# Shostakovitch String Quartets



## PMarlowe

I recently discovered these. Where they have been hiding all of these years is beyong me. Anyway, the preferences of forum members has been discussed many times, but not lately (I don't think). I have read many of these posts and listened to portions of the quartets by a few ensembles. Here are some initial observations. Comments (even reiterations of old comments) are invited.

(1) Taneyev - this seem to be the consensus favorite, but the lack of availability makes this a non-starter for me
(2) Borodin I - many like these recordings, but I find the sound quality disappointing
(3) Borodin II - I like the sound quality here and the performances seem good to me, but I understand some of the recordings are live and laced with audience phlegm (an unfortunate recording choice, as I otherwise would lean towards buying this set)
(4) Beethoven - like Borodin I, these seem to be well thought of performance-wise, but I understand the sound quality may be lacking
(5) Fitzwilliam - I understand the sound quality is excellent and some people like this set / I think there are clips on Youtube, and I'll be listening to those
(6) Emerson - this set is favored by many, but I typically don't like live recordings (applause and the occasional throat clearing bother me)

I really would like a set of the quartets that has good sound quality. Based on my Borodin I vs Borodin II comparison, I think the quartets really benefit from such quality (especially when it comes to the richness of he cello).


----------



## elgar's ghost

I've got the cycle by the Shostakovich Quartet on Olympia (re-released on Alto and now rather cheap) - some say that it lacks that final few grains of magic dust that turns a very good cycle into an excellent one but it's always been good enough for me. The 80s sound quality is a little glassy for some tastes but I think it's more than adequate.


----------



## AnotherSpin

I believe late Borodin set is very good. Not only sound/performance, also belonging to the same cultural context.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I have had the Fitzwilliams on LP (almost the complete cycle, missing 1 + 2) for 30 years and thought well enough of them to replace them with the CD boxed set when it became available cheaply. They knew Shostakovich and he travelled to York in the 70s to hear the premiere of the 13th. They premiered the last 3 quartets, I think.

Gramophone's reviewer says "...it is the performances of the Fitzwilliam Quartet to which I find myself being drawn back. They have a remarkable understanding of the idiom and of the music's underlying motivation." Benjamin Britten said (just before his own death) that Shostakovich had told him the Fitzwilliam were his “preferred performers of my quartets” (though he was also said to have regarded the Borodins as 'unsurpassed advocates' of his chamber music) 

I have heard the Borodin Quartet play most of the later quartets live, and they were remarkable. The recordings I've heard (on Melodiya) featured fine interpretations but rather dated sound, which bothers some more than others.


----------



## Bluecrab

I have the Emerson Quartet box set, and I'm very happy with it. The sound quality is very good for a live recording (Deutsche Grammophon, after all), and the price is really reasonable (a bit under $25 for the five-CD box set or MP3s). You can listen to samples of all of the tracks on Amazon. Yes, there are applause at the end of the quartets, but there is little to no background noise during the performances.


----------



## EdwardBast

I have the second Borodin set. The interpretations are universally excellent. Most are studio recordings; the live recordings do have the occasional cough or snuffle, but I never found it particularly distracting. 

I tend to like the Fitzwilliams interpretations as well, but was not impressed with some of the technical aspects.

I have the cycle by the Brodsky Quartet, which is pretty good but not as much soul as the Borodin. Yes, pretty vague, I know


----------



## D Smith

I have the Emerson set and love it. The fact that it's a live recording is really not an issue (for me) and I like their clean approach to these works. I have also heard some of the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich and can recommend them too, but I've not listened to the entire set. They have a warmer approach but still technically superb.


----------



## Bulldog

Since sound quality is of prime concern to PMarlowe, he might want to check out more recent sets such as the Pacifica on Cedille, Mandelring on Audite, Rasumowsky on Oehms and the Danel on Fuga Libera.


----------



## hpowders

I like the Emerson's performances. Others don't. I don't care.


----------



## PMarlowe

I'll throw the Manhattan Quartet into the mix. What about them?


----------



## Bluecrab

hpowders said:


> I like the Emerson's performances. Others don't. I don't care.




A bit off topic, but the same is true of their recording of the Bartok quartets. I now have many versions of those quartets, but I've always liked the Emerson version the most. Many of their detractors say that they take too many liberties with the scores, but I've spent a lot of time listening to their interpretation of Bartok's first quartet while following along with the score, and I detect no significant deviation/artistic license at all.


----------



## GKC

I have all the Fitzwilliam on LP. They are my favorite, and they are easily the best sounding string quartet recordings I have, including sacd. 
Also like Borodin II.


----------



## ptr

The Taneyev Quartet (Melodiya/Aulos) rate the highest with me, Borodin 1 (Qts 1-13 av. on Chandos) the next, then I don't think much of the competition come close. If sound quality is your main concern then it's my slightly informed opinion that the Sorrell Quartet (Chandos) or the St Petersburg Quartet (Hyperion) should be considered even if either are not on par with the Taneyev's or Borodin's, but both have merits!

Bought my Taneyev set on-line from Korea, but had to enlist help from a Korean friend as the site was only in Korean! (Can't remember what I paid, but is was not more then $50)

/ptr


----------



## Triplets

hpowders said:


> I like the Emerson's performances. Others don't. I don't care.


 They somehow manage to de Russify the music, although the playing is incredible. To me the effect is somewhat like Boulez Mahler Symphonies. As is the case with Mahler, this is great music and it can stand many approaches. I don't prefer the Emersons but it's their interpretations are a valid viewpoint.

I have both Borodin cycles. I have never noticed any audience noise in the second cycle. The sound quality of the first 
cycle is not as good but it is certainly listenable and I would not disqualify either cycle for the reasons that the OP does.
The Fitzwilliam is marvelous and they studied many works with the Composer. If forced to pick one cycle, I would choose that one.


----------



## PMarlowe

I might end up creating my own "complete" set using quartets I've assembled from various sources. I managed to get a copy of the Taneyev version of quartets 11-13. Sounds great. Odd it's unavailable in complete form. 

My brother-in-law is a classical music fiend (though mostly orchestral and opera) and his wife is Japanese. Maybe I can work a Japanese angle on this. 

Other than the Taneyev, I have some of the Borodin I & II I could add. I can get the early quartets by Fitzwilliam and Pacifica from the library, as well. The library also has a complete set of the Emerson on DG, so I can get a free listen of that one.


----------



## Vaneyes

I like the previous threads on this topic.


----------



## JACE

Triplets said:


> They somehow manage to de Russify the music, although the playing is incredible. To me the effect is somewhat like Boulez Mahler Symphonies. As is the case with Mahler, this is great music and it can stand many approaches. I don't prefer the Emersons but it's their interpretations are a valid viewpoint.


I agree. Many regard the Emerson cycle very highly, but it's never appealed to me. Triplets, I think your analogy with Boulez's Mahler is right on the money.



Triplets said:


> I have both Borodin cycles. I have never noticed any audience noise in the second cycle. The sound quality of the first
> cycle is not as good but it is certainly listenable and I would not disqualify either cycle for the reasons that the OP does.


I only have the Borodin's first cycle, and I love it. The sound isn't an issue with me. I suppose my ears aren't as good as they used to be; not to mention the fact that my stereo system is only fair-to-middling.



Triplets said:


> The Fitzwilliam is marvelous and they studied many works with the Composer. If forced to pick one cycle, I would choose that one.


Yeah, me too. There are other individual performances that I prefer more, but I think the Fitzwilliam's _cycle_ is most compelling from start-to-finish.


----------



## JACE

PMarlowe said:


> I might end up creating my own "complete" set using quartets I've assembled from various sources. I managed to get a copy of the Taneyev version of quartets 11-13. Sounds great. Odd it's unavailable in complete form.
> 
> My brother-in-law is a classical music fiend (though mostly orchestral and opera) and his wife is Japanese. Maybe I can work a Japanese angle on this.
> 
> Other than the Taneyev, I have some of the Borodin I & II I could add. I can get the early quartets by Fitzwilliam and Pacifica from the library, as well. The library also has a complete set of the Emerson on DG, so I can get a free listen of that one.


It's always fun and instructive to compare different performances of the same work.


----------



## Triplets

JACE said:


> I agree. Many regard the Emerson cycle very highly, but it's never appealed to me. Triplets, I think your analogy with Boulez's Mahler is right on the money.
> 
> I only have the Borodin's first cycle, and I love it. The sound isn't an issue with me. I suppose my ears aren't as good as they used to be; not to mention the fact that my stereo system is only fair-to-middling.
> 
> Yeah, me too. There are other individual performances that I prefer more, but I think the Fitzwilliam's _cycle_ is most compelling from start-to-finish.


 The Borodin's First Cycle was released in the States before the Composer had written 14&15. I think the only previous recordings that Western audiences may have experienced prior to that time would have been the odd Melodyia releases of the Beethoven Quartet. The Borodin's had a much greater grasp of the Composer's idiom, imo, even though the Beethoven Qt had premiered a few of these works.
The most significant change in the Borodin Qt. between the two cycles was the defection of their First Violinist, Rostislav Dubinsky. Dubinsky's autobiography, about the trials and tribulations of being a Musician in the former, USSR, is fascinating, and also contains many fascinating vignettes of Shostakovich, David Oistrakh, and other Russian luminaries.


----------



## PMarlowe

JACE said:


> It's always fun and instructive to compare different performances of the same work.


Likely that is what I will do, given how much I like these quartets. (I don't think I have done that since my incursion into the Bach cello suites many years ago.) I started out just wanting the "definitive" set and calling it a day. I doubt I could assess what is definitive anyway. (Sometimes such discussions remind me of golf announcers who are constantly questioning the professionals' club selection for a particular shot.)

I do think the sound quality of the Borodin II is the best I've heard so far (or at least in accordance with my tastes). Comparing their quartet no. 11 to Taneyev's - granted, a small sample - it sounds as though the decision was made not to try to extract any of the underlying hiss in the original Borodin II recording. I detect no such hiss in the Taneyev, but perhaps it was taken out at the expense of a bit more vibrancy the recording might otherwise have had. Just a guess. I'd like to hear some of these recordings on vinyl (especially the Taneyev).


----------



## PMarlowe

Triplets said:


> I have both Borodin cycles. I have never noticed any audience noise in the second cycle.


I listened to both "live" quartets (6 and 9), and I don't find the audience noise at the "Russian flu pandemic" levels described by someone at this forum many years ago. The live quartets (I have not listened to the live quintet yet) seem to be very closely miked, so the few coughs (or did someone drop something or close a door?) are well in the background. The timing of some of the sounds I hear suggest merely the breathing of the musicians (another indication of close miking). By the way, there is no applause included.

I doubt anyone who plays these quartets in their house using speakers will notice any extraneous noise. If you use in-ear earphones for mp3 listening (like I do), you'll hear the (very) occasional distant audience noise.

My solution? Borodin II for the house, and Fitzwilliam for on-the-go.


----------



## AnotherSpin

I've been comparing Fitzwilliam to Borodin I disc by disc today. For me Borodin is clear preference. I would tell more, something is very wrong with Fitzwilliam set for me. The sound of Borodin I is very good in my system.

IMHO, etc.


----------



## PMarlowe

I have the Borodin I in mp3, so I'll be giving that a full listen at some point.


----------



## Pimlicopiano

I think you have to one of the Borodin's and/or the Fitzwilliam as a touch stone. After that I'd be tempted to launch out into newer recordings by younger quartets. The Brodsky 90's set is worth exploring.


----------



## PMarlowe

Pimlicopiano said:


> I think you have to one of the Borodin's and/or the Fitzwilliam as a touch stone. After that I'd be tempted to launch out into newer recordings by younger quartets. The Brodsky 90's set is worth exploring.


I really like the Pacifica Quartet recordings so far (both performance and sound quality).


----------



## KenOC

PMarlowe said:


> I really like the Pacifica Quartet recordings so far (both performance and sound quality).


Ditto that! The Pacifica cycle is complete, but not yet available as a boxed set, so kind of expensive.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> Ditto that! The Pacifica cycle is complete, but not yet available as a boxed set, so kind of expensive.


Glad to report that the complete boxed set has been available since September 2014, and the price is quite low.


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> Glad to report that the complete boxed set has been available since September 2014, and the price is quite low.


Right you are! And new from about $22, an absolute steal.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Stri...words=shostakovich+quartets+complete+pacifica


----------



## PMarlowe

I've been listening to the Pacifica via mp3 and library copies, but at that price (for 8 CDs) and with that rich sound quality I had to have the real (lossless) McCoy. Since I'm not longer an Amazon fan, I look for reasonably priced alternatives for everything I used to buy there as a matter of course. I bought my Pacifica CD set directly from ImportCDs for $1 more: http://www.importcds.com/comp-str-qrts-by-dmitri-shostkovich-8pc/735131100328 It was tough to locate at the site due to abbreviations and misspellings.


----------



## KenOC

Tough to locate? I bet it was! "Comp STR QRTS By Dmitri Shostkovich [CD] ~ SHOSTAKOVICH / PACIFIA QRT"

The didn't even spell the quartet's name right.


----------



## Triplets

KenOC said:


> Tough to locate? I bet it was! "Comp STR QRTS By Dmitri Shostkovich [CD] ~ SHOSTAKOVICH / PACIFIA QRT"
> 
> The didn't even spell the quartet's name right.


Amazon has a lot of issues, but they do have the best search engine, imo.


----------



## EDaddy

I find Shostakovich's string quartets so tedious and anxious-sounding. To me they truly sound like the musical children of a totally stressed out artist on the edge of going completely postal. Just hearing them raises my blood pressure. Literally. Lol. 

I have the live Emerson set and I guess that's all I'll ever need to hear.


----------



## KenOC

Ha! They sound, mostly, quite different to me. Goes to show...something.


----------



## PMarlowe

EDaddy said:


> Just hearing them raises my blood pressure.


I prefer to say they "get my juices flowing". If that's raising my blood pressure, then we have the same reaction.

Though it's mixing musical apples and oranges, I had a similar reaction when I first heard Bob Dylan's live "Before the Flood" album about 15 years ago. I rebelled against it for awhile - I initially wanted to trash it - until I realized it was like a welcome double-shot of espresso. In fact, that experience is what went through my mind when I first listened to Shostakovitch's late quartets about a month ago, so I figured I was on to something.


----------



## EDaddy

PMarlowe said:


> I prefer to say they "get my juices flowing". If that's raising my blood pressure, then we have the same reaction.
> 
> Though it's mixing musical apples and oranges, I had a similar reaction when I first heard Bob Dylan's live "Before the Flood" album about 15 years ago. I rebelled against it for awhile - I initially wanted to trash it - until I realized it was like a welcome double-shot of espresso. In fact, that experience is what went through my mind when I first listened to Shostakovitch's late quartets about a month ago, so I figured I was on to something.


Very interesting perspective, PM. Yeah, when something "gets my juices flowing" I personally equate that with a positive experience, i.e. I get energized or "pumped up" by something. If something raises my blood pressure, not so much. That just "makes me wanna slap my mama". (Sorry mom)


----------



## Skilmarilion

I only recently began to explore these -- I've fallen for the 4th, 5th and 10th, it has to be said.


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> I only recently began to explore these -- I've fallen for the 4th, 5th and 10th, it has to be said.


Three of my favorites. 

I've always thought the string quartets to be the most essential and "purest" Shostakovich. The symphony, because of its public nature and the expectation of monumental content, not to mention the fact that it, among all instrumental genres, was the central focus of ideological criticism rooted in socialist realism, was inevitably going to be the skirmish line where Shostakovich's creative impulses clashed with external demands. Hence, four symphonies on patriotic themes, at least two others with strong political implications (7 and 13), and others with subversive content or ironic intent. The quartets seem to breathe more freely and personally and, I believe, are consistently more interesting.


----------



## Skilmarilion

EdwardBast said:


> I've always thought the string quartets to be the most essential and "purest" Shostakovich. The symphony, because of its public nature and the expectation of monumental content, not to mention the fact that it, among all instrumental genres, was the central focus of ideological criticism rooted in socialist realism, was inevitably going to be the skirmish line where Shostakovich's creative impulses clashed with external demands. Hence, four symphonies on patriotic themes, at least two others with strong political implications (7 and 13), and others with subversive content or ironic intent. *The quartets seem to breathe more freely and personally and, I believe, are consistently more interesting.*


I would agree!

Also, it raises the question as to why he felt the need to compose so much in the symphonic genre.

I feel the symphonies with outward programmatic implications are his least interesting -- 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14.


----------



## ptr

^^ I believe that a lot of the public emphasis on music in the Soviet Union was on Symphonic and Concertante Orchestral music. A lot of the Chamber stuff was seen as a private sphere by both the composers and the almighty Composers Union (Even if there where quite a lot of public chamber concerts during this period as well)
For Shostakovich it was the Large scale works and the film scores that paid the bills and the intimate ones, like the quartets, that display his high strung sensibilities! I don't really think that anyone in the "west" can emotionally compute the kind of Damocles Sword living in the USSR was for the frail "artist", on one side the accolades and on the other, the constant fear of deportation to the Gulag!

/ptr


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> I would agree!
> 
> Also, it raises the question as to why he felt the need to compose so much in the symphonic genre.
> 
> I feel the symphonies with outward programmatic implications are his least interesting -- 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14.


I imagine it was several different and shifting needs. The patriotic ones (2, 3, 11, 12) we can put to one side; they discharge ideological obligations and curry favor. Likewise, the 5th was necessary because public vindication and reintegration required a symphony. Nothing less would do. The two other big motivations: (1) The aesthetic potential of the form is irresistible. (2) Symphonies were his major acts of participation in public life. The latter motivation, I believe, largely accounts for the war symphonies (7 and 8) and the dissident 13th. The 14th isn't really a symphony, the first was written by a teenager. What does that leave?: 4, 6, 9, 10 and 15.

It doesn't look like he composed all that much in the genre when one looks at it that way. And, of course, he was a slacker compared to Myaskovsky (27) and Weinberg (22).


----------



## Skilmarilion

You both make great points. 

I guess the only thing I'd say is that, it's interesting that he continued to write patriotically / politically driven works in the form even after Stalin's death (11th, 12th & 13th). As mentioned, the 14th is a kind of odd ball and the 9th was a light-hearted aside to the others. 

Of course all of this adds to the enigmatic nature of the 15th, which is one of my favourite works of his.


----------



## KenOC

Skilmarilion said:


> You both make great points.
> 
> I guess the only thing I'd say is that, it's interesting that he continued to write patriotically / politically driven works in the form even after Stalin's death (11th, 12th & 13th). As mentioned, the 14th is a kind of odd ball and the 9th was a light-hearted aside to the others.
> 
> Of course all of this adds to the enigmatic nature of the 15th, which is one of my favourite works of his.


After Stalin's death, Shostakovich still depended on State support, and writing works with political content was part and parcel of his job. I think of him as a State Kapellmeister. He was a long-term member of this or that politburo (can't remember which), remained a dedicated Communist until his own death, and even joined the Party in 1960.


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> You both make great points.
> 
> I guess the only thing I'd say is that, it's interesting that he continued to write patriotically / politically driven works in the form even after Stalin's death (11th, 12th & 13th). As mentioned, the 14th is a kind of odd ball and the 9th was a light-hearted aside to the others.
> 
> Of course all of this adds to the enigmatic nature of the 15th, which is one of my favourite works of his.


Late in life he became more timid or craven, on occasion berating himself as a coward and a worm. He joined the communist party long after there was any real leverage to make him do so. He signed (apparently) the denunciation of Sakharov, all long after Stalin was dead. This has mystified many, but perhaps he just didn't trust the future or had been worn down by the years of pressure?


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich defended his denunciation of Sakharov, at least as quoted in Testimony. He said, effectively, what were the crimes of Stalin compared with developing the hydrogen bomb? But nobody ever claimed he was a deep political thinker.

Testimony seems full of these self-justifications, which prejudices me in favor of its veracity.

Shostakovich also said that the greatest tragedy of the Stalin era was not that others were forced to betray you, but that you were forced to betray others.


----------



## Skilmarilion

KenOC said:


> After Stalin's death, Shostakovich still depended on State support, and writing works with political content was part and parcel of his job. I think of him as a State Kapellmeister. He was a long-term member of this or that politburo (can't remember which), remained a dedicated Communist until his own death, and even joined the Party in 1960.


Well yes, but to me at least it didn't seem that he needed to write symphonies of a "patriotic" nature to maintain state support post-Stalin. It's even more odd given that he didn't really write anything of the sort when Stalin was alive (except for the throwaway choral finales of #2 & #3).

I can't really see what compelled him to write the utterly forgettable 12th symphony, for instance.


----------



## AnotherSpin

I believe it is utterly wrong to imagine Shostakovich as a kind of English gentleman who happened to find himself in USSR by pure accident and who was struggling to find a ways to cope with some unhappy and sorry circumstances. He was a more happy than not Soviet, before, during and after Stalin's death and pretty much well-rounded in this role. Do not try to see in his music something which not belong there.


----------

