The insanity of abundance!

[Parsifal]

The only Haydn String Quartets I have are:

Op. 64 (Kodály Quartet/Naxos)
Op. 76 (Quatuor Mosaïques/Astrée)

I don't think I need more. I enjoy the String Quartets of Beethoven and Mozart more. Even Dittersdorf's String Quartets seem more compatible with my taste. 

It is a good experience for me. I am through about 3 discs on each set. I listen to the Aeolian set (old school performance) then the Festetics (period instrument, HIP). It is an interesting contrast. They were both "super bargain" so the total money laid out is not excessive, even if I never make to every disc.

I have a few discs of the Kodaly quartet on Naxos. They also do a good job.

[SymphonicAddict]

I recognize that I am a complete lover of classical music. My first approach to this music was 12 years ago when I heard the first movements of Beethoven's symphonies 5th and 6th (hence Beethoven has been of my favorite ones, but lately I haven't listened to anything of him). Since then I knew this was true and exciting music, far from the banality of other genres. This music fills my soul entirely. Constantly I'm exploring new composers, new works and I have found plenty of stunning pieces, it's a very much satisfying experience. As other members have said here, I've spent much time listening to every composition; it's kind of difficult manage this affair since it's like an addiction, it's complex not to do it. I sometimes prefer to play different pieces when I can, discover new jewels and rescue them from darkness. For instance, currently I'm listening to orchestral pieces by some different composers (e.g. Noskowski, Granados, Taneyev, Schnittke, Casella) and their works are really interesting, without mention those that I lack for listening. Really it's an epic and almost endless voyage.

[Ken B]

It is a good experience for me. I am through about 3 discs on each set. I listen to the Aeolian set (old school performance) then the Festetics (period instrument, HIP). It is an interesting contrast. They were both "super bargain" so the total money laid out is not excessive, even if I never make to every disc.

I have a few discs of the Kodaly quartet on Naxos. They also do a good job.

I cannot bear that Aeolian set. The sound sucks, and the first violin is wayward.  Their Beethoven is much better, but still not top shelf.

[Florestan]

I cannot bear that Aeolian set. The sound sucks, and the first violin is wayward.

From what little I've heard of their Haydn set, my impressions are markedly different than yours. Sound is certainly not ideal but not that bad either, while the first violin is very good. 

My other complete sets are Angeles, Buchberger and Kodaly. Needless to say, I haven't listened to any of it entirely. 

[Ken B]

From what little I've heard of their Haydn set, my impressions are markedly different than yours. Sound is certainly not ideal but not that bad either, while the first violin is very good. 

My other complete sets are Angeles, Buchberger and Kodaly. Needless to say, I haven't listened to any of it entirely. 

You might like Florence Foster Jenkins. Not the movie -- her own recordings. 

[Florestan]

You might like Florence Foster Jenkins. Not the movie -- her own recordings. 

Florence who?

[Ken B]

Florence who?

I'm sorry. I was responding to Foster Jenkins on the travel thread. My bad.

[Parsifal]

I cannot bear that Aeolian set. The sound sucks, and the first violin is wayward.  Their Beethoven is much better, but still not top shelf.

I have no issue with the sound (typical early 70's Decca analog, a bit on the bright side) and generally I find the performances pleasing. If I had to pick one, I'd probably go with the Festetics set, but often I find the Aeolian brings out some detail that I miss in the other. I picked the Aeolian over the Angeles (which was similarly priced at the time, as I recall) because of some reviews I read which said that the Angeles quartet suffered from inappropriate dominance of the 1st violin. I haven't heard the Angeles recordings, so I can't say.

[Jo498]

The Angeles is not ideal in balance but I think the dominance has been exaggerated by some reviewers. When I bought it it was basically the only option in a convenient box as Aeolian was oop (and had bad press) and the Tatrai or Kodaly were either far more expensive (without having much better press) and/or only as singles/doubles. I still think the Angeles holds up extremely well in the pieces I mostly need it for, namely op.1-op.17. For the later pieces they often tend a little to the "sprightly elegant" side but are still pretty good. As I have usually 2-4 alternative recordings for my favorite pieces among the quartets this does not bother me. Nowadays I'd probably recommend either the Buchberger if it is still so cheap (although the Angeles play more cleanly and elegantly) or getting separate recordings and fill up the gaps with the Kodaly (although I think the Angeles beat the Kodaly who tend to the staid side).

[Ken B]

... the Angeles holds up extremely well ... I'd probably recommend ... the Buchberger if it is still so cheap (although the Angeles play more cleanly and elegantly)... the Angeles beat the Kodaly

+1

I rank the Mosaiques first on the 50% or so they have recorded but of the *complete* sets I have heard (which alas does not include the Festetics) I put them
Angeles
Buchberger
Kodaly

[Jo498]

I have heard only about 4 discs each of the Kodaly (I kept only two with the dubious op.3 and other early stuff) and the Buchberger (op.9 and 33). The Buchberger have quite a bit of energy but they are also scratchy at times and for some listeners the more refined Angeles would certainly be a better first contact (but again, when I bought the Angeles in the early 2000s the Buchberger recordings had not been out, so it was not an option).
Of the Festetics I have about 2/3 in the single (i.e. 2 disc sets) issues. They are often so different from others that they are hard to compare. When I have heard both I prefer the Mosaiques. Both tend to err sometimes to the slow and weighty side (which together with all the repeats can sometimes lead to slightly stodgy results. I have not yet tried any of the ongoing HIP series with the London Haydn quartet. Overall, I am reasonably satisfied with the Haydn quartet abundance I already have.

[Parsifal]

To be honest, much as I enjoy them, I don't find the Haydn quartets to be weighty and profound works that demand multiple interpretations. They are very skillfully written and and have not found that a difference of interpretation ever makes or breaks it for me. I find the main advantage of having two sets is that differences in balance sometimes bring out melodic lines in one that are obscure in the other.

[North Star]

I have all the Mosaïques recordings, supplemented with the London Haydn Quartet's Opp. 50, 54 & 55 (I'm not familiar with the Opp. 9 & 17 but I will probably get the LHQ sets of those too eventually). I like both ensembles enough not to bother with alternatives.

[Jo498]

To be honest, much as I enjoy them, I don't find the Haydn quartets to be weighty and profound works that demand multiple interpretations. They are very skillfully written and and have not found that a difference of interpretation ever makes or breaks it for me.

I think that a lot of them are profound but more importantly that they can really suffer from routine interpretations. I could easily understand if someone was bored by Haydn quartets if he had only heard the Kodaly...
This is a frequent danger with big recording projects, especially if the ensemble records all within a few years. Because there is a lot of them and Haydn is often not as obviously profound like Beethoven or melodically charming like Mozart, the pieces need both attention to detail and alertness and "conviction" from the side of the players.
(The same holds for Haydn's symphonies and other large bodies of works.)

[71 dB]

I could easily understand if someone was bored by Haydn quartets if he had only heard the Kodaly...

Haydn is often not as obviously profound like Beethoven or melodically charming like Mozart, the pieces need both attention to detail and alertness and "conviction" from the side of the players.
(The same holds for Haydn's symphonies and other large bodies of works.)

Naxos bashing again? Nobody has said the Naxos cycle it the best ever, but I believe it it considered good. The Op. 64 discs by Kodaly were I believe among the best of the cycle in it's early stage (Classic CD *****, PG ***, Gramophone Editors Choice, Répertoire recommended). That's why I selected it among the other String Quartets of Haydn some 20 years ago. A few years back I got the Op. 76 (Quatuor Mosaïques/Astrée) twofer, because it was told to be so damn great here in GMG and Op. 76 was told to be one of Haydn's best. Well, is it superior to Kodaly? No. Better? Perhaps just a little, but nothing dramatic. A bit bright and bass shy recording.

Maybe sometimes it's the composer to blame if you need a performance of the century to enjoy the music? Anyway, I do enjoy this music, it's quality chamber music. It's just that in my opinion Dittersdorf composed quality music too, at least enjoyable and Beethoven took the art of String Quartets to a whole new level...  0:)

I must say I do prefer chamber music with piano (Piano Trios, Piano Quartets, Piano Quintets) and I enjoy Haydn's Piano Trios a lot. I have the Beaux Arts Trio 9 CD set. 

[Florestan]

I enjoy Haydn's Piano Trios a lot. I have the Beaux Arts Trio 9 CD set. 

That's a very poor choice, really. Get the Van Swieten Trio set as soon as possible!


(Just kidding, man! The BAT is excellent and I don't think you need any other set unless you really want to have them in HIP as well.)

[Jo498]

No, it's not Naxos-bashing. The Angeles and probably also the Buchberger cycles (don't know about the Aeolian) were recorded within fewer years than the Kodaly who took their time. In all cases, routine or a too uniform approach is a danger and I conceded this further above for the set I know best and actually recommended in spite of this, the Angeles. But the Angeles are not boring, their playing is more alert and elegant than the pedestrian Kodalys. The Buchberger is not boring either but they don't sound as good (scratchy at times) but they are also far more energetic than the Kodalys.

I am well aware that the Penguin/Gramophone praised the Kodaly Haydn. But first of all, the Penguin is dubious very often and Haydn is not really their core competence. Secondly, in the 1990s the Penguin had a thing for Naxos and admittedly there were *far* fewer options for Haydn quartets and symphonies and most of the Naxos Haydn was at least solid, so it was understandable that they recommended them. But almost everyone who knew his way around the alternative options was puzzled that the Naxos Haydn recordings became almost the standard Penguin recommendations.

I have not heard the op.64 with the Kodalys, only one disc each of op.17 and 20 and the early/not by Haydn op.3.
Now op.20 is by most lovers of string quartets considered to be one of the greatest collections of such works. The Kodaly do not manage to completely obscure that fact (they are solid, as I said) but I really found them lackluster and routine (I got rid of the disc ages ago - the op.17 was better but also lacked flair in my ears). At least some of the Kodaly recordings also suffer from too much reverb. Some people like that because a quartet tends to sound larger and less "scratchy".

Unlike you I really love and care for the Haydn quartets a lot and have usually heard/own around 3 recordings even of the lesser known pieces and typically 5-6 of the better known ones and the Kodalys are not more than solid. (Same holds for Drahos and Müller-Brühl in the symphonies.) Still I was more positive about them than Ken and even suggested using them to "fill the gaps" rather than getting one of the complete sets I (like Ken) prefer to the Kodalys. But another point was that unlike in the 1990s the Kodalys are not really competitive even in price because the Angeles and Buchberger are even cheaper, if one wants to get a whole set. And for those who don't care about the price there is now also the Auryn. So together with lots of other non-complete recordings of Haydn the situation is very different compared to 20 years ago and the Kodaly even less recommendable than it used to be.

[71 dB]

That's a very poor choice, really. Get the Van Swieten Trio set as soon as possible!


(Just kidding, man! The BAT is excellent and I don't think you need any other set unless you really want to have them in HIP as well.)

You are playing with your life! People has been killed for lesser reasons! 

[71 dB]

No, it's not Naxos-bashing. The Angeles and probably also the Buchberger cycles (don't know about the Aeolian) were recorded within fewer years than the Kodaly who took their time. In all cases, routine or a too uniform approach is a danger and I conceded this further above for the set I know best and actually recommended in spite of this, the Angeles. But the Angeles are not boring, their playing is more alert and elegant than the pedestrian Kodalys. The Buchberger is not boring either but they don't sound as good (scratchy at times) but they are also far more energetic than the Kodalys.

I am well aware that the Penguin/Gramophone praised the Kodaly Haydn. But first of all, the Penguin is dubious very often and Haydn is not really their core competence. Secondly, in the 1990s the Penguin had a thing for Naxos and admittedly there were *far* fewer options for Haydn quartets and symphonies and most of the Naxos Haydn was at least solid, so it was understandable that they recommended them. But almost everyone who knew his way around the alternative options was puzzled that the Naxos Haydn recordings became almost the standard Penguin recommendations.

I have not heard the op.64 with the Kodalys, only one disc each of op.17 and 20 and the early/not by Haydn op.3.
Now op.20 is by most lovers of string quartets considered to be one of the greatest collections of such works. The Kodaly do not manage to completely obscure that fact (they are solid, as I said) but I really found them lackluster and routine (I got rid of the disc ages ago - the op.17 was better but also lacked flair in my ears). At least some of the Kodaly recordings also suffer from too much reverb. Some people like that because a quartet tends to sound larger and less "scratchy".

Unlike you I really love and care for the Haydn quartets a lot and have usually heard/own around 3 recordings even of the lesser known pieces and typically 5-6 of the better known ones and the Kodalys are not more than solid. (Same holds for Drahos and Müller-Brühl in the symphonies.) Still I was more positive about them than Ken and even suggested using them to "fill the gaps" rather than getting one of the complete sets I (like Ken) prefer to the Kodalys. But another point was that unlike in the 1990s the Kodalys are not really competitive even in price because the Angeles and Buchberger are even cheaper, if one wants to get a whole set. And for those who don't care about the price there is now also the Auryn. So together with lots of other non-complete recordings of Haydn the situation is very different compared to 20 years ago and the Kodaly even less recommendable than it used to be.

What can I say? I bought the Naxos discs some 20 years ago when there, as you say, where far less competition and Kodaly used to be more  recommendable it is today. How would I have known Penguin has a thing with Naxos? Klaus Heymann bribed them? Penguin is not the only one to have recommended Naxos, so Heymann must have bribed them all! Is it really a serious crime to buy Naxos? You don't need to listen to my crappy Naxos discs, do you? Enjoy your awesome Haydn collection. I am happy for you for having such a stunning performances, but do you really need to ruin the fun for me?

I am sick and tired of hearing how the performances I have are always the wrong ones (I'm still pissed off about the Nielsen Leaper thing). Wrong ones to you perhaps, but I don't know Angeles or Buchberger so I can still appreciate Kodaly.

[Florestan]

Is it really a serious crime to buy Naxos? You don't need to listen to my crappy Naxos discs, do you? Enjoy your awesome Haydn collection. I am happy for you for having such a stunning performances, but do you really need to ruin the fun for me?

I am sick and tired of hearing how the performances I have are always the wrong ones (I'm still pissed off about the Nielsen Leaper thing). Wrong ones to you perhaps, but I don't know Angeles or Buchberger so I can still appreciate Kodaly.

Relax, man! You take things much too seriously and personally. Nobody forces you to buy, or throw away, anything. Why would your fun be ruined because somebody, somewhere dislikes what you like? Do you really need your taste to be validated by others? Do you enjoy Leaper's Nielsen less because Mirror Image dissed it? You like what you like, they like what they like, period. Why all the fuss about it?