# String Quartets' performances



## Efraim

_I wrote the following in the Favourite SQs thread, but have been advised to open a new thread. _

Dear Addicts to music, that's a pity that the string quartet, perhaps the noblest of all musical genres, is somewhat neglected here. *Is somebody interested in a talk about comparing different interpretations of famous string quartets? *

I know there are difficulties, for some of us mention ensembles unheard of for others, like Diotima, Magellan, Sibelius and more for me, or not unheard of but "unheard", never heard playing, like Emerson, Kronos and others. Nevertheless the numerous new releases of *Haydn's quartets *are right now, in this Haydn-year, fairly within everyone's reach: I guess you can listen to them in shops without buying them. So discussing them shouldn't be overly hindered by practical difficulties.

I have all or some of his quartets performed by the following teams: _All_: Buchberger and Festetics. _All they have recorded so far_: Salomon, Mosaïques, Pellegrini, Ébène, Quatuor Élysée, London Haydn Quartet, Alban Berg, Takács. _Some of_: Auryn, Panocha, Jerusalem, Tokyo, Lindsay, Pro Arte, Kodály, as well as of some older quartets (on LPs): Budapest, Schneider, Wiener Konzerthaus, Tátrai, Prague, Janáček, Smetana, Juilliard, Allegri, Slovak, Italian, Hungarian.

I think some of the most famous recordings of Beethoven's quartets (by Budapest, Juilliard, Hungarian, Smetana, Alban Berg, Italian, Amadeus, Beethoven...) could be discussed too, as well as a few others often performed quartets of Schubert, Brahms, Ravel...

*To start off, I should quote Andante:*



Andante said:


> ... *I was always an admirer of the Lindsay's even with the asthmatic breathing of Mr Cropper*


Once a friend made for me a copy of a couple quartets of Beethoven played by the Lindsay's. I can't find it anymore, possibly my wife overwrote the disc,  so I can not listen to it again to find out why I did not like their performance. I assume if this had been the first performance I heard of those works I would have liked it; but it was not. 

Did you experienced this interesting - though somewhat bothering - phenomenon: 
Sometimes (not always) an outstandingly great performance you heard can "spoil" all others, so you can't help feeling something is missing while listening to the same work played - even very well - by others. For example I am almost unable to listen any more to Schubert's two last sonatas in a few interpretations I once liked very much, since Ashkenazy "spoiled" in my ears B Major and Bishop Kovachevich spoiled A and B alike (fortunately they didn't spoil each other). So "spoiled" for me Milan Munclinger with his Ars Rediviva ensemble all performances of Bach's Art of Fugue - including his own second, little different, recording of the same work -, so did Sviatoslav Richter and Brendel for Haydn's Sonatas in c and b respectively, the Smetana Quartet for Beethoven's Op. 132, the Janáček Qu. for his Op. 18/6, an entirely unknown pianist for the 3d movement of Beethoven's Op. 106 and for Schumann's Sonata in f sharp, the Bartók Quartet for Brahms' Quartet in a… 

Now I bought a few CDs of the *Lindsay's*, Nos 3, 5 & 6 of Haydn's Op. 33 and the whole Opp. 42, 50 and 77. As to Op. 50, the first recording I once bought was that of the *Tátrai Qu*. This is a so called honest and intelligent quartet playing: a correct sound, correct tempi, exact phrasings, no extravagances, but nothing exciting either: a beneficial classical - no, not boredom, but lack of interest, exactly as people once imagined Papa Haydn. (I am slightly exaggerating, I know, bot on the whole, this is not untrue. Besides I once heard on concert a surprisingly excellent SQ of A. Webern played by the same Tátrai's...) After Tátrai's I am sure I would have liked the Lindsay's performance: you find in their playing right attacks, sharp contrasts, in the whole the opposite of the Tátrai's stereotyped presenting you with nothing but the abstract classical style: you feel they worked hard to make obvious the true, not "classical" but individual character of every and each work. "Unhappily" I already had Op. 50 played by *Festetics Quartet *long before and they had "spoiled" it. But I think sometimes the Lindsay's themselves spoil the effect with exaggerated accents or strong but unconvincing contrasts. Apart from that I have the impression that it is hard for the Lindsay's to overcome every technical difficulties. I know it is absurd to imagine that a famous ensemble should be less than perfect technically, but I can't help it, this is my feeling when I listen to them. On top of all their sound is not always but quite often shrieking, in the whole not beautiful and somewhat neutral, colorless. (Unlike Buchberger's, Festetics' or Salomon's, each of whom has its own very personal, as well as agreeable, sound and style of playing.) I enjoyed to some extent only F Major in their whole box. The character of the individual quartets of this opus comes out less prominently in the performance of a certain *Nomos Quartet *(CPO production) than in that of the Lindsay's but in spite of that on the whole they are more enjoyable (and less "spoiled" by Festetics…) because their false accents are also less prominent.

I am ready to hear opposing opinions…


----------



## Guest

Efraim said:


> Did you experienced this interesting - though somewhat bothering - phenomenon:
> Sometimes (not always) an outstandingly great performance you heard can "spoil" all others, so you can't help feeling something is missing while listening to the same work played - even very well - by others.


It may become a reference that future performances will be judged by but it certainly does not spoil other interpretations, an example. 
Beethoven's 5th Sym, how many have you heard, how many have you in your collection. I attended a concert give by the NZSO conducted by their new [at the time] conductor and music director Pietari Inkinen
from the first few notes I was riveted, slightly different emphasis on certain sections + other differences in shading and phasing made for a great fresh performance, sorry for quoting a Sym and not a St Qt but it was the first that came to mind. The same can apply to any piece orch or chamber.


----------



## jurianbai

i am an avid fan of string quartet. i started a topic on this (http://www.talkclassical.com/4091-string-quartet-talks-what.html) months ago, but i am happy to read again a discussion here with different point of view.

i find that a string quartet group must have broad repertoire , this will influence their interpretation. Mean like a string quartet who also play 20th works will have interpretated Haydn's works rather differently than those who always play in Haydn period.


----------



## Efraim

jurianbai said:


> i started a topic on this (http://www.talkclassical.com/4091-string-quartet-talks-what.html) months ago, but i am happy to read again a discussion here with different point of view.


I wasn't aware of your quartet thread. - Are there resident string quartets in Singapore?


----------



## Guest

I missed your thread also, lets keep this one alive and hope that some of the others join in, IMO the St Qt is the ultimate in classical but as you will have noticed most of the posters on TC seem to favour the full orchestra, they will eventually come to realise the superiority of the quartet


----------



## Guest

I tried a comparison session last night of Beethoven Op135 by The Juilliard, Melos and Lindsay’s The Julliard was very correct, smooth and polished. The Melos was very similar not much to choose between them, the Lindsay’s is a different kettle of fish, it attacks quite vigorously and each individual instrument can be followed much easier than the Melos or Juilliard, also the 3rd and 4th mov was more intimate. So out of those three I would have to go for the Lindsay’s and the ASV CD was as usual well balanced.


----------



## Efraim

Andante said:


> I tried a comparison session last night of Beethoven Op135 by The Juilliard, Melos and Lindsay's The Julliard was very correct, smooth and polished. The Melos was very similar not much to choose between them, the Lindsay's is a different kettle of fish, it attacks quite vigorously and each individual instrument can be followed much easier than the Melos or Juilliard, also the 3rd and 4th mov was more intimate. So out of those three I would have to go for the Lindsay's and the ASV CD was as usual well balanced.


I have none of these recordings but according to what I know about the Juilliard's playing Beethoven (131 & 132), as well as about the Lindsay's for having listened during the last couple of days to 18 or 20 different movements (of Haydn) by them, you must be right. - I think a quartet playing melted together as if it were one single instrument is or were a generally accepted ideal, but I read about one of the modern ensembles, I don't remember which one, perhaps the Festetics', that they reject this ideal, and I feel the Buchberger's go even farther in that direction. I always liked to sit on concert in the middle of the front row, to hear distinctly each instrument. The way of playing you mention doesn't exclude an elaborated and well polished common-playing. 
- I am sure you would like the Buchberger Quartet. Try it! what can you lose? Their Haydn CDs are ridiculously cheap, a few dollars apiece. I think the best are the Opp. 20, 33 and 50, if there is any difference: in fact they are always on an incredibly high level, not only of virtuosity and sound quality: their reading is overwhelmingly original, fresh, dynamic, even playful, which doesn't exclude seriousness. Without exaggerated rubatos or arbitrary innovations they present me with an entirely new and convincing Haydn, and they do so _after_ I have heard for years the equally fantastic but entirely different reading of the Festetics'. The biggest thing is that these two could not "spoil" each other in my ears…


----------



## Taneyev

To me, the prefered versions of LvB last SQ are those of the old and short-live Yale SQ.and the firts recording
of the Hungarian.


----------



## jurianbai

Efraim said:


> I wasn't aware of your quartet thread. - Are there resident string quartets in Singapore?


Tang Quartet is considered Singapore's most profesional quartet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Quartet

there are a number of young string quartet, but the demand perhaps low here and most of their activity is performing in wedding, mean playing "wedding" stuff.


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


> To me, the prefered versions of LvB last SQ are those of the old and short-live Yale SQ.and the firts recording
> of the Hungarian.


For the Middle Quartets I have both the first, mono-only recording of the Hungarians and their second one. Opp. 130, 131 & 133: the first, the other Late quartets: the second recordings. Some of the first have distorsions, perhaps they have been overplayed with used needles; I bought them used. My favourite perf. of Beethoven's SQs are those of the Smetana Quartet, and for the Middle Quartets, the rec. of the Bartok quartet too. The Budapest Qu. is of course a model of quartet playing (I have their complete Beethoven), albeit the records (Columbia) sound quite poorly. By the Italian Quartet: Op. 18 and the Late Quartets, on Philips; excellent sound, of course. I have the C Sharp and the C Minor by the old Borodin Quartet, with Dubinsky. I once liked these performances very much: they had an exceptionally energetic, piercing sound and rythmical firmness, strong accents, an almost "military" style, with almost no embellishments - the right opposite of the Hungarians' style. - I have also a few single LPs of divers ensembles, further the Late Quartets on CDs by Alban Berg Q. and the 18/1 + 131 by Artis Quartet (Austrians). Do you know some of these recordings?

I have only one Yale LP, Brahms' Piano Quintet, with Previn.


----------



## Guest

Efraim said:


> I have none of these recordings


That is also going to be a problem for me as I only have 2 or 3 versions of my Qts, but that may apply to most of us


----------



## Taneyev

I've LvB SQ by the Pascal, Borodin, Beethoven, Fine Arts, Juilliard, Alban Berg, Rose, Capet, Amar-Hindemith and Schneiderhann


----------



## Guest

*What, the whole cycle?? * do you remember the details and idiosynchrosies of each sat
I take it Beethoven rates as #1 for you


----------



## Taneyev

No,of course not. Have op.18 by Alban Berg, middles by Fine Arts, last by Pascal and Juilliard, and the rest partials. The Yale is my favorite for the last.


----------



## Guest

Taneyev said:


> No,of course not. Have op.18 by Alban Berg, middles by Fine Arts, last by Pascal and Juilliard, and the rest partials. The Yale is my favorite for the last.


That's a relief, I thought I was slipping, in the past I always went for the ones that were recommended by the Penguin guide and never disappointed but in those days CDs were NZ$35-40 each, now they are a lot cheaper so may indulge myself plus a few from the big www.


----------



## Taneyev

I forgot that I've the op.74 (plus Brahm's op.5l No.1) by David Oistrakh, Piotr Bondarenko, Mikhail Terian and Knushevitsky. Those are rare recordings!


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


> I've LvB SQ by the Pascal, Borodin, Beethoven, Fine Arts, Juilliard, Alban Berg, Rose, Capet, Amar-Hindemith and Schneiderhann


Fantastic! How did you get Rose, Capet and Amar? I guess these are old 78 tours, aren't they? Which quartets do you have by each one of them? - I think Hindemith is the composer and he played the viola part. Who is the 'cellist of Rose Q., isn't it Starker?

The violinist Capet died not so long ago, less than 30 years, but his quartet surely didn't existe after the war, am I right?

I never heard a single note by these famous quartets. I imagine they play not like, say, Juilliard, let alone Borodin.



Taneyev said:


> I forgot that I've the op.74 (plus Brahm's op.5l No.1)


Tsss!



Taneyev said:


> by David Oistrakh, Piotr Bondarenko, Mikhail Terian and Knushevitsky. Those are rare recordings!


I once had this Russian LP of the Op. 74, it got lost long ago. I don't really remember how it was. Same style as the Borodin's?

What do you exactly have by the Borodin's? I forgot that I have by them Op. 18/1 and 2 too, plus Brahms' B flat, but this is not the same Borodin Quartet: both violinists are different - not Dubinsky and Alexandrov - and the whole thing is a lot different, nothing to do with the "heroic" sound and sweeping style of the old Borodin Quartet. - I have by the new members (that is to say by Kopelman; the others are original members) Brahms' Piano Quartet in A (CD Philips); it does remind the original Borodin Quartet.


----------



## Taneyev

Well, you can start looking for:
Rose. LvB 4,10 and 14 plus Bach 2 violins concerto with Alma Rose (Mahler niece, Prihoda wife)-double Biddulph
And no, the cellist wasn't Starker. The recordings are from the 20s., and at that time Starker was a child.
Capet: No.14 and 15. Also a Biddulph
Borodin (with Kopelman) 7, 9,11 and 15. A double Virgin classics.
Amar-Hindemith: No.11 (78RPM to LP to CD) It's a copy I've. I know there is a CD by them, but I think is OOP and I don't know if it had LvB. Paul played the viola, and brother Rudolf the cello.
Enjoy!


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


> Well, you can start looking for:
> Rose. LvB 4,10 and 14 plus Bach 2 violins concerto with Alma Rose (Mahler niece, Prihoda wife)-double Biddulph
> And no, the cellist wasn't Starker. The recordings are from the 20s., and at that time Starker was a child.
> Capet: No.14 and 15. Also a Biddulph
> Borodin (with Kopelman) 7, 9,11 and 15. A double Virgin classics.
> Amar-Hindemith: No.11 (78RPM to LP to CD) It's a copy I've. I know there is a CD by them, but I think is OOP and I don't know if it had LvB. Paul played the viola, and brother Rudolf the cello.


I would like to know whether Rose, Capet and Amar are conspicuously different _from each other _in style, sound, tempi etc. - and if they are, in what their differences consist -, or whether there is something in their playing that makes _all of them together_ more strikingly different from modern ensembles - ? (I hold that some generalization may be tolerated.)

I have written in the original String Quartet thread:



Efraim said:


> We certainly must respect the famous old musicians but their manner of playing has been out of date for long. As early as some 50 or 60 years ago violin teachers used to put on the turntable old records to show the pupils the way they were not allowed to play: exaggerated and unceasing tremolos, portamentos and other easy-going technical possibilities, which make a mawkish effect and occult the richness of the work instead of unveiling it (...) I just bought through the internet a few quartets of Haydn with the Pro Arte Quartet, thinking it was a new group; it turned out that it was a famous old one, founded in 1912. The whole business is just good to adorn your collection but not to be listened to (...) To make things worse, old recordings are so poor und ugly that after you got accustomed to the fantastic modern recordings you can not really enjoy them...


To tell the truth the above is more an impression than an opinion firmly based on a good acquaintance with famous old quartet ensembles: apart from the Pro Arte, the Flonzaley and a Czechoslovak Quartet I only heard some of them on the radio. So I would like to know if your experience with these famous quartets confirm or not this impression of mine.

Besides, what or who are Biddulph and OOP?


----------



## Efraim

Andante said:


> That is also going to be a problem for me as I only have 2 or 3 versions of my Qts, but that may apply to most of us


You see, this is the very reason why I was reluctant to start a new quartet thread instead of remaining in the good old one, where some people have a fair amount of different performances of the same works.


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


> ... the cellist wasn't Starker. The recordings are from the 20s., and at that time Starker was a child.


I apparently mixed up two things. There happens to be a Rose Quartet, while the famous old quartet you are talking about is written actually *Rosé* Quartet, with an accent on the last letter. - I saw in a list of LPs in the description of an item: "*Rose Quartet (with Starker)*": if this was exact, Starker played for some time in a Rose (not Rosé) Quartet or joined it occasionally.

I made another mistake too: I mixed up two violinists and their two quartets: Calvet and Capet. Capet died some 80 years ago.


----------



## Guest

Efraim said:


> You see, this is the very reason why I was reluctant to start a new quartet thread instead of remaining in the good old one, where some people have a fair amount of different performances of the same works.


I can't see what difference that would make, regarding how many different versions you have!
I would still have only X amount of Beethovens late Qts.no matter which thread I was on.
If people are interested in this subject they will join thread and it keeps thing tidier.


----------



## Efraim

Efraim said:


> I apparently mixed up two things. There happens to be a Rose Quartet, while the famous old quartet you are talking about is written actually *Rosé* Quartet, with an accent on the last letter. - I saw in a list of LPs in the description of an item: "*Rose Quartet (with Starker)*": if this was exact, Starker played for some time in a Rose (not Rosé) Quartet or joined it occasionally.
> 
> I made another mistake too: I mixed up two violinists and their two quartets: Calvet and Capet. Capet died some 80 years ago.


Dear myself, you mixed up Rose Quartet and Rosé Quartet together with ROTH Quartet. Starker played in Roth Quartet.


----------



## Taneyev

Don't worry my friend. It's easy to confuse. e.g.Heifetz played the cello on a string quartet.


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


> Don't worry my friend. It's easy to confuse. e.g.Heifetz played the cello on a string quartet.


Are you sure  this is _Yasha _Heifetz? I have a record, Schubert's String Quintet, by the Budapest Quartet "with _Benar_ Heifetz, Cellist."


----------



## Taneyev

I've said Heifetz, no Jascha Heifetz. Yes, I was refering to Benar, and you jumped as I expected you will. But Benar was also cellist on a more important ensamble, the Kolisch


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


>


I have Schubert's Piano Sonata in B Flat by Perelman.


----------



## Guest

Efraim said:


> I have Schubert's Piano Sonata in B Flat by Perelman.


Yey, he is truly a very versatile musician, I have him playing several P Son by Strause,s Farther


----------



## Taneyev

And what has a pianist to do in this post? We were talking about string quartets, as the Primrose, the Schneiderhann, the Amar-Hindemith or the Kreisler.


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


> And what has a pianist to do in this post? We were talking about string quartets, as the Primrose, the Schneiderhann, the Amar-Hindemith or the Kreisler.


He was mentioned because he is a namesake of a violonist and in order to repay you your joke with Heifetz. By the way I think a pianist is by no means a persona non grata among string quartet members. In a piano quintet he is as indispensable as is the string quartet... Finally, don't forget that I have been mentioned, too, in this forum, even though I am (unfortunately) neither a pianist nor a string quartet.


----------



## Taneyev

Well, you'r right. Jascha was also a good pianist


----------



## Efraim

Taneyev said:


> Well, you'r right. Jascha was also a good pianist


I am not sure we fully understoond each other. In a previous post I was mentioning _*Nathan*_ Perelman, by whom I have Schubert's last piano sonata. (A good performance.) He must be or have been Russian since the record is from Russia. I omitted his first name to make you believe that _Itzhak_ Perelman played the piano sonata. I don't know if I succeeded to cheat you;  I probably didn't. 

By the way I have two records with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau - the real one - conducting an orchestre (Brahms' 4th symphony and Berlioz' Harold in Italy).


----------



## Taneyev

Yes, they are rare recordings. But IMO, he was a good singer, but a mediocre condutor. Something similar as Rostropovich or Placido Domingo. About pianist-violinists or violinists-pianists, there are other examples. Harold Bauer begin as a violinist before turn to the piano. Kreisler could play the piano (he recorded Dvorak's famous Humoresque). Louis Persinger was both violinist and pianist. Evgeni Svetlanov was an excelent pianist, as Bruno Walter. Barbirolli and Toscanini were both cellist before conductors. Barbirolli even recorded one sonata for cello and piano by Bach. Ormandy begin a career as a violinist (he was a pupil of Hubay), and he recorded some pieces on the violin.Probably that's why he was so good as a conductor of violin concertos. Paganini played the viola and was a very good guitarist, Kousevitsky was a contrabassist. There are many examples of musicians with many habilities.


----------



## Head_case

...back on topic ...



> Dear Addicts to music, that's a pity that the string quartet, perhaps the noblest of all musical genres, is somewhat neglected here. Is somebody interested in a talk about comparing different interpretations of famous string quartets?


Yes


----------



## Guest

Head case, You may have to pm whoever it is you are directing your quote at?


----------



## Head_case

Dunno. 

My laptop battery was about to die, so I managed to get a one word reply to the OP in 











PS - the quote is from the original poster, asking his original question ~ the thread has just deviated from his original post, which is why you might not recognise it


----------



## Guest

Yeh, they seem to have a life of their own


----------



## Head_case

...and this one has come back to life 

Saw the Wihan String Quartet live this month. A fascinating performance, although perhaps a little too romantic in flavour and feel. The romantic ethos seems to have guided them in their 25th anniversary concert of pieces by Dvorak; Martinu (fabulous) and Smetana. One would have thought it would be a nationalistic flavour, however that seems to be a given from the selection of the repertoire. Nothing was really 'epic' in their play, compared to recordings I've heard although a very enjoyable concert and technically brilliantly executed. There were moments when the violists' strings were flaring in the higher register.

One thing that struck me is that they have all put on weight since I last saw them in concert lol.


----------



## altiste

*"Quatuor Français"*

I've just uploaded a recording of the Beethoven Op.59/2 Quartet recorded by the Quatuor Français in 1981 (concert performance). Just scroll down to the bottom of the biography. I like this interpretation and will be interested to hear what others think of it.


----------



## Head_case

I don't know the repertoire very well - they seem to play very sweetly - classical/romantic style. Apart from the recording quality, their sprightly gusto really comes across very well. It doesn't quite have the definition of the vinyl LP version of the Vlach Quartet although is a diametrical opposite of the Taneyev reading! 

Isn't it funny how French and Russians can interpret a German composers' work?


----------



## altiste

Head_case said:


> very sweetly - classical/romantic style


This comment somewhat fascinates me, in that it covers a very large period of music with stylistically very different composers. Do you intend to imply that music after the romantic period should not be played "sweetly", and if not why not? Just curious and interested to what qualities define this.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Does anyone have any opinion about the British string quartet ensemble The Lindsays?

I have their Borodin SQ CD and I think it's fantastic; but a couple of idiots on Amazon have been dissing it.

Lil' help?

http://www.amazon.com/Borodin-Strin...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1281910475&sr=1-1

---------------------------------

Now listening to the Kocian SQ's Hindemith readings on Praga label.

http://www.amazon.com/Hindemith-Str...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1281910555&sr=1-3


----------



## Quartetfore

British reviewers loved them, Americans did not.


----------



## Head_case

> This comment somewhat fascinates me, in that it covers a very large period of music with stylistically very different composers. Do you intend to imply that music after the romantic period should not be played "sweetly", and if not why not? Just curious and interested to what qualities define this.


There are many individualistic interpretations of the Beethoven quartets. I don't mind whether they're sweet or not. Listen to the Taneyev Quartet versions of the same quartet - this is a very different reading: it didn't go down well with many, although is still available in print, so clearly some like this sedative approach!  There are other alternatives to 'sweet' playing like the technical and clinical style of the Alban Berg.

It's not that one's better than another: that's too narrow a view. Different versions enrich the version of a Beethoven quartet which we hear in our minds. I like hearing parallel interpretations for that reason.


----------



## Head_case

> Does anyone have any opinion about the British string quartet ensemble The Lindsays?


I can't say I love them either. They were heavily promoted by the ASV label, but I always found some alternative interpretation which seemed to make more of the music than the Lindsays.

As Quartetfore says - they were probably a regional speciality. Our CD library had the whole collection of their CD releases. It got rather tiresome wading through it all 

Lol - maybe I'm one of those idiots who don't care for it. I'd rather listen to the Quatuor Anton, the Borodin Quartet or the St Petersburg Quartet versions of Borodin's two string quartets.

Be interested to hear what you make of the Kocian Quartet reading of the Hindemith Quartets. I have one recording by the Zehetmair Quartet which is superb, and the rest of Hindemiths by some average players. The Kocian Quartet are first class like their counterparts, the Prazak Quartet. I'm not keen on the way that Praga split their CDs with the younger less experienced Zemlinsky Quartet. It makes for a very recital like programming on CD. They did this for the recent premiere cycle of the Kalabis string quartets. I'm getting into Kalabis for his harpsichord and flute material, and now his complete string quartets too.

Imho, the Kocian Quartet and the Prazak combo do the best 'cycle' of Martinu's 7 string quartets with teh Martinu Quartet next.


----------



## Quartetfore

I would think that the reason reviewers on this side object to is what they consider the technical imperfections in their playing. I have never heard them so have no opinion. On the other hand, one of reasons they the rate the Emersons so highly is their technical perfection. I have heard them play a number of times over the years (they give a series very near my home each year) and they are picture perfect in this aspect. I don`t think that The Borodins recording of the two Borodin quartets have ever been topped, equaled perhaps but not topped.


----------



## Head_case

I'd love to see the Emersons play if they were that close to where I live! You can never get to enough string quartet concerts 

I've liked most versions of the Borodin Quartet's reading of the two Borodin String quartets - except the awful Naxos version. It lacks both the sparkle and Russian verve that all the other quartet readings convey. The St Petersburg Quartet is the darling recording of the BBC Music magazine; the Quatuor Anton won the Diapason d'or de l'année/Choc du monde award from the French Awards for their version. They aren't as well known as the St Petersburg Quartet. This early romantic Russian stuff is something I find much easier to get into than say, Grechaninov's four string quartets, or Kabalevsky's two string quartets from the mid last century..


----------



## jurianbai

Head_case said:


> Imho, the Kocian Quartet and the Prazak combo do the best 'cycle' of Martinu's 7 string quartets with teh Martinu Quartet next.


and the Stamitz's is what I have for Martinu. My listening say Martinu has maybe two style in the quartets. The first one is sweet folk influenced and the laters are going more complex. Like it all.


----------



## Quartetfore

I find that the 2nd quartet of Alexander Grechaninov a very appealing work, in fact it is one of my favorite Russian "Romantic" chamber works. Others in that group might include the Tchaikovsky String Sextet, the String Octet of Reinhold Gliere and of course the 2nd Borodin Quartet. This music for me at least evokes a time long past.


----------



## Head_case

> and the Stamitz's is what I have for Martinu. My listening say Martinu has maybe two style in the quartets. The first one is sweet folk influenced and the laters are going more complex. Like it all.


Spot on!

I'm still not sure why Praga seem to do this always ... not just Martinu's works. I like Martinu's ceaselessly searching style in his second string quartet. His early string quartet No. I recalls Honegger to me. My new recording of Martinu's harpsichord concerto on period harpsichord is just sublime! He's a chamber music composer in the way Myaskovsky was - some fantastic cello sonata works from both.



> I find that the 2nd quartet of Alexander Grechaninov a very appealing work, in fact it is one of my favorite Russian "Romantic" chamber works. Others in that group might include the Tchaikovsky String Sextet, the String Octet of Reinhold Gliere and of course the 2nd Borodin Quartet. This music for me at least evokes a time long past.


It's not a bad string quartet at all: I remember it won some Soviet chamber award when it was written although I daresay I appreciate it more than Arensky's string quartets. Maybe that's why I'm not so fond of it: it reminds me of Tchaikovsky. I just don't listen to (too much) romantic music. Which recording are you listening to? The Moyzes Quartet, or the Utrecht String Quartet?

I have the Moyzes Quartet. It's okay. I've never worked out where Gliere's string quartet works fit in ... wouldn't mind hearing these too.


----------



## Quartetfore

The Grechaninov Quartet won a first prize in a 1894 contest. I have the Utrecht quartets recording. I don`t think that the Glier Quartets that I know (op.1 and op.20) are at the same level of quality as his Octet and Sextet, but they are nice works to listen to once in awhile.


----------



## Head_case

That's no surprise - it's well written, particularly in the watershed era of Russian chamber music!

I'm tempted to get the Utrecht recording, thinking that it might be better than my Moyzes Quartet performance on Naxos.


----------



## Quartetfore

The Moyzes Quartet is a group that one does not hear very much anymore. I have their recording of the Schostakovich #2 and #4 on a budget label called "Amadis" which is or was a part of Naxos.


----------



## Head_case

Yes .. it was a cheap way to discover the Grechaninov string quartet. I haven't seen any other recording exc. by the Utrecht String Quartet (who got slated for one of their releases recently...  ). 

Naxos do bring some very interesting string quartets in from nowhere! I was really impressed at the difficult playing for the Enescu string quartets recorded by the Ad Libitum Quartet. These are very difficult quartets to get into - but they play it with such attention to phrasing and detail. My only other comparison of this quartet is with the Athaneneum-Enesco Quartet recording on CPO. Not as bright as the Ad Libitum Quartet recording. 

Guess some quartets disband and move on. Do you remember the Krasni Quartet, who are best known for their one hit wonder recordings of the complete Shebalin String Quartet cycles? Well the little guy with the big hair do who was the first violinist went off to play fiddle with a large American symphony orchestra and became a composer! He got a hair cut too.


----------



## Quartetfore

Of course you mean Anton Shelpov, he of the rose red cheeks. He is active in American Midwest, playing with several minor Symphony Orch. The Utrecht Quartet has recorded all the quartets of Glazunov, I have Vol.#1 and 2. The Op. 70 is a worthwhile work, the other three not so great.


----------



## Head_case

Yep - that's the one! Anton Shlepov! 

Sad to see him go commercial into orchestral music and abandon the string quartet 

Wot???!!! You didn't like the Slavonic Quartet, nor the F Major and the A minor?! 

Those are my favourites of the Glazunov repertoire. I like no.s II-V; no. I is elusive ... no. VI & VII are too sterile. I don't know the Utrecht recordings - most of mine are from the last century on Olympia. 

The St Petersburg Quartet do a superb version of the quartet no. V. They haven't traversed the cycle and by the looks of it, probably won't. 

Not sure why Glazunov gets bad rap - the early/middle string quartets are very romantic and endearing with characteristic Russian flavouring. I suppose this is not how most people discover him though - given that his string quartet catalogue has mostly been deleted and poorly covered, the Utrecht Quartet recordings are probably the next best thing since the 1980s' Shostakovich Quartet did the Glazunov string quartet cycle.


----------



## Quartetfore

Come think about it, I do like the "Slavonic" quartet. I had at on time the St Petersburg recording (Delos), but returned it---to much heavy breathing, to many sniffs for my taste.


----------



## Head_case

You'll like the Shostakovich Quartet' early rendition of the Slavonic Quartet then. There is none of that modern toe tapping and surface noise that you get with the younger and less house trained artists like the Ebene Quatuor on their epic Debussy recording...or as you say, the St Petersburg Quartet. The worse offender has to be one of my favourite cellists - Yoyo Ma who comes across as having sleep apnoea in middle of a cello sonata. Forgiveable, but distracting from the awe that his music recordings could be. 

In the gold ol' days, all you could trace was the slight brush or ruffle of a blazer sleeve during a studio recording. A bit like watching live tennis, where womens' tennis was more refined and elegant in long ankle length skirts and puffy blouses - none of that Steffi Graf grunting and the unfeminine character of modern tennis players with bizarre fashion sense.


----------



## Quartetfore

I watched a bit of the US open today on the Tube, and they all seem to grunt. Tennis is one game that I would rather play then watch.


----------

