# Recordings of Shostakovich's String Quartets



## nospoonboy

Some brief remarks on recordings of Shostakovich's String Quartets.

Here are some of my observations (of course, this post reflects my own taste preferences and I do not present myself as a "critic") after going through these cycles with the scores over the last 5 months, but listening to these works for years - here are some observations and a number of things that surprised me.

1. I really didn't comprehend just how different each of the quartets are - grouping them seems to me entirely arbitrary as there is not a clear sense of periods or "groups" as there is in Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven.

2. I found there to be a pretty wide gap between consistency in "cycles" - no cycle I listened to seemed to me to get all of the quartets "right" - this is probably true of most cycles of works generally speaking, but seemed a rather glaring aspect of recording a complete cycle.

3. I would say that ANY quartet/group that records these pieces deserves recognition and credit. They are truly extraordinary compositions and even more difficult to perform than I had previously thought.
So I wanted to give each of them sympathetic listening.

4. Surprise - there is a HUGE difference between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd cycles by the Borodin Quartet.
I used to consider the 1st and 2nd cycles as almost interchangeable or complementary. However, I now consider the 1st cycle (on Chandos 1967-1972) to be FAR superior to its successor (the 2nd on Melodiya 1978-1983) even though the 1st cycle is actually incomplete [missing quartet nos. 14 & 15 because they had not been written yet]. However, the 3rd cycle (on Decca 2016) isn't even in the same class as the first two.

5. In terms of consistency of interpretation (reading the score) and quality of recorded sound, I found the Danel Quartet (Quatuor Danel) on fuga libera/Alpha, Borodin I on Chandos [even with the missing last two quartets], and the Beethoven Quartet (the individual Melodiya releases, not the box set from 2008, which I found to be terribly re?mastered) to be the most consistent and insightful performances.

6. The next "group" would be the Emerson on DG 1994-1998 (which I found to be excellently recorded, but the performances tended to be extreme - and I have heard this from others with the same opinion - fast is faster, slow is slower, loud is louder, soft is softer, etc.), The Manhattan String Quartet on ESS.A.Y 1990 (this was a real sleeper for me, the rich sound and very tight playing by this quartet pulled me in a way I did not expect from a quartet I knew nothing about. Highly recommended), and the Alexander String Quartet on Foghorn 2006 (which for a number of years had always been my go-to for listening to these works…I found them to be not nearly up to the task as I imagined when comparing them to the Borodin or Beethoven interpretations. But the nitpicking is really about differences in phrasing or vibrato in places that were just a personal choice…nothing that would suggest they did not have a deep reverence for these works).

7. the next "group" would be cycles that I expected to enjoy more than I did due to my memory of them being so "good" - but I found that this group was only "excellent" in about half of the quartets. The Pacifica Quartet on Çedille, 2010-2013 (very good recorded sound, but sometimes the quartet just doesn't seem to be as together and tight as many of the works require, IMO), the Shostakovich Quartet on Regis 1978-1988 (very good in 1, 5, 6, 10, & 12…decent recorded sound), the 2nd Borodin cycle on Melodiya 1978-1983 (very good in 1, 5, & 12 - but when listening to the 1st cycle to the 2nd cycle there was a very clear interpretative difference between the two that became very obvious [to me]), and the Fitzwilliam String Quartet on Decca 1975-1977 (I often dismissed this quartet, which was unfair as I see why so many people have affection for this cycle. The warm playing and sound are Shostakovich "without the edges" so to speak. It presents a "prettier" sound picture of these works. Which I don't necessarily is a "bad" thing, just a different take…which in the end I think works [for the most part]).

8. The Taneyev on Aulos 1968-1976 (appeared to be marred by inconsistent recording, often shrill and harsh sound, but were best in quartet nos. 1, 2, & 4), The Manderling Quartett on Audite 2009 (the only SACD cycle I expected this cycle to sound better than it did and they did not appear to have really lived with the pieces like many of the other groups but were very good in quartet nos. 8 & 13), The Sorrel Quartet on Chandos 1998-2004 (did not rise to the level of the other groups, but with such incredible competition it is hard to have something 'original' to say - but it was a good cycle, in good sound), and the 1st Brodsky Quartet cycle (a galaxy away from their 2nd cycle on Chandos 2016, it had it's best moments in quartet no 6).

9. The following cycles did not offer much in insight, engagement, or sound:
The St. Petersburg String Quartet on Hyperion 1999-2003 (the engineers really did a disservice to this group as the sound is often VERY dry and antiseptic, along with what appeared to be scratchy, unpleasant tone produced by the players in most of the quartets), The 3rd Borodin cycle on Decca 2016 (knowing that is only the same group in name only to the previous incarnations, they have lost that connection to the past and these performances left me wondering "why?" they wanted to record a new cycle), the Éder Quartet on Naxos (this cycle sounded like four individual string players recording their parts independently in a cave instead of a group that was coordinating and communicating. The sound is distant the individual phrasing and vibrato seemed to be just that - each person on their own doing their own thing).
But that is nothing compared to the Rubio Quartet on Brilliant (this cycle seemed to be a collaboration of trying to do something "different" for the sake of different. Highly individualized interpretations which seemed so out of line with the scores and previous practice that they seemed post-modernist impressions of Shostakovich, instead of a coherent cycle with a vision).
The 2nd Brodsky cycle on Chandos 2016 (was far inferior to their previous effort on Teldec - the whole thing seemed hastily recorded and it felt like musicians clocking in for work at the factory).
But any of the above cycles are preferable to the Rasumowsky Quartets on Oehms from 2005 (the recorded sound seems empty and missing any of the meaty frequencies and the phrasing sounds like they are speaking another language…like a second language learner who has idiosyncratic ways of trying to say what they want to say in the language but doesn't sound like they are fluent or have "mastered" the language.

10. Some honorable mentions of discs that were not a part of a cycle, but highly recommended:
The Borodin Quartet - quartet nos 4 & 8 on Mercury 1962
The St Petersburg Quartet - quartet nos 3, 5, & 7 on Sony 1995 (much better than the performances in their Hyperion cycle)
The Kopelman Quartet - quartet nos. 3 & 7 on Nimbus 2006 (great performances by a quartet led by Mikhail Kopelman, the leader of the Borodin Quartet for twenty years)
The Kronos Quartet - quartet no 8 on Nonesuch 1990
Gidon Kremer, et al - quartet nos. 13 & 14 on ECM Edition Edition Lockenhaus vol 4 1988
Gidon Kremer, Daniel Phillips, Kim Kashkashian, & Yo-Yo Ma - quartet no. 15 on CBS Masterworks 1989
Thank you for indulging me.


----------



## Merl

Hi NSB (again!). Nice review. I think youre right about inconsistencies across the cycles but isnt that the case across all SQ cycles? I have nearly every major Mendelssohn cycle and most of the ensembles bugger up or give a dodgy version of at least one quartet. For Beethoven cycles its even more problematic (and Ive got stacks of those). 

There are postive things to be said about nearly all the Shosty quartet cycles out there (btw, I dont agree fully with you about all of the Rasumovsky, Eder and Rubio cycles which I like in bits but thats just down to personal taste). I like to see the good in everything! I must admit I dont care too much for the first Brodsky cycle though (I have half of it but have not listened to the other half) and its just not to my taste. If I go to the cd racks to play Shosty quartets I either reach for the Pacifica or Shostakovich cycle but i think thats jusy laziness as theyre easier to get the discs out. Lol. One of the things, I think, that puts people off the Borodin's late 70s/ early 80s Melodiya cycle is the sound, that is harsh (Melodiya = ropey sound? Now where have I heard that before:lol. When I've blogged my reviews of the quartets weve covered in the weekly quartet thread theres a wide range of interpretations, some of which resonate with me and some not. Apart from a few quartet ensembles there doesnt seem to be a lot of consistency of approach though but could that be because of the highly individual nature of the quartets (they are so different)? Should be interesting to hear what others think


----------



## EdwardBast

I hope the Jerusalem Quartet gets around to recording the complete set. They've performed all of them in concert and the performances can be watched and heard on YouTube. All of their performances I've seen have been excellent, especially the late ones.

Here's an example off their work. The Tenth:


----------



## SearsPoncho

I have 2 complete sets which I enjoy: the Fitzwilliam Quartet and the 2nd Borodin Quartet. If you find the audio of the Borodin harsh, you might prefer the excellent performance of the Fitzwilliam Qt.


----------



## Triplets

I am impressed by the OP. My only 2 complete cycles are the Fitzwilliam and the first Borodin, which I view as complimentary. Otherwise I have have a smattering of recordings by the Pacica, Maggini, and a few others


----------



## SanAntone

There have been a number of newer recordings of the quartets since I was in the first flush of my collecting.

These are the ones I have:

Pacifica *****
Shostakovich ****
Borodin 2 ****
Borodin 1 ***
Borodin 3 ***
Danel ***
Fitzwilliam ***
Mandelring ***
Alexander ***
Sorrell ***
Eder ***
Emerson **
Beethoven **
Brodsky **
Rubio **


----------



## sasdwf

Thanks for the write up. I especially appreciated the shout out to Quatuor Danel, one of my favorite cycles. They are sometimes omitted from these assessments, but they play with great musicality that captures both the edginess and haunting beauty of many of the works. I’ve a sentimental fondness for the Fitzwilliam and Borodin II sets. They introduced me to the music. But the Borodin set I reach for these days is Borodin I.


----------



## Ned Low

I haven't listened to all the recommended sets but in my humble opinion, Beethoven Quartet might be the best quartet that knew and performed most of the works well. After all, the members were close to Shostakovich, were dedicatee of some of his quartets and premiered nearly all of them.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Ned Low said:


> I haven't listened to all the recommended sets but in my humble opinion, Beethoven Quartet might be the best quartet that knew and performed most of the works well. After all, the members were close to Shostakovich, were dedicatee of some of his quartets and premiered nearly all of them.


I listened to them performing the last two SQs yesterday.

SHOSTAKOVICH: The 15 String Quartets
THE BEETHOVEN QUARTET - DHR-7911-5 (5CDs) Recorded 1956-1974
Label: DOREMI
http://www.doremi.com/shostakovich.html

I think this set is amazing , but I have numerous sets and I think the Borodin II is up there too


----------



## Merl

The issue with that Beethoven Quartet cycle (as NSB pointed out in his initial post) has always been the sound. The first time I heard the Beethoven's Shostakovich was from those Consonance reissues and they were just horrible, doing the Beethoven's no good whatsoever. Fortunately the ones on my streaming service, now, are the Doremi reissues which corrected much of the disservice Consonance did to the Beethovens. However (correct me if I'm wrong) but the remasters for Doremi were done from LPs and NOT from the original master tapes and, as a result, there's still a few issues with the 50s recordings regarding sound. Why use LPs to do this? Why use an imperfect source because you're going to get imperfect results (a bit like remastering from lossy mp3 rips)? Seems bizarre and a missed opportunity. Am I correct about this, btw?

We know from various quotes that Shosty grew increasingly dissatisfied with the Beethoven Quartet's accounts of his work but he was so close to them and so fond of them personally that he persevered with them even when not totally satisfied with their playing (he didn't like any of their performances of his 4th quartet). This is not a criticism, as such, but just because they were close to the composer does not mean they were his finest interpreters. What I do like about the recordings I've heard is the directness, unfussiness and quick tempos.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I am not going to have a go at the OP at all, although I reckon the Eder are better than are given credit here, and my personal loyalty is to the Fitzwilliam, albeit slight over the Borodins. Some very good comments in there, good sir!

Has anyone listened to the Carducci quartet, who are taking their time over recording a cycle on Signum Classics. Having heard them live (in Reading, of all places!) I feel they are right inside this music, excellent in all the ones recorded so far (4,8,11 and 1,2,7)


----------



## HerbertNorman

CnC Bartok said:


> I am not going to have a go at the OP at all, although I reckon the Eder are better than are given credit here, and my personal loyalty is to the Fitzwilliam, albeit slight over the Borodins. Some very good comments in there, good sir!
> 
> Has anyone listened to the Carducci quartet, who are taking their time over recording a cycle on Signum Classics. Having heard them live (in Reading, of all places!) I feel they are right inside this music, excellent in all the ones recorded so far (4,8,11 and 1,2,7)


Heard of them ? YES But I haven't made time to listen to their interpretation of the Shostakovich SQs tbh... Something I'll be doing very soon . 
I remember them playing in London , hearing them performing Bartok and Haydn , before the pandemic! Quite a treat that was...


----------



## Merl

CnC Bartok said:


> I am not going to have a go at the OP at all, although I reckon the Eder are better than are given credit here, and my personal loyalty is to the Fitzwilliam, albeit slight over the Borodins. Some very good comments in there, good sir!
> 
> Has anyone listened to the Carducci quartet, who are taking their time over recording a cycle on Signum Classics. Having heard them live (in Reading, of all places!) I feel they are right inside this music, excellent in all the ones recorded so far (4,8,11 and 1,2,7)


I like the Carduccis from what I've heard, CnC. They're a fresh and insightful ensemble from all of the performances I've reviewed of theirs. Their Mendelssohn #6 was a really impressive one and all of their Shosty recordings, that I've reviewed up to now, have at least made my recommended lists and their 4th was really top-notch. The sound on all their recordings is really good too but that's the biggest bonus of most SQ recordings these days. Few horrid, hissy distant soundstages anymore, dodgy balances, congested sound or appalling intonation. We truly are in a golden age of String Quartet playing at the moment. So many terrific recordings.


----------



## nospoonboy

I think it is really about time that Melodiya gives the Beethoven Quartets' Shostakovich cycle the same remastered treatment they gave to their Beethoven cycle, which I found very enjoyable. As Merl stated, it appears that Doremi used LPs instead of the original master tapes...I'm thinking they might not have had access to them(?). 
But surely Melodiya has the originals(?). I'm hoping that we get a good (re)mastering of these recordings.


----------



## HerbertNorman

nospoonboy said:


> I think it is really about time that Melodiya gives the Beethoven Quartets' Shostakovich cycle the same remastered treatment they gave to their Beethoven cycle, which I found very enjoyable. As Merl stated, it appears that Doremi used LPs instead of the original master tapes...I'm thinking they might not have had access to them(?).
> But surely Melodiya has the originals(?). I'm hoping that we get a good (re)mastering of these recordings.


I have to agree here. I think there's some " charm " to the doremi recording, because it has the sound of the LP... but they surely must be able to remaster it and make it completely up to standard! Here's hoping they do...


----------



## CnC Bartok

Melodiya's entire catalogue was sold off under suspicious circumstances back in 2020. God knows what is happening to their thousands upon thousands of essential recordings......


----------



## Merl

CnC Bartok said:


> Melodiya's entire catalogue was sold off under suspicious circumstances back in 2020. God knows what is happening to their thousands upon thousands of essential recordings......


The Melodiya issue is a nightmare as there are so many great symphony and chamber recordings all needing to be desperately remastered. I read your post about the dodgy sale to Formax, last year, CnC and it all stinks. I wonder what the future holds but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect that many of these valuable recordings won't see the light of day ever again or if they do it'll be in inferior packaging and sound. Imagine some of those performances totally remastered with the love they deserve. Sigh.


----------



## Mandryka

I’ll just mention, in case anyone’s interested, that after a lifetime of searching I finally found a recording of the 15th quartet which I enjoy - The Danish Quartet on ECM. I can now die happy.


----------



## nospoonboy

Mandryka said:


> I'll just mention, in case anyone's interested, that after a lifetime of searching I finally found a recording of the 15th quartet which I enjoy - The Danish Quartet on ECM. I can now die happy.


This is one I missed...thanks for the recommendation!


----------



## Merl

Mandryka said:


> I'll just mention, in case anyone's interested, that after a lifetime of searching I finally found a recording of the 15th quartet which I enjoy - The Danish Quartet on ECM. I can now die happy.


Those ECM Prism discs by the Danish Quartet are superb. Their Beethoven is terrific too.


----------



## RuneNaljoss

In case this is of help to anyone: Here's my "Shostakovich String Quartet Cycle Survey" (updated).

Because there has been some comment that I don't respond to comments on the site: That's true -- or at least I respond very late... because I don't get notices when a comment is being left. (I don't actually run the admin side of the site.) You can always point me into the directions of your comments (or make them directly) via Twitter or Instagram to @ClassicalCritic.


----------

