# Bartok-String Quartets 1-6



## starthrower

I am an inexperienced string quartet listener. I never owned SQ recordings by any composer until I purchased the Bartok's by the Alban Berg Quartet a few months ago. I'm a fan of many other Bartok works, and I love his string writing for the concertos and sonatas but I cannot get into these quartets at all. I have to say that the EMI set I bought is not the best sounding recording I've ever heard, but I fear it may just be the music itself I can't warm up to. Anybody else have a similar experience with these works?


----------



## jurianbai

I listen to Bartok's string quartet quite long and perhaps I also never trully enjoyed the piece for its above moderate dissonance. But the piece is surely interesting enough to keep you want to listen to it for a long time. I listen to Emerson and Parker SQ recording.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Bartoks' SQ are, in one word, arresting. The dissonance are quite approachable.


----------



## starthrower

I like dissonance, so that is not a problem.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Well, Starthrower - with Bartok you certainly chucked yourself in the deep end with string quartets! I also came to them early (though not before I'd listened to more approachable fare) and found them puzzling and beguiling in equal measure. As to whether you'll take to them by suddenly having a 'lightbulb over the head' moment I wouldn't like to say - if you've been battling away for some time and you still can't crack them then you might want to put them aside for a while. If a point comes when they suddenly make sense then most quartets written up until then shouldn't hold too many terrors (although that's not to say you'll like them!). Perhaps you'd like to tell us which other quartets you've heard?


----------



## Ukko

Starthrower, the sound combinations coming from a string quartet can take some getting used to anyway, even without obvious dissonance. Maybe you could listen to, say, Beethoven's Op. 18 for awhile, to 'normalize' the sound in your brain.

When you go back to the Bartók, try listening to the long line (the equivalent of paragraph), to get an idea of where the music is going, before paying much attention to phrases and individual 'sentences'.

If you don't understand what I'm suggesting, don't be alarmed. I am 'a voice from the wilderness' here.


----------



## starthrower

As I mentioned in my original post, I haven't listened to any other quartets with the exception of hearing a couple of Beethoven's on the radio, and I've heard Glenn Gould's string quartet. 

I'm going to give the Bartok a rest and get some of Beethoven's late quartets from the library.


----------



## Bronie

I came to Bartok through the Concerto for Orchestra, which is quite accessible. It also stretches the ears a little bit. Then on to the Violin Concerto (I know there are two, but one is more popular than the other) and it almost equals the dissonance level of the quartets. I think it's just a matter of experience. Now my favorites among the quartets are the more dissonant ones -- 3, 4, and 5. Don't give up. You might also try some of the Shotakovich quartets for practice with 20th century chamber music.


----------



## starthrower

Oh, I won't give up. As I mentioned, I'm already a Bartok fan, and I'm mainly a 20th century music listener. This is why I'm surprised that I don't like the Bartok quartets right off.


----------



## Webernite

I'd just get a different recording. Or if the string quartet genre is a bit foreign to you, try getting into the quartets of Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, Haydn etc. first.


----------



## Efraim

starthrower said:


> I am an inexperienced string quartet listener. I never owned SQ recordings by any composer until I purchased the Bartok's by the Alban Berg Quartet a few months ago. I'm a fan of many other Bartok works, and I love his string writing for the concertos and sonatas but I cannot get into these quartets at all. I have to say that the EMI set I bought is not the best sounding recording I've ever heard, but I fear it may just be the music itself I can't warm up to. Anybody else have a similar experience with these works?


Very interesting question. You are absolutely laudable for not giving up something that seems to you too hard to swallow. - I can confess you that when I began listening to classical music - more than 50 year ago -, I was unable not to fall asleep even in a concert of some Mozart's piano concertos. I started with popular works: Haydn's Farewell Symphony, Mozart's G minor symphony, Beethoven's 5th, Liszt's Piano concerto in E flat and the like. To string quartets I came later, after one or two years of fervent listening to everything but chamber music.

It is not surprising that the string quartets are less easy to be absorbed than other kinds of music. With Beethoven, Brahms and others it is not different. Perhaps you should put them aside for some time, listen to Bartok's Allegro barbaro, Cantata profana, Bluebard's castle, Concerto, the Miraculous mandarin, which are more "catchy" - but nonetheless great masterpieces -, then to the 2d piano concerto, the Music for strings... etc., the Sonata for 2 pianos, perc. & celesta, and when you are familiar with all that, you should try again the SQs, not beginning with the 1st and the 2d but with the 3d and 4th, which are anyway the best ones.

I don't know the recording of the Alban Berg's but I suppose it is not bad at all and it is hard to imagine that an EMI does not sound well. I have Bartok's SQs by Juilliard, the Hungarian Quartet, the Novak Quartet and the Parrenin Qu. All of these performances are good, the most original being, however, that of the Parrenin's, but I wonder if it is available.

If you are an inexperienced SQ listener but want to know this musical world, I would suggest to start with Dvorak's American SQ, Mozart's D minor and C major (the Dissonances), Haydn's The Lark or the Op. 33/1 (in B minor, a somewhat concerto-like SQ), Anton Webern's Op. 5, Ravel's...


----------



## Argus

Efraim said:


> not beginning with the 1st and the 2d but with the 3d and 4th, which are anyway the best ones.


I can agree with that, except the middle movement of the 2nd is probably the best section of music in all 6 SQ's.

These are the only string quartets I own, I'll add, because I'm not a massive fan of the format.


----------



## Vaneyes

starthrower said:


> I am an inexperienced string quartet listener. I never owned SQ recordings by any composer until I purchased the Bartok's by the Alban Berg Quartet a few months ago. I'm a fan of many other Bartok works, and I love his string writing for the concertos and sonatas but I cannot get into these quartets at all. I have to say that the EMI set I bought is not the best sounding recording I've ever heard, but I fear it may just be the music itself I can't warm up to. Anybody else have a similar experience with these works?


After no short search, the ABQ set became my preferred, and I found the 2002 remastered sound pleasing to the ears. Perhaps you have an earlier release?

The Bartok SQs are generally acquired taste and are recorded in many styles. Keep trying. For example, the Takacs set is approachable, with newer sound.


----------



## Sid James

Chamber music is (now) my favourite genre, particularly string quartets and piano trios. I have had the same experience as starthrower regarding Bartok's SQ's (& yes, I have the same recording, the ABQ on EMI). I was having a similar conversation regarding these works with fellow Australian member Conor here on TC just about a week back.

In his last 3 quartets (numbers 4-6), Bartok was highly influenced by the concepts of structure and thematic development laid down by Beethoven in his late quartets. So it's a good idea to familiarise yourself with those works and then come back to the Bartok. The first three quartets of Bartok are quite "atonal" and basically unintelligible to even me. I say this because I came to Bartok after I was familiar with the likes of Berg and Carter's efforts in this genre, and some of their works I can understand and enjoy better than any of Bartok's SQ's (particularly Berg's Op. 3 and Carter's 1st quartet - both of them take a number of themes on a journey, they are thematically integrated and holistic). Of course, all of this takes time.

A c20th composer whose quartet cycle I enjoy far more than Bartok's is Tippett. He wrote 5 in all, stretching across his entire long career. The 3rd is undoubtedly a masterpiece (& contains three fugues, but you probably wouldn't notice it upon your first listen). Tippett's 4th & 5th SQs are also very good (all 5 were highly influenced again by Beethoven's late quartets, eg. the 4th actually quotes Beethoven's Grosse Fuge Op. 133).

My strategy has been to simply leave Bartok on the backburner and go to other composers and try them out. Besides, I'm basically bored of Bartok's idiom which, once I got used to it, seemed like a grab bag of ticking all the right boxes in a technical sense, and then leaving the listener up in the air or in a limbo in terms of getting anything emotional out of these works. Bartok only seems to use dissonance to spice things up, as a kind of highlight, rather than it being an integral part of the music. I'm tired with this kind of trickery - it strikes me as being all show and little substance (doubtless others here will strongly disagree). Life is too short to force yourself into liking something that you don't warm to after repeated listenings. So you could try doing what I did, forget Bartok & get into the wealth of string quartet repertoire new & old - there's plenty out there you'll be sure to enjoy!...


----------



## Ukko

*What?*



Andre said:


> [...]
> My strategy has been to simply leave Bartok on the backburner and go to other composers and try them out. Besides, I'm basically bored of Bartok's idiom which, once I got used to it, seemed like a grab bag of ticking all the right boxes in a technical sense, and then leaving the listener up in the air or in a limbo in terms of getting anything emotional out of these works. Bartok only seems to use dissonance to spice things up, as a kind of highlight, rather than it being an integral part of the music. I'm tired with this kind of trickery - it strikes me as being all show and little substance (doubtless others here will strongly disagree). [...]


"Strongly disagree"? You betcha. It is obvious to me that you don't 'get' Bartók at all. Your post is detailed enough to lend weight to the diagnosis that your head got in the way to start with, causing misconceptions and resulting in...

A Bad Attitude


----------



## haydnfan

What I did to get into the string quartets was to simply listen to them alot. My favorite set is the Takacs. But they are a big jump from the orchestral works, they are more dissonant, complex, edgy it almost sounds like a different composer. And then the violin sonatas are really tough. But his chamber works are well worth it for those with patience.


----------



## Sid James

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Strongly disagree"? You betcha. It is obvious to me that you don't 'get' Bartók at all. Your post is detailed enough to lend weight to the diagnosis that your head got in the way to start with, causing misconceptions and resulting in...
> 
> A Bad Attitude


Whether or not I (or probably anyone else for that matter) 'gets' Bartok is hard to quantify - I mean, I am familiar with and have enjoyed a lot of his works over the past 20 years or so - even going to concerts to experience them live (which I would naturally recommend to anybody out there with the means or opportunity).

Yes, I do tend to over-intellectualise some things (my head getting in the way, as you say). But what I was suggesting strarthrower is a "way out" of his/her impasse with Bartok - an experience which I have had, as has my fellow Australian member on this forum, Conor. What I'm saying is the solution is not to flog oneself and force oneself to 'getting' something (whatever that means) by listening to something to death that you don't connect with after several goes, giving it time, or even buying several recorded versions of the works. Why not explore other masters of the string quartet genre, ones that could possibly appeal to you, out of the wealth of repertoire from the past 250 years?

I'm sorry if I have bought down some people's "sacred cows," but I was expressing things the way I see (& experience) them, nothing more, nothing less. Take it or leave it. It's not necessary to 'get' any composer's music, even if they are titans like say J. S. Bach, Mendelssohn or Bartok in order to enjoy and appreciate a certain (or many) genres of classical music...


----------



## Quartetfore

I can`t agree you more. There is no need to force one`s self when it comes to music, or for that matter any art form. Bartoks quartets will always be there, and at some time in the future if you wish to try them again do so. For myself, I like the 1st, 2nd and 4th. I can do with out the 3rd, 5th and 6th. I see that I left out "with" in the first sentence---sorry about that.


----------



## Head_case

starthrower said:


> I am an inexperienced string quartet listener. I never owned SQ recordings by any composer until I purchased the Bartok's by the Alban Berg Quartet a few months ago. I'm a fan of many other Bartok works, and I love his string writing for the concertos and sonatas but I cannot get into these quartets at all. I have to say that the EMI set I bought is not the best sounding recording I've ever heard, but I fear it may just be the music itself I can't warm up to. Anybody else have a similar experience with these works?


Hi there,

Can't say I've had a similar experience to you - probably the complete opposite 

Interrupted Intermezzo is one of the first sections of modern classical music I ever heard when I left primary school. I tend to listen to Bartok's string quartets in sections, rather than from no. I - VI. After listening to quite a few cycles by string quartets, the ones that stand out the most for me - are the Hungarian cycles - The Végh Quartet; The Takacs; The Keller Quartet. The others, like the Alban Berg, are technically very good (in fact, everything by the Alban Berg is technically very good, if not at risk of being overly sterile compared to the warm recordings of the old Végh recordings and the Keller Quartet.

There is one new interpretation which really stunned me recently - the Zehetmair Quartet's version of String Quartet No. IV. Incomplete - but they share the same kind of big picture approach as the Hungarian quartets, rather than the detailed and analytical approach of some of the technically brilliant interpreters. The risk I find with the Bartok string quartets, is that the overly analytical approach, tends to bleed the music dry of any spiritual connection to the superlative Bartokian folk transformations. Given that they play it from heart, without the manuscript, you can see the kind of heart-felt devotion that goes into making such incredible music. Do try a different version though - if you are (unfortunately as) picky (as me), you won't be satisfied with the version you have.

I suppose the Bartok string quartet cycle occupy a rather elevated position in modern string quartet literature - I hope you're not put off by it. Given that you enjoy Bartok a lot, maybe try some Kodaly; Lathja string quartets - his colleagues and countrymen tend towards less dissonance.


----------



## Conor71

I find the Bartok Quartets difficult works to appreciate as well and as Andre has mentioned, I had a conversation with him about the Bartok's a couple of weeks ago .
I'm getting to the stage now where I am beginning to like these works but this has been a by-product of my recent listening to composers like Ligeti and Xenakis so the Bartoks are sounding a lot less harsh to me now!.
I agree with Andre's suggestion that if youre having difficulty you can try putting them aside for a while or perhaps work yourself up to the gradually by trying something like Debussy, Ravel and Shostakovich first, which are a bit easier to handle I think .


----------



## jurianbai

one of trick to get into difficult piece is by listening to other recording. I was familiar myself with the Parker SQ and some other broken number by various ensembles, and then last year I went for complete cycle by Emerson Quartet. The relisten experience was many improvement, my mind tricked into thinking that this is a new music I never listened, but it is a familiar tune!


----------



## Ukko

jurianbai said:


> one of trick to get into difficult piece is by listening to other recording. I was familiar myself with the Parker SQ and some other broken number by various ensembles, and then last year I went for complete cycle by Emerson Quartet. The relisten experience was many improvement, my mind tricked into thinking that this is a new music I never listened, but it is a familiar tune!


The 'end around' (American football term) approach recommended by you and others is of course often effective. That you were able to assimilate the Emerson interpretations (see the comment by_ Head Case_ re the ABQ) is especially impressive.


----------



## Vaneyes

Hilltroll72 said:


> The 'end around' (American football term) approach recommended by you and others is of course often effective. That you were able to assimilate the Emerson interpretations (see the comment by_ Head Case_ re the ABQ) is especially impressive.


Yes, I've donned my hip-waders for many of the utterances.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Conor71 said:


> I find the Bartok Quartets difficult works to appreciate as well and as Andre has mentioned, I had a conversation with him about the Bartok's a couple of weeks ago .
> I'm getting to the stage now where I am beginning to like these works but this has been a by-product of my recent listening to composers like Ligeti and Xenakis so the Bartoks are sounding a lot less harsh to me now!.
> I agree with Andre's suggestion that if youre having difficulty you can try putting them aside for a while or perhaps work yourself up to the gradually by trying something like Debussy, Ravel and Shostakovich first, which are a bit easier to handle I think .





jurianbai said:


> one of trick to get into difficult piece is by listening to other recording. I was familiar myself with the Parker SQ and some other broken number by various ensembles, and then last year I went for complete cycle by Emerson Quartet. The relisten experience was many improvement, my mind tricked into thinking that this is a new music I never listened, but it is a familiar tune!


Both sensible suggestions, I think, although I might not agree with the painful Ligeti and Xenakis warm up first though! 

Bartok's SQ were unique at the time of their composition, if I'm not wrong and still seem to stand well to the test of times, as if they are the "benckmark" of atonal SQ music.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ...as if they are the "benckmark" of atonal SQ music.


From what I've read, none of the Bartok SQs are fully "atonal," although he does come close to that in some of these works. He's always never far away from the tonic (hence each SQ being in a certain key). This is kind of my problem with Bartok generally, he played these technical games with atonality, but just as he's about to dive in & fully explore it, he's at the edge of it, but then he pulls out and goes back to tonality. I find this a bit tedious and limiting. That's probably why I have tended to connect with the SQs of c20th composers who went fully into atonality - eg. Carter, Tippett & Ligeti to name three. Xenakis I'm beginning to warm up to, but he was totally different from those other three, so in a different category of his own.

I'd strongly recommend Tippett, he is very adventurous (well, for an Englishman, anyway  ) in terms of tonality, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, etc. but all of his 5 quartets, except maybe the more astringent 4th, are quite gentle on the ear, despite being quite progressive. What Tippett does is far more interesting (imo) than Bartok, on the surface Tippett may seem to be quite conservative but once you dig beneath the surface, there are a wealth of imaginative and sophisticated ideas there (eg. there is much less loud dissonance in his SQs, but there are still plenty of odd harmonies, but often they are not loud). Walton's String Quartet in A minor & Berg's & Janacek's two SQs really got the ball rolling for me with this repertoire. Despite being tonal, Walton uses progressive tonality (a bit like Beethoven in his Op. 130 with the original finale that became Op. 133). The Berg & Janacek aren't in any key in particular, but exactly like Walton, they have this lyricism and Romanticism which is very direct & can have a profound impact on the listener. All of the composers I have talked about in this paragraph explore a set of themes in the one work, they take it on journey, so it is not hard to follow their arguments after a few listens.

I also agree with Conor that maybe a detour to more melodic, tuneful and tonal c20th SQs like the Debussy, Ravel & Shostakovich (except perhaps his final 15th quartet, in which he uses a modified serial technique) might be of use to starthrower or anyone else starting out in this repertoire. Another composer who has been recorded extensively here in Australia by the ABC label (but also, I think, by the Kronos Quartet) is our veteran composer Peter Sculthorpe, who has composed 18 SQs to date (just as much as Beethoven, as he likes to point out!). He has his own unique style which mirrors the Australian landscape and fauna, and he is quite approachable (progressively tonal - he starts out on one key and progresses to another throughout the work). He has also arranged 5 of his SQs as "string sonatas" for string orchestra, if that is more up your alley...


----------



## KJohnson

Forcing yourself sounds extreme... Being percistent is another thing. I remember having exactly the same reaction to Bartok's quartets. I struggled for a few days, it left a bitter taste in my mouth (I mean brain)... Then I left it alone.. Several days later, I couldn't be without those quartets. Often it just needs to sink in. That's all.

If after repeated efforts, it still leaves you cold and indifferent, then (as many suggested here), you should just let it be. It may not be your cup of tea. For example, I haven't ever managed to appreciate Mozart (except the Requiem) - everything else Mozart did sounds boring to me. I tried and tried, year after year. Now I have to accept that Mozart isn't my cup of tea.


----------



## Ukko

*The mind makes grooves (?)*



KJohnson said:


> [...]
> If after repeated efforts, it still leaves you cold and indifferent, then (as many suggested here), you should just let it be. It may not be your cup of tea. For example, I haven't ever managed to appreciate Mozart (except the Requiem) - everything else Mozart did sounds boring to me. I tried and tried, year after year. Now I have to accept that Mozart isn't my cup of tea.


This Rejection of the Worthy seems to me to be more common for music than for language-based 'arguments'. But maybe it isn't more common; maybe it's because the ways music interacts in the mind are not directly amenable to reason, and so a rejection of something that the world says is good cannot be touched by rational argument.

I wonder about the 'mental mechanics' that create the initial rejection, how and/or if they are related to a rejection of a statement in language; there are strangenesses. For instance: I could not grasp/appreciate Eliott Carter's music at all. Then I read his words to the effect that he composed music for its performers rather than for its audiences. So I tried to hear the music as a performer might (just guessing, I'm not a performer), and my mind jumped out of that rejection groove - some of his 'middle-period' music worked for me.

I wonder if, more often, repeated hearings of music one has initially rejected are apt to deepen the groove of rejection than to switch to appreciation.

This post constitutes _thread drift_. I will desist - the drifting, not the wondering.

:tiphat:


----------



## Terrapin

I hated the Bartok quartets on first listening, thinking it was a weird collection of ugly sounds. Only after multiple hearings over several years did I come to appreciate them. It also took me a while to warm up to Beethoven's late quartets, which are now my favorite chamber music. Returning to Bartok after having "mastered" late Beethoven, I appreciated Bartok more, as Bartok seems to have picked up where Beethoven left off.


----------



## KJohnson

Hilltroll72 said:


> This Rejection of the Worthy seems to me to be more common for music than for language-based 'arguments'. But maybe it isn't more common; maybe it's because the ways music interacts in the mind are not directly amenable to reason, and so a rejection of something that the world says is good cannot be touched by rational argument.
> 
> I wonder about the 'mental mechanics' that create the initial rejection, how and/or if they are related to a rejection of a statement in language; there are strangenesses. For instance: I could not grasp/appreciate Eliott Carter's music at all. Then I read his words to the effect that he composed music for its performers rather than for its audiences. So I tried to hear the music as a performer might (just guessing, I'm not a performer), and my mind jumped out of that rejection groove - some of his 'middle-period' music worked for me.
> 
> I wonder if, more often, repeated hearings of music one has initially rejected are apt to deepen the groove of rejection than to switch to appreciation.
> 
> This post constitutes _thread drift_. I will desist - the drifting, not the wondering.
> 
> :tiphat:


Great observations! I'm afraid the answers for the questions you've raised can only come from scientific tests. The moment we begin discussing the inner workings of the brain, we're essentially helpless. Unfortunately, this science is still in infancy.


----------



## starthrower

Conor71 said:


> I find the Bartok Quartets difficult works to appreciate as well and as Andre has mentioned, I had a conversation with him about the Bartok's a couple of weeks ago .
> I'm getting to the stage now where I am beginning to like these works but this has been a by-product of my recent listening to composers like Ligeti and Xenakis so the Bartoks are sounding a lot less harsh to me now!.
> I agree with Andre's suggestion that if youre having difficulty you can try putting them aside for a while or perhaps work yourself up to the gradually by trying something like Debussy, Ravel and Shostakovich first, which are a bit easier to handle I think .


Actually, I dove into Ligeti's music soon after and I love it! I bought the Clear Or Cloudy box set and I really like his chamber music. The first string quartet, and the sonata for solo cello sound great!

When I get back to the Bartok's, I'll have to decide to try a different recording or call it quits. I just might wait another 6 or 8 months and see what happens?


----------



## tdc

I listened to several youtube clips of the different Bartok String Quartets for the first time the other day, and was quite impressed by the clips I listened to...I am going to be picking up a complete set in the near future.


----------



## KJohnson

Yes. Ligeti's first quartet is extremely similar to those of Bartok. It has original style too, which was developed later in the second quartet.


----------



## robert

*bartok string quartets*

I have the 63 Julliard which was my benchmark. Now I spend a lot of time with the Tokyo which has become my bench..

Robert


----------



## starthrower

After a year of trying to like the Alban Berg Quartet recordings on EMI, I've called it quits. I agree with the post by Head Case. This recording has about as much warmth and soul as a dead fish in a cold stream. It's sterile and lifeless. Not completely the fault of the musicians, but they do sound rather austere and edgy.

I need to get hold of one of the Hungarian recordings. Now to decide on which one? I'm thinking either the Hungarian Quartet, or the more recent Takacs recording. I need something with a bit of soul and warmth.


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> After a year of trying to like the Alban Berg Quartet recordings on EMI, I've called it quits. I agree with the post by Head Case. This recording has about as much warmth and soul as a dead fish in a cold stream. It's sterile and lifeless. Not completely the fault of the musicians, but they do sound rather austere and edgy.
> 
> I need to get hold of one of the Hungarian recordings. Now to decide on which one? I'm thinking either the Hungarian Quartet, or the more recent Hagen or Takacs recordings. I need something with a bit of soul and warmth.


Takacs Tacaks Tacaks!


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> Takacs Tacaks Tacaks!


Takacs, or Tacaks? Now I'm confused.

But seriously, I dug the movement from quartet no.4 (YouTube) you posted on a thread recently. I don't remember what quartet it was. Anyway, I went back to the Alban Berg recording to listen to it again, but they didn't do it for me.


----------



## Sid James

I've read this thread again. I will give Bartok's SQ's another go too.

I have the same Alban Berg Quartet recording on EMI, and I also kind of gave up like you starthrower. They haven't disappointed me with other composers, but I do admit that their style is rather dry and can be quite hard to get used to at first. Talking to a string player in one of the string quartets here last year, he said he studied the score and played along to the ABQ's recording of Berg's _String Quartet Op. 3_, as it's the most technically accurate. So it seems the ABQ do not manipulate anything to their own ends, they just give it straight, but maybe for us lay or non-professional listeners who do it for enjoyment, not study, it's too straight.

Anyway, I aim to get into the set soon, & I'll report back as I do it, probably on current listening thread, over Christmas holidays, if I get time from all the chaos that spontaneously erupts at this time...


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> Takacs, or Tacaks? Now I'm confused.
> 
> But seriously, I dug the movement from quartet no.4 (YouTube) you posted on a thread recently. I don't remember what quartet it was. Anyway, I went back to the Alban Berg recording to listen to it again, but they didn't do it for me.


Oh, you're probably right...I'm a horrible speller.


----------



## starthrower

> I have the same Alban Berg Quartet recording on EMI, and I also kind of gave up like you starthrower. They haven't disappointed me with other composers, but I do admit that their style is rather dry and can be quite hard to get used to at first. Talking to a string player in one of the string quartets here last year, he said he studied the score and played along to the ABQ's recording of Berg's _String Quartet Op. 3_, as it's the most technically accurate. So it seems the ABQ do not manipulate anything to their own ends, they just give it straight, but maybe for us lay or non-professional listeners who do it for enjoyment, not study, it's too straight.


Yeah, I agree! I like a bit of style and personality. I'm never going to be one of those listeners who follows a score while listening to a piece. I can't read music that well anyway. I would like to hear the Takacs recording eventually, but for now I think I'm going to try the Hungarian Quartet. I usually have a hunch about certain recordings, and when I follow it I'm usually not disappointed. I know this is not exactly scientific, but that's the way it is for me with music.

Interestingly, I went with the EMI set because it was cheap, and for no other reason. What did I know anyway? I had no experience with Barok's quartets.


----------



## Scarpia

The sound quality is not the best, but the Hungarian Quartet on DG is uniquely soulful. The Emerson on DG is another great alternative if you value clarity rather than warmth.


----------



## NightHawk

For some composers, the medium of string quartet has been reserved for their most profound writing. This is certainly true of Beethoven, Bartok, Shostakovich, Elliott Carter. It is a difficult medium also, because of the homogeneity of sound, but on the other hand a perfect medium because of the homogeneity of sound, range from low cello to upper harmonics of violin, and the many bow and pizzicato techniques available to the string player. Bartok is considered by most critics to be the greatest writer of quartets post-Beethoven. There are similarities - both composers are highly motivic/organic writers. Both are highly economical and compressed. Both write quartets that are conceptual in a way that is not immediately perceivable. Beethoven Op.131 shows 7 movements, but it can be looked at as the 4 standard movements with three having 'introductions'. Bartok uses arch form in his Quartet no. 4 (i.e. 12321 or ABCBA) where movements 1 and 1 (first and last, are motivically related), movements 2 and 2 use particular techniques the second movement uses the bow close to the bridge = insectile sounds called 'sul ponticello', the 4th movement uses pizzicato and strumming - the only slow movement is 3, and is the keystone of the arch. He also uses the Fibonacci Series 1,2,3,5,8,13... and the Golden Section (the proportion .618 - divides a line in such a way that the small part relates to the larger part as the larger part relates to the whole) in ways unique among composers. If you read music explore this:
http://imslp.org/index.php?title=Category:Composers&from=B

These works are great masterpieces of Western music, but they are dense, complex, dissonant and hard to crack in to. I have listened to them for years now, and have studied them, but I was very put off by all save No. 1 when I first heard them. My favorites are 2, 4 and 6, though 1 and 3 are worthy of the set. Your strategy to let them rest and listen to Beethoven is excellent. I hope this doesn't sound condescending...it is not meant in that spirit in any way - I am not a smart *** elitist a*****e - I come from a humble background but by an odd turn I heard my first work of Bartok in the 6th grade, i am not kidding - it was the Concerto For Orchestra. So, he has been at the core of my listening for a long time. Don't sell them! Best. 



starthrower said:


> As I mentioned in my original post, I haven't listened to any other quartets with the exception of hearing a couple of Beethoven's on the radio, and I've heard Glenn Gould's string quartet.
> 
> I'm going to give the Bartok a rest and get some of Beethoven's late quartets from the library.


----------



## tdc

I'd highly recommend the Bartok SQ's as recorded by the Belcea Quartet. Its the only set I currently have, but the sound is amazing and its a recording I often return to... I noticed in the Gramophone Classical Music Guide they rate the Belcea, Emerson, Takacs, and Hagen Quartet recordings the highest. Here is their take on the Belcea Quartet:

_A set of real distinction: the Belcea show flair and imagination aplenty. Their playing is first rate and their feeling for Bartok's language total. _

- Gramophone Classical Music Guide 2010


----------



## jalex

Keller Quartet's is a good Hungarian version. Tacaks is equally good.


----------



## starthrower

There's just too many damn recordings to choose from, isn't there? I wish my library had some of the renowned sets, but they only have a couple of lesser known sets on Naxos, and a couple others I've never heard of. I'll have to think about it for a while before I buy another set.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> There's just too many damn recordings to choose from, isn't there? I wish my library had some of the renowned sets, but they only have a couple of lesser known sets on Naxos, and a couple others I've never heard of. I'll have to think about it for a while before I buy another set.


Did you see my post (maybe in this thread) about 'Squirrel's blog? there's a very good download there. _Nighthawk_ agrees with my opinion, so it ain't just me.


----------



## Head_case

starthrower said:


> There's just too many damn recordings to choose from, isn't there? I wish my library had some of the renowned sets, but they only have a couple of lesser known sets on Naxos, and a couple others I've never heard of. I'll have to think about it for a while before I buy another set.


If in doubt....stick with the quartets who worked with the composer one the music ...the Hungarian Quartet...then the Vegh Quartet andy their pupils, the Keller Quartet. The insights imparted to the music beyond the written music score is a spiritual legacy found in the music, unavailable to technically brilliant quartet groups...who only have the, score to go on. Worse still...other quartet recordings to emulate.

The Takcas are Hungarian too. If you like Hungarian music played by Hungarians, thats another way to decide. I confess I have a few versions of the complete cycle (Hungarians only now) and a single quartets by the Zehetmair Quartet.


----------



## violadude

Head_case said:


> If in doubt....stick with the quartets who worked with the composer one the music ...the Hungarian Quartet...then the Vegh Quartet andy their pupils, the Keller Quartet. The insights imparted to the music beyond the written music score is a spiritual legacy found in the music, unavailable to technically brilliant quartet groups...who only have the, score to go on. Worse still...other quartet recordings to emulate.
> 
> The Takcas are Hungarian too. If you like Hungarian music played by Hungarians, thats another way to decide. I confess I have a few versions of the complete cycle (Hungarians only now) and a single quartets by the Zehetmair Quartet.


I would add to that, stay away from the Vermeer quartet. Their interpretation I found to be very sad and lifeless.


----------



## Scarpia

violadude said:


> I would add to that, stay away from the Vermeer quartet. Their interpretation I found to be very sad and lifeless.


I find that surprising. I find their Beethoven cycle (Teldec) to be the absolute best I have heard.


----------



## violadude

Scarpia said:


> I find that surprising. I find their Beethoven cycle (Teldec) to be the absolute best I have heard.


Oh crap you're right! They're ok. It's the NOVAK quartet I wanted to warn Starthrower about. They are BORING Zzzzzzz


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> Oh crap you're right! They're ok. It's the NOVAK quartet I wanted to warn Starthrower about. They are BORING Zzzzzzz


The Vermeer produce a rather mellow sound, a bit 'sweet'. I think it's the influence of the 1st violin. I very much like their Beethoven. I like the Novak in Janacek - and Novak; may have them playing...Schulhoff? Haven't heard them play Bartók.


----------



## violadude

^^^^^

Behold...The Novak quartet plays Bartok






No heart...or passion...at least compared to the recording I have, by the Takacs, who I have thoroughly pimped out on this thread


----------



## Ukko

OK _dude_, I think I understand your objection. But this interpretation is valid; it's a gloomy one. I wonder what these guys had in their heads when they recorded it. The process isn't the same as late Schulhoff (as late as he was allowed to get), and the music doesn't get the iron in it - because this interpretation is probably not what Bartók intended - but there are emotional connections made, for me anyway. Somebody maybe needs to ask the Novak guys what they were thinking of?


----------



## violadude

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK _dude_, I think I understand your objection. But this interpretation is valid; it's a gloomy one. I wonder what these guys had in their heads when they recorded it. The process isn't the same as late Schulhoff (as late as he was allowed to get), and the music doesn't get the iron in it - because this interpretation is probably not what Bartók intended - but there are emotional connections made, for me anyway. Somebody maybe needs to ask the Novak guys what they were thinking of?


Sorry, I am pretty biased when it comes to recordings of these quartets.


----------



## tdc

violadude said:


> Sorry, I am pretty biased when it comes to recordings of these quartets.


This is what the review states of the Takacs Quartet's Bartok cycle:

_The most recent award-winning set and possibly the finest all-around set of the six quartets. The Takacs Quartet play every note as if it were their last - the conviction positively crackles from the speakers._

- Gramophone Classical Music Guide 2010

I've actually never used one of these guides until recently...so far a lot of it seems to agree with much of what I read at TC.


----------



## Itullian

i'm odd man out here i guess.

i like the Novak's relaxed approach better than the hyper drive versions. like the Hungarian's on dg too. oh well.


----------



## starthrower

I've been comparing various quartets on no. 4 at YouTube. The Hungarian's recording suffers from poor sound. Top end sounds muffled. Vegh Quartet sounds good. Takacs recording isn't the warmest, but great resolution and clarity. I think the Vermeer quartet on Naxos sounds pretty good, despite some lukewarm reviews. The Novak Quartet is the only one I truly didn't care for. Their sound is rather anemic. Boy I'm getting awfully nit picky with this stuff! :devil:


----------



## tdc

starthrower said:


> I've been comparing various quartets on no. 4 at YouTube. The Hungarian's recording suffers from poor sound. Top end sounds muffled. Vegh Quartet sounds good. Takacs recording isn't the warmest, but great resolution and clarity. I think the Vermeer quartet on Naxos sounds pretty good, despite some lukewarm reviews. The Novak Quartet is the only one I truly didn't care for. Their sound is rather anemic. Boy I'm getting awfully nit picky with this stuff! :devil:


Hopefully you've looked into these guys a little as well...


----------



## starthrower

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've only just heard of them recently. The Hagens have a good sounding set as well. I think I like the Hungarian's the best. If only this recording could get an engineering overhaul/re-issue to clear up the sound.

Ultimately I've never liked the recorded sound of strings. It's always a bit too strident. With these quartets there's an outer edginess and a tubby hollow sound in the middle. Maybe that's the way string quartets are supposed to sound, but it just bugs my ears. If only I could hear this stuff performed live.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> Hopefully you've looked into these guys a little as well...


I approve.Thanks tdc, I think this recording is just as good as the Takacs and will add them to my recommendation list. It seems like it takes a special kind of string quartet group to understand Bartok's music as fiery and passionate instead of technical, modernist, "stick-up-his-***" music like most groups I've heard play them.


----------



## starthrower

"stick-up-his-***" Ha, ha! I like that!


----------



## Vaneyes

starthrower said:


> I've been comparing various quartets on no. 4 at YouTube. The Hungarian's recording suffers from poor sound. Top end sounds muffled. Vegh Quartet sounds good. Takacs recording isn't the warmest, but great resolution and clarity. I think the Vermeer quartet on Naxos sounds pretty good, despite some lukewarm reviews. The Novak Quartet is the only one I truly didn't care for. Their sound is rather anemic. Boy I'm getting awfully nit picky with this stuff! :devil:


You may be coming full circle back to ABQ...better not get rid of it just yet.


----------



## starthrower

Yeah, I just told myself the other day that I'm gonna hunker down with the ABQ CD I already have, because I can't decide on another set anyway!


----------



## NightHawk

Yeah...that's dreadful, alright.



violadude said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Behold...The Novak quartet plays Bartok
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No heart...or passion...at least compared to the recording I have, by the Takacs, who I have thoroughly pimped out on this thread


----------



## NightHawk

Not Hungarian, but you might consider The Borodin Quartet, (60 years performing in 2005, though with complete change of personnel, all of whom have come from the Moscow Conservatory), who play with a symphonic sound, warmth and individuality. I have a half dozen of their quartets and also works for The Borodin Piano Trio formed from within their ranks. S.Richter was a long-time associate from their earliest days. They don't play as fast as Emerson, and they're not better than everybody else, but they really capture my old ears.



starthrower said:


> After a year of trying to like the Alban Berg Quartet recordings on EMI, I've called it quits. I agree with the post by Head Case. This recording has about as much warmth and soul as a dead fish in a cold stream. It's sterile and lifeless. Not completely the fault of the musicians, but they do sound rather austere and edgy.
> 
> I need to get hold of one of the Hungarian recordings. Now to decide on which one? I'm thinking either the Hungarian Quartet, or the more recent Takacs recording. I need something with a bit of soul and warmth.


----------



## starthrower

I don't like the fast approach, so I never considered the Emersons. I like what little I've heard from the Borodins. I've listed to the EMI CD of them playing a couple of Shostakovich quartets, plus the quintet w/ Richter.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> I don't like the fast approach, so I never considered the Emersons. I like what little I've heard from the Borodins. I've listed to the EMI CD of them playing a couple of Shostakovich quartets, plus the quintet w/ Richter.


I prefer the first quartet make-up. The trio formed after those members came west is excellent too. In both cases the playing seems kind of old-fashioned, in the approximate style of the Smetana or the early Juilliard.


----------



## NightHawk

I had not thought about 'old fashioned' but thinking about Emerson, and Kronos particularly, I think that's a good description.


----------



## MrCello

I have the Takacs Quartet recordings, I enjoy them.

I was privileged to see them all performed live two years ago by the Calder Quartet


----------

