Klaus Mäkelä chosen for Chicago Symphony Orchestra music director

[brewski]

Cool!  What will they be playing?

An excellent lineup!

Haydn: Quartet in G Minor, Op. 20, No. 3
Bartók: Quartet No. 3
Schubert: Quartet in G Major, D. 887

-Bruce

[Luke]

An excellent lineup!

Haydn: Quartet in G Minor, Op. 20, No. 3
Bartók: Quartet No. 3
Schubert: Quartet in G Major, D. 887

-Bruce

Great stuff!

[Karl Henning]

An excellent lineup!

Haydn: Quartet in G Minor, Op. 20, No. 3
Bartók: Quartet No. 3
Schubert: Quartet in G Major, D. 887

-Bruce

Sweet!

[DavidW]

I replay their Ravel, Debussy and Faure SQs recording fairly often.  It is lovely!  Also their Beethoven is pretty good (but my favorite modern set is Prazak).

[Herman]

I replay their Ravel, Debussy and Faure SQs recording fairly often.  It is lovely!  Also their Beethoven is pretty good (but my favorite modern set is Prazak).

Youtube has a live performance of the Faure string quartet with the new, and definitive Ebene, with Marie Chilemme on alto, that's even better IMO.

[Spotted Horses]

What? Now Klaus Mäkelä is the music director of the Ebene Quartet? This is getting out of hand!

[Herman]

Well, der Klaus could join the Ebene for Schubert's quintet, but I'm guessing that's not going to happen soon.

The culture-pessimistic wailing would reach intergalactic dimensions.

[Atriod]

We're really in a golden age of string quartet playing now.
Please go to live concerts.

I attend plenty of chamber music recitals from amateurs (college or local musicians) to groups that record professionally. Go back to Florestan's post and carefully re-read what he posted and what I was addressing.

Ébène, Diotima (currently in a couple weeks long comparison with Diotima, my modern reference in Bartók, to an older group), Arditti, Mosaïques, etc are all favorites and I will try and stream every new album they release and see them when they come nearby.

[Iota]

Eh... there is plenty of great music making today.  I don't buy the narrative that all the great recordings have already been done. It is the effect of hazy nostalgia.  I think anyone that held onto their vinyl collection knows that there were plenty of uninspired recordings made in the past.  It is just that over time we build up a legacy of great recordings and that is all we remember.  It makes it hard for any individual new recording to hold their own against that.  But some do, and some will end up being listened to decades later.

Okay it is all fine to be vague but can I point out anything great now?  Yes.  Period Instrument recordings have evolved tremendously since they started.  It is so easy now for baroque and classical era music to find performances with musicians playing freely that feels spontaneous, fresh and never dull with a high level of talent that I really do think exceeds where we started from.

And I also think that there are some exceptional pianists today.  If you only listen to Kempff, Brendel, Richter etc. from the past you're really missing out.

(To the bolded)

Nor I. The present seems replete with great recordings/artists, as does the past. It is inevitable, and I'd say very normal and healthy that things change, and that people have their preferences. But to say current recordings/artists are lacking in character seems to contradict the observable evidence. I don't think I've ever seen a more intense performer than Trifonov e.g! The canon has been immeasurably enriched by the influx of new blood and thinking imo.

[Roasted Swan]

(To the bolded)

Nor I. The present seems replete with great recordings/artists, as does the past. It is inevitable, and I'd say very normal and healthy that things change, and that people have their preferences. But to say current recordings/artists are lacking in character seems to contradict the observable evidence. I don't think I've ever seen a more intense performer than Trifonov e.g! The canon has been immeasurably enriched by the influx of new blood and thinking imo.

I agree - I hear impressive new recordings (either of repertoire or performers) all the time.  I think there is an issue with the perception that executional "perfection" (deliberate use of " "!) seems to have taken precedence over musical insight.  My sense is that with so many recordings still being produced - I can only assume with little or no hope of them being financially profitable - too many seem to place technical prowess above insight.  Of course the best players offer both which is why there are still great recordings being made.  My other sense is that with conductors there seem to be few who are cultivating a deep/productiove relationship with a specific group of musicians.  Manfred Honeck in Minnesota is a superb exception.  But I cannot think of many/any other conductors who I would recognise either by the style or sound of their recordings (John Wilson might be another - although not in a good way for me!).  Orchestras seem now to be interchangeably excellent.

[Brian]

We're really in a golden age of string quartet playing now.
Please go to live concerts.

I agree wholeheartedly but my local newspaper classical music critic passionately disagrees because he thinks too many of today's string quartets are "overplaying." It is hard to be fair to a view I disagree with so passionately, but he seems to think that no matter the size of the hall, quartets should continue to show the soft subtlety and restraint he believes 1800s ensembles displayed, without tending to loudness or excessive energy.

Phew. I can't believe I typed that. But there is at least one person who thinks it!

[Roasted Swan]

I agree wholeheartedly but my local newspaper classical music critic passionately disagrees because he thinks too many of today's string quartets are "overplaying." It is hard to be fair to a view I disagree with so passionately, but he seems to think that no matter the size of the hall, quartets should continue to show the soft subtlety and restraint he believes 1800s ensembles displayed, without tending to loudness or excessive energy.

Phew. I can't believe I typed that. But there is at least one person who thinks it!

Given that I play the violin professionally and also run a professional string quartet, I think I have a certain amount of insight into modern quartets and string playing.  Simply put the standard is breath-takingly high.  Modern quartets play with a level of individual and collective technical brilliance and phenomenal ensemble that repeatedly makes my jaw drop (not that I'm anywhere near that level!!!).  But this does not - to my mind and ear - preclude or replace expressivity/sensitivity as well. 

The sad reality is that unlike decades previously I doubt there is a single quartet in the world any more who make their main/sole income from being a quartet.  The days of well paid touring and lucrative international recording contracts for quartets are long gone.  Perhaps the Emersons did?  But they've retired now (or are about to).  But the up-side is that quartets play, perform and record together because they want to/enjoy the process so there is a commitment that is not dictated by economics (except of course you have to fit the quartet work around the things that actually pay the bills!)

If I had any critical bservation it would be more to do with the evolution of string playing over the last fifty years.  There is a certain conformity that has reduced the differences between schools of playing and/or countries.  Of course this is true about larger ensembles/orchestras too and I do miss that difference.  I also miss the older style of expressiveness in playing that included audible shifts and acceptance of occasionally rough moments of tone, ensemble or intonation.  Now, the ideal is super-clean, super-accurate playing which is of course a valid goal but to my mind it should not diminsih the validity/value of the older-style of playing as well.

My guess as a modern listener is that if we were transported back to hear 19th Century quartets or orchestras we would struggle to accept the lower overall level of execution I imagine was common.  Of course the great players/ensembles would still be great - but the average level of technical address would be much lower I imagine......

[DavidW]

I agree wholeheartedly but my local newspaper classical music critic passionately disagrees because he thinks too many of today's string quartets are "overplaying." It is hard to be fair to a view I disagree with so passionately, but he seems to think that no matter the size of the hall, quartets should continue to show the soft subtlety and restraint he believes 1800s ensembles displayed, without tending to loudness or excessive energy.

Phew. I can't believe I typed that. But there is at least one person who thinks it!

It always amuses when you bring up your local critic because he really seems to be a pistol!

[Atriod]

Given that I play the violin professionally and also run a professional string quartet, I think I have a certain amount of insight into modern quartets and string playing.  Simply put the standard is breath-takingly high.  Modern quartets play with a level of individual and collective technical brilliance and phenomenal ensemble that repeatedly makes my jaw drop (not that I'm anywhere near that level!!!).  But this does not - to my mind and ear - preclude or replace expressivity/sensitivity as well. 

The sad reality is that unlike decades previously I doubt there is a single quartet in the world any more who make their main/sole income from being a quartet.  The days of well paid touring and lucrative international recording contracts for quartets are long gone.  Perhaps the Emersons did?  But they've retired now (or are about to).  But the up-side is that quartets play, perform and record together because they want to/enjoy the process so there is a commitment that is not dictated by economics (except of course you have to fit the quartet work around the things that actually pay the bills!)

If I had any critical bservation it would be more to do with the evolution of string playing over the last fifty years.  There is a certain conformity that has reduced the differences between schools of playing and/or countries.  Of course this is true about larger ensembles/orchestras too and I do miss that difference.  I also miss the older style of expressiveness in playing that included audible shifts and acceptance of occasionally rough moments of tone, ensemble or intonation.  Now, the ideal is super-clean, super-accurate playing which is of course a valid goal but to my mind it should not diminsih the validity/value of the older-style of playing as well.

My guess as a modern listener is that if we were transported back to hear 19th Century quartets or orchestras we would struggle to accept the lower overall level of execution I imagine was common.  Of course the great players/ensembles would still be great - but the average level of technical address would be much lower I imagine......

Brilliant summary, very well articulated.

[Iota]

I think there is an issue with the perception that executional "perfection" (deliberate use of " "!) seems to have taken precedence over musical insight.  My sense is that with so many recordings still being produced - I can only assume with little or no hope of them being financially profitable - too many seem to place technical prowess above insight.

I agree there are plenty of those recordings around, but I guess each era has it's fair share of less musically interesting artists, and with the passage of time doing its sifting of wheat and chaff, we tend not to hear so many from previous eras.
I must say I also get the feeling that there's a perception that 'executional perfection' means a lack of musical thinking sometimes ... it's flawless, so it's robotic. People want to hear 'warts' in their playing to remind them of their humanity. The sheer clarity of recorded sound these days only adds to this dehumanising/distancing I think, particularly for those preferring the less forensic sound of earlier analogue recordings.
Anyway, this is all conjecture of course, but sometimes I do feel artists' qualities get overlooked just because of their great technical facility.

[Atriod]

I agree there are plenty of those recordings around, but I guess each era has it's fair share of less musically interesting artists, and with the passage of time doing its sifting of wheat and chaff, we tend not to hear so many from previous eras.
I must say I also get the feeling that there's a perception that 'executional perfection' means a lack of musical thinking sometimes ... it's flawless, so it's robotic. People want to hear 'warts' in their playing to remind them of their humanity. The sheer clarity of recorded sound these days only adds to this dehumanising/distancing I think, particularly for those preferring the less forensic sound of earlier analogue recordings.
Anyway, this is all conjecture of course, but sometimes I do feel artists' qualities get overlooked just because of their great technical facility.

I definitely do not want mistakes/warts in my performances or recordings. See the pianists of today being able to play not just at a very high level but with tremendous creativity as well. How many string players today are playing with an immediately distinctive portamento?

Regarding that comparison with Diotima in Bartók, Gábor Takács-Nagy from Mikrokosmos Quartet sounds quite distinctive and recognizable just like when he was in Takács' first cycle on Hungaroton which interpretively I prefer to the more corporate sounding Decca one. Václav Remeš was another tremendous more recent first violinist, but also now retired so can not be counted in the current generation of string players.

[Herman]

I agree wholeheartedly but my local newspaper classical music critic passionately disagrees because he thinks too many of today's string quartets are "overplaying." [...]he seems to think that no matter the size of the hall, quartets should continue to show the soft subtlety and restraint he believes 1800s ensembles displayed, without tending to loudness or excessive energy.

Let's see. Is this perhaps about string quartets playing in symphony size halls; you know, seating 2000? So that they would have to skip ppp?
Otherwise I don't get it. Yes, today's string quartets (some of them) like to rock when rock is called for.

[Herman]

The sad reality is that unlike decades previously I doubt there is a single quartet in the world any more who make their main/sole income from being a quartet.  The days of well paid touring and lucrative international recording contracts for quartets are long gone.  Perhaps the Emersons did? 

I'm guessing the Ebene still is making a living touring, recoring and accepting grants. One of the things I often heard is being in a fulltime working quartet is really strenuous; it's like being the Beatles, only harder.
The upside is string quartet audiences are really nice.

[Roasted Swan]

I'm guessing the Ebene still is making a living touring, recoring and accepting grants. One of the things I often heard is being in a fulltime working quartet is really strenuous; it's like being the Beatles, only harder.
The upside is string quartet audiences are really nice.

and slightly less well paid......

[Karl Henning]

My guess as a modern listener is that if we were transported back to hear 19th Century quartets or orchestras we would struggle to accept the lower overall level of execution I imagine was common.  Of course the great players/ensembles would still be great - but the average level of technical address would be much lower I imagine.

I think we've observed generally the same thing about orchestras, that the members of the world-class orchestras of our day perform at so high a level that the bands have a much easier time mastering music which would have cost an orchestra of, say Toscanini's day a significantly greater tally of man-hours.