rădulescu is not always physically easy to listen to, regardless of how impressed I am that he basically rebuilt string technique from the ground up or whatever.

I think Radulescu 4 is very impressive, one of those pieces which gave me the impression of being an original and courageous piece of poetry even on first listening.

It's quite a thing to do, to give pieces of music the sort of titles he likes, one day I'll read Lao-Tzu and try to see what's going on.

Ferneyhough seems like the obvious choice for 'someone else' but I also voted for that option for Lachenmann.

I know both of them composed some of the quartets before 1950, but I would just like to mention the excellent Bacewicz and Maconchy!

I also especially enjoy cycles by Schnittke, Nørgård and Simpson alongside single works by Xenakis, Ligeti and Lutoslawski.

Quote from: Skogwald on February 15, 2023, 09:14:09 AMI know both of them composed some of the quartets before 1950, but I would just like to mention the excellent Bacewicz and Maconchy!

I also especially enjoy cycles by Schnittke, Nørgård and Simpson alongside single works by Xenakis, Ligeti and Lutoslawski.

I just placed an order for the Bacewicz complete string quartets after sampling the Silesian Quartet recordings.

I originally voted for Schnittke, but that was before I had heard Krzysztof Meyer's quartets.  Now he's the easy first choice.  He very nearly joins the Holy Tetrarchy in this repertoire. 

I didn't see a mention of David Diamond.  7 of his quartets were written after 1950.  The whole cycle has been recorded by the Potomac Quartet.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/712Z6EWXRtL._SX522_.jpg)

11 of Shostakovich's 15 quartets and 18 of Holmboe's 21 numbered quartets were written after 1950.

Of the options originally listed in the poll, I would pick Carter.

My vote is for Schnittke.  But I will admit that the only chamber work I've heard of Simpson is his clarinet quintet.

Pascal Dusapin's 7 quartets 8)

Hilding Rosenberg wrote 13 great quartet works, all after 1950. And Meyers quartets are superb.

I'm feeling this might be the golden age of string quartets. All of these are spectacular quartet writers:
- Lachenmann
- Radulescu
- Holliger
- Nono
- Xenakis
- Simpson
- Feldman
- Norgård
- Holmboe
- Schnittke
- Iannotta
- Carter
- Bacewicz
- Maconchy
- Ferneyhough
- Etc. etc.

Quote from: Skogwald on May 31, 2024, 09:23:32 AMI'm feeling this might be the golden age of string quartets. All of these are spectacular quartet writers:
- Lachenmann
- Radulescu
- Holliger
- Nono
- Xenakis
- Simpson
- Feldman
- Norgård
- Holmboe
- Schnittke
- Iannotta
- Carter
- Bacewicz
- Maconchy
- Ferneyhough
- Etc. etc.

Aside from those already flagged throughout the thread, perhaps a shout out for the SQs of Elena Ruehr, Valentin Silvestrov, Sunleif Rasmussen...

There are others, but these certainly deserve a mention.