# Is the string quartet an acquired taste?



## Manok

I was just wondering if the string quartet/quintet etc form is something someone who doesnt listen to classical music much would enjoy?


----------



## Webernite

Well, it has a reputation as a difficult, abstract genre; but there's no accounting for taste. The best thing to do is to listen to some and make up your own mind.


----------



## Webernite

Are you thinking of a particular quartet?


----------



## neoshredder

Depends on the composer imo. I would say Haydn would be the easiest to get into.


----------



## jurianbai

I think the repertoire hardly make it to Classical top ten something. But taste is a difficult word, just try it. Repertoire like Dvorak American quartet I think can attracted new listener quite easily.


----------



## Stargazer

Beethoven's string quartets were actually some of the first things I listened to when I started getting in to classical. I see all this talk about how they're "difficult to understand", but I don't really get it, they all sound just fine to me! And only one way to find out if you'd like them...trial and error


----------



## Manxfeeder

When I started listening to classical, I only listened to orchestral music. I liked the orchestral colors. I thought string quartets and piano pieces were too monochromatic. After I got into classical, I tested the waters and found I actually liked other genres. 

So in my experience, it was an acquired taste.


----------



## Ukko

_Something_ must be acquired; I don't know that it's 'taste'. The new listener has get used to the sounds the instruments make, both individually and together. When I started out (it was with Beethoven's Op. 18 set, played by the Guarnieri SQ) I thought it sounded like everyone was slightly out of tune. As it turned out, they were not.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Hilltroll72 said:


> _When I started out (it was with Beethoven's Op. 18 set, played by the Guarnieri SQ) I thought it sounded like everyone was slightly out of tune. As it turned out, they were not. _


_

I had that problem also._


----------



## Quartetfore

I think it is, but then again any sort of music is an acquired taste. The rewards are great, but it needs a bit of concentration.


----------



## Chrythes

When I got into Classical Music I was almost only listening to String Quartets. I started with Beethoven's late ones and then I realized that I discovered awesome music. I guess it was quite natural for me.
Either way, I really suggest that you try and "acquire" that taste. There's truly great music to find there!


----------



## Manok

On facebook I recommend a daily piece to my friends, and I have refrained from chamber music in general unless it's a piano piece that I have played before. I usually stick to orchestral things. Thanks for the input.


----------



## peeyaj

Schubert's quartets are highly recommended.


----------



## violadude

peeyaj said:


> Schubert's quartets are highly recommended.


He seems like he was enjoying it lol


----------



## peeyaj

violadude said:


> He seems like he was enjoying it lol




He he he..

I never expected Mr. Carter would enjoy that kind of music..


----------



## violadude

peeyaj said:


> He he he..
> 
> I never expected Mr. Carter would enjoy that kind of music..


hahaha 20th century composers aren't disallowed from liking older music.


----------



## realmassy

I think it's a very personal matter: I started listening to classical only a few years ago, and I find chamber music in general and string quartets in particular, "easy" on the ears, more than orchestral music. I actually find orchestral music very boring, while I can always hear something new in Beethoven's Late Quartets for example. On the other hand piano solo is way too complicated...


----------



## UberB

Personally I do find string quartets to be an acquired taste. I find solo performances and concertos to be much easier to listen to.


----------



## Moira

Everything is an acquired taste. It all depends on from where the person is starting and what the person's current likes and dislikes are.

If the person considers violin music to be an unpleasant scraping of catgut against a wooden casket the chances are not good that he or she will like string quartets. However, if he or she really liked a violin or cello piece in a similar idiom then the chances are that a string quartet will go down well.

Live performances also increase the probability of newbies liking anything. There is a vibrancy in live music that is simply not there in recordings, even the very best recordings of live music.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I know this is an over-simplification but if someone breaks the seal by listening to Schubert's later quartets and doesn't like them then he/she may as well give up right there.


----------



## Moira

Also sometimes we "serious" music lovers make too much of listening. 

Give the person some nice red wine, a plate of delicious food and some good coffee with a string quartet in the background and one has introduced a string quartet in a very non-threatening way. If the person hates it, just change the music.


----------



## Taneyev

My personal love for chamber music -string ensambles in particular- dated from about 30 years ago. Since then i have been listening to it and made a permanent tash to collect recordings. I've now more than a thousend CDs of chamber, and growing.


----------



## Quartetfore

I thought that my collection of three hundred or so recordings was a large one, butyou have me beat! I may trump you in the length of time though. My first " live" concert featured the Budapest String Quartet. Do the Math, and you will see that that is a long time ago. I will say, that it took place just at the end of their long stay.


----------



## Moira

Quartetfore said:


> I thought that my collection of three hundred or so recordings was a large one, butyou have me beat! I may trump you in the length of time though. My first " live" concert featured the Budapest String Quartet. Do the Math, and you will see that that is a long time ago. I will say, that it took place just at the end of their long stay.


Give us the dates to do the math.


----------



## Taneyev

Close to the end of 60s. and firsts 70s?. BTW, did you listen to some recording of the original Hungarian Budapest, before the Russian invation? Have a couple of pieces. It was a completely different ensamble.


----------



## Quartetfore

Put the abacus away, It was in the late 1950`s while I was in college. I was walking in the Union Square section of mid-town Manhatten, and I saw people going into a concert. The cost was only 2$ US, so I paid my fee and in I went. Up to that time I was an Opera Buff only, but that concert was the start of a life long love of the genre. To day the cost of a concert of a group of that stature would be at least $45-70, times do change!
I have only heard the Russian version of the Quartet.


----------



## teej

Manok said:


> I was just wondering if the string quartet/quintet etc form is something someone who doesnt listen to classical music much would enjoy?


I have been listening to classical music for 40+ years but it wasn't until about 4 years ago that I fell in love with string quartets. Never really gave them much attention but then one day I listened to some of the Beethoven string quartets (Amadeus Quartet) and was amazed by them. I have been listening to many, many string quartet compositions since then and I am completely hooked. Have to listen to at least one every single day, or my day is incomplete!


----------



## Moira

I started actively listening to classical music 38 years ago now. I was twelve. It was my first year in high school. A cool older German girl who was happy to be my friend introduced me to classical music as something to listen to, as opposed to something that my parents listened to, or something that was on the radio or something that I was learning to play on the piano (before that I was always a little surprised when I recognised a tune I played unless my father played it on the piano - my playing a theme always irritated him a bit because children's arrangements are always just a bit of the theme).


----------



## Ukko

Moira said:


> Also sometimes we "serious" music lovers make too much of listening.
> 
> Give the person some nice red wine, a plate of delicious food and some good coffee with a string quartet in the background and one has introduced a string quartet in a very non-threatening way. If the person hates it, just change the music.


Hmm. This seems like a program for seduction; a good one.


----------



## pjang23

Coming from symphonies, concerti, and solo piano, string quartets were quite a different sound world to me. Haydn's Op.76 quartets were the key works that got me into the genre.


----------



## PetrB

Classical music, for many, is an acquired taste. Further liking of any of its sub-genres, chamber music (woodwind quartets, quintets, or string quartets and quintets, smaller ensembles of mixed instruments, etc.), art song (voice and piano) opera, and any and all of its other forms is much a matter of what you are first introduced to, or first find attractive.

If you first got hooked on the big orchestral sound and style of the late Romantic Tchaikovsky, maybe even a full orchestra playing Mozart might be 'the challenge' of acquiring a taste for Classical music vs. Romantic music.


----------



## Hausmusik

When I first encountered a couple of Beethoven string quartets on CD (back in the 80s) they sounded scratchy and austere, lacking variety of instrumental color, etc. But chamber music for strings (string quartets, quintets, octets and double quartets) is my preferred genre nowadays.

Looking back on my early resistance, I think much had to do with the foreignness of the genre to me (for me classical music meant the Big Thrills of a big orchestral work), but also with the notorious difficulty of capturing the sound of string quartets on a recording. Often, even the best ensembles with the richest tone and most beautiful blend sound shrill or glassy on disc. If you are having difficulty getting into the genre, it might be worth seeing a live performance, or checking out a CD that has particularly good sound.

A great string quartet performance can be an incredibly absorbing and riveting musical experience, even more than a great symphony.

For the beginner, I think one of the best string quartet recordings is the Tokyo Quartet's recording of the complete Brahms quartets + Schubert's Death & The Maiden and Quartettsatz on a Vox twofer. This is an unbelievably great bargain: at least four masterpieces (I am not sold on the Brahms 3) performed by one of the greatest quartets there ever was in superbly detailed sound, for six or seven bucks.


----------



## jurianbai

My first encounter with string quartet was with Dvorak America and Schubert Death and Maiden. I think these two very strong introduction for newbies. Also Debussy string quartet the Scherzo movement usually make it to popular classical selection.


----------



## Quartetfore

I would add the Ravel Quartet, and the Borodin second as a perfect way to start.


----------



## violadude

Hausmusik said:


> When I first encountered a couple of Beethoven string quartets on CD (back in the 80s) they sounded scratchy and austere, lacking variety of instrumental color, etc. But chamber music for strings (string quartets, quintets, octets and double quartets) is my preferred genre nowadays.
> 
> Looking back on my early resistance, I think much had to do with the foreignness of the genre to me (for me classical music meant the Big Thrills of a big orchestral work), but also with the notorious difficulty of capturing the sound of string quartets on a recording. Often, even the best ensembles with the richest tone and most beautiful blend sound shrill or glassy on disc. If you are having difficulty getting into the genre, it might be worth seeing a live performance, or checking out a CD that has particularly good sound.
> 
> A great string quartet performance can be an incredibly absorbing and riveting musical experience, even more than a great symphony.
> 
> For the beginner, I think one of the best string quartet recordings is the Tokyo Quartet's recording of the complete Brahms quartets + Schubert's Death & The Maiden and Quartettsatz on a Vox twofer. This is an unbelievably great bargain: at least four masterpieces (I am not sold on the Brahms 3) performed by one of the greatest quartets there ever was in superbly detailed sound, for six or seven bucks.


I have that Tokyo Quartet recording and I would certainly vouch for it.


----------



## brianwalker

I showed my friend the famous movement from Shostakovich's 8th and he was enthralled.


----------



## PlaySalieri

People may listen to, for them - the wrong works - if I had started with Beethoven quartets I never would have got into strnig quartets at all. In fact I began with some early Mozart quartets played by The Italian Quartet - thought they were splendid - and progressed onto those dedicated to Haydn. My favourites are K421, K458 - but I think they are all truly worth listening to. Next for me is Schubert - then Brahms. Oddly - I never could find my way into the Beethoven quartets but I do have some hope for future years. So I would not say they are an acquired taste any more than any other genre.


----------



## Ukko

stomanek said:


> People may listen to, for them - the wrong works - if I had started with Beethoven quartets I never would have got into strnig quartets at all. In fact I began with some early Mozart quartets played by The Italian Quartet - thought they were splendid - and progressed onto those dedicated to Haydn. My favourites are K421, K458 - but I think they are all truly worth listening to. Next for me is Schubert - then Brahms. Oddly - I never could find my way into the Beethoven quartets but I do have some hope for future years. So I would not say they are an acquired taste any more than any other genre.


Thanks, _stomanek_; that's an interesting course. It supports my hypothesis that there are _mindsets_ relating to non-verbal reactions to music - and that these mindsets are innately resistant to modification. My lack of resonance with the early quartets of Mozart and Schubert hasn't changed over the decades, nor has my vague unease with Brahms' quartets - they only sort of connect. On the other hand, Beethoven's late quartets, especially 132, 130/133, and 131, are very affecting/effective.


----------



## Tero

Well, yeah. Just like symphonies.

I listen to string quartets of only a few favorite composers.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

For most people, the string quartet is not the easiest place to start with classical music. To some of the others already mentioned, I would add Shostakovich 3, aimply on the grounds that it is quite jolly


----------



## Head_case

Manok said:


> I was just wondering if the string quartet/quintet etc form is something someone who doesnt listen to classical music much would enjoy?


Give it a try. It can't be any worse than breast milk. Once you start, you then move on to other nutritious things


----------



## Guest

The St Qt for me is the epitome of classical music, it is refined and intimate and each Quartet will play works slightly different, I would think for a fiddle player there could be no better experience.


----------



## Sid James

Manok said:


> I was just wondering if the string quartet/quintet etc form is something someone who doesnt listen to classical music much would enjoy?


I got into string quartets and chamber music later than orchestral and other things, which my parents listened to. Like many here, the string quartets I heard first where Classical and Romantic era composers. I do understand how people find the 'austere' and pared down sound, or lack of instrumental colour compared to an orchestra, a bit difficult; but I don't remember having that problem. What I like in chamber music is basically its intimacy and immediacy, directness of expression. It is like the 'private' face of a composer, his inner thoughts, whereas larger scale musics are more like his 'public' face.

As a suggestion, before getting into string quartets and smaller scale chamber, a route to get there from full size orchestra music is to first listen to string orchestra or chamber orchestra music as a 'transition' stage between the two.



Moira said:


> ...
> Live performances also increase the probability of newbies liking anything. There is a vibrancy in live music that is simply not there in recordings, even the very best recordings of live music.


Agreed there.



Hausmusik said:


> ...
> A great string quartet performance can be an incredibly absorbing and riveting musical experience, even more than a great symphony.
> 
> ...


Its like a symphony for four instruments. Thats the way I see it, basically.


----------



## Romantic Geek

I found String Quartet to be one of the hardest ensembles to get into, so it is not anything strange at all. For those recommending Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven quartets, I say to hell to all of you (nicely)  

But seriously, those are not easy works to get into, at least in my opinion. I highly recommend the Ravel quartet as someone has earlier. I would also add the Debussy quartet. I think these are far easier to listen to than the normal quartet, yet still complex enough not to undermine the genre. I don't know the Dvorak one as well, but I imagine it is in the same boat as these other ones too.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Moira said:


> Everything is an acquired taste. It all depends on from where the person is starting and what the person's current likes and dislikes are.
> 
> If the person considers violin music to be an unpleasant scraping of catgut against a wooden casket the chances are not good that he or she will like string quartets. However, if he or she really liked a violin or cello piece in a similar idiom then the chances are that a string quartet will go down well.
> 
> Live performances also increase the probability of newbies liking anything. There is a vibrancy in live music that is simply not there in recordings, even the very best recordings of live music.


Live performances of string quartets put me to sleep for the most part.


----------



## Taneyev

Well, string quartet is like caviar; not for anyone taste. IMO one should'n begin with it, but left for a later time, when one had listened to a lot of other forms.


----------



## Vesteralen

Haven't read through each and every post in this thread, but I would say that string quartet music, for the most part, emphasizes the horizontal rather than the vertical aspects of music. Following voices would seem to be something a person brand new to classical music might not be inclined to do. For people more familiar with pop music of Western cultures, emphasis on harmony might seem to be something more accessible - either orchestral works of the Romantic era or works for solo intrument capable of playing more than one note at a time (i.e. piano, guitar).


----------



## Head_case

> Haven't read through each and every post in this thread, but I would say that string quartet music, for the most part, emphasizes the horizontal rather than the vertical aspects of music.


Which horizontal and which vertical aspects does this refer to? 

Yes the string quartet form possesses an intimacy; and tonal sealing across the octaves of a chamber form in intense dialogue. If this is a form of 'following voices' i.e. tracing each violin I or viola or cello (violin IIs are universally neglected ), there still remains an architecture to the string quartet, which is given through the sum of the parts. This vertical aspect of the string quartet music gives rise to orchestral textures (like for instance, the quartets of Sibelius, Grieg, Cras or Gounod).

In the former respect, it can seem rather obscure or introverted (Szymanowski; Gorecki,Shostakovich, Myaskovksy, Shebalin). Equally, it is a diverse medium, which enables autobiography (Dvorak's late quartets; Janacek's Intimate Letters; Beethoven's late quartets) as well as exploration of the unknown (Ligeti; Dusapin, Dutilleux, Lutoslawski). In its more stridently extroverted taking, the spaciousness of four instruments is not a straitjacket; freedom is found by freely accepting limits, rather than trying to include the kitchen pots and pans in the orchestral mix. The tight chamber arrangement of the four strings permits the dynamic swoops and deftness which are rapidly lost in orchestral music. I suppose this is a more specialised discovery as many hint in this thread: the string quartet is an incredibly flexible medium which, being one of the oldest chamber forms in music, still has its standing in contemporary music for both classical/baroque/romantic era lovers, and contemporary listeners rolled in one chamber medium. How many musical forms do that? Funny enough, pop listeners don't diss it as 'ancient' or 'music my parents listen to' - take the Stockhausen Helicopter stuff for example. Most find the contemporary string quartet music cutting edge, if not 'too' avant garde and experimental.


----------



## Quartetfore

Outstanding post! I can`t agree with your thoughts more. By the way I am spending the Summer with the French String Quartets--Ropartz, Koechlin, Bonnal and Durosoir. perfect for this time of year.


----------



## Vesteralen

Head_case said:


> Which horizontal and which vertical aspects does this refer to?
> 
> Yes the string quartet form possesses an intimacy; and tonal sealing across the octaves of a chamber form in intense dialogue. If this is a form of 'following voices' i.e. tracing each violin I or viola or cello (violin IIs are universally neglected ), there still remains an architecture to the string quartet, which is given through the sum of the parts. This vertical aspect of the string quartet music gives rise to orchestral textures (like for instance, the quartets of Sibelius, Grieg, Cras or Gounod).


Well, I never intended my comments to be taken as a judgment for or against string quartet music, though perhaps I didn't make that as clear as I could have. I was speaking strictly in terms of what is more likely to appeal to most brand-new listeners to classical music. Certainly there is structure in quartet music, and there is harmony. Not everything is written in strict horizontal fashion.

But, your detailed (and logical) explanation of the realities of music written for string quartet would likely go way over the head of most new listeners.

In a similar vein, I could argue passionately to a new listener that a hard-bop quartet or quintet in jazz is a much more vital and flexible thing to experience than a big band from the Swing Era. But, that won't change the fact that a lot of average listeners find it easier to wade into jazz through big band music. It relates a little more closely to forms and harmonies with which they are already familiar.

Similarly, outside of those who are already learning a particular instrument and thus have a vested interest in hearing that instrument played clearly and without a lot of distraction, new listeners to classical music do seem to approach it through the symphonic literature or through something like piano or guitar music . I would imagine if we took a poll on this site, those who approached classical music through chamber music would make up a rather small percentage.

That's not to say it isn't worth their while. I'm in total agreement on that score. It just might take a little time.


----------



## Sid James

Romantic Geek said:


> I found String Quartet to be one of the hardest ensembles to get into, so it is not anything strange at all. For those recommending Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven quartets, I say to hell to all of you (nicely)
> 
> But seriously, those are not easy works to get into, at least in my opinion. I highly recommend the Ravel quartet as someone has earlier. I would also add the Debussy quartet. I think these are far easier to listen to than the normal quartet, yet still complex enough not to undermine the genre. I don't know the Dvorak one as well, but I imagine it is in the same boat as these other ones too.


I can understand what you say. Although I first listened to Classical & Romantic era quartets, the era that got me going big time was 20th century. Not only Debussy* and Ravel, but also Janacek, Walton, Elgar, Prokofiev to name the ones that got me into SQ's big time. It was this 2 cd set that opened up doors for me too, SQs by Hindemith, Surinach, Rozsa, Bloch, Stravinsky, Korngold, Tcherepnin (played by The New WOrld Quartet on VoxBox label). But now I like all string quartets, esp. Beethoven and after. The more I got into it, the more I liked it.

Which is to say its all pretty subjective. What grabs one person may not grab another, in any given genre. & vice versa. Its like a smorgasbord, you choose what you like and go from there.

I don't think there's one way to get into SQ's, there's many ways, maybe as many as there are listeners.










* Debussy's SQ was written 1890's, but looking foward to Modern age rather than back to Romanticism.


----------



## Guest

I think most musicians, even say grade 3,4,5 would find St Qt's and Piano trios or any small chamber ens the music of choice.
*@Sid* when are you going to be satisfied with your avatar?


----------



## Head_case

Vesteriaen - I think that's spot on about the heads of most listeners.

One thing I've noticed is, most unexpecting listeners who are unfortunate enough to suffer when my hands are behind a steering wheel, go through several predictable phases:


1. Grab onto seat belt to make sure head doesn't go through the window on heavy braking.

2. Cogitate over whether to mention: "Is that music playing?" or just maintain an uneasy silence for fear of going through the window.

3. Slight perturbation in comfort zone as passenger wonders if it's socially acceptable to turn down the volume control.

4. Onset of existential anxiety when passenger realises the volume control isn't obvious

5. Panic. 

6. Ask in the most restrained manner possible: "Can you please turn down that f**[email protected]!$ noise?!"

7. Recoil in shock when I politely decline, telling them, that listening to Salmanov's string quartets at earpiercing volumes is my way of meditating and keeping cool with road rage and if they don't maintain complete silence, I will gag and blindfold them and position them backwards in the rear seat to the sound of Gorecki's Quasi Una Fantasia.


----------



## Andreas

When I began listening to classical music, I listened mostly to orchestral and solo piano works, as is usually the case I guess. I got into string quartets through the enthusiastic comments by Proust and Salinger on Beethoven's late quartets.

It is probably not optimal to start out with the very best, since one is bound to be continuously disappointed later on. But at least one has the right benchmark straight away by which to judge everything else.

Ever since, I've enjoyed string quartets by many other composers, among them Schubert, Shostakovich, Schoenberg and Górecki. Pre-Beethovenian quartets, though, have not particularly stirred my interest.

One thing I find fascinating about string quartets is that they reduce music to its core essence: the four voices of soprano, alto, tenor and bass. In this way, the quartet is similar to Bach's four-part fugues and chorales. Studying classical quartets is probably a great way of learning about the principles of harmony and counterpoint.

It's interesting to think that any symphony or other large-scale orchestral work is pretty much just a quartet at heart, with some additional ornamentation. I exaggerate, but not much.


----------



## violadude

Weird, I always felt that solo piano pieces were the hardest to get into. That's what it was like for me anyway. The complete lack of timberal variety made it hard for me to discern the melody from everything else sometimes.


----------



## Guest

Andreas said:


> One thing I find fascinating about string quartets is that they reduce music to its core essence: the four voices of soprano, alto, tenor and bass.


You have two Soprano one Alto one tenor.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> I think most musicians, even say grade 3,4,5 would find St Qt's and Piano trios or any small chamber ens the music of choice.


I disagree with you 100%. I think you'd find that most musicians don't find small chamber ensembles the music of choice. I think you'll find that most musicians will prefer either solo music or larger ensembles (wind ensemble, orchestra, etc.) Both solo music and larger ensembles, on the whole, have much more accessible music for two reasons:

1) Either they can play it, attempt to play it, or dream that one day they'll play it (solo music)
2) They can relate to its application in pop culture (movie scores, etc.)

Let's be honest, I can say with 95% certainty that those who you are talking about, more of them know Holst's _The Planets_ than any string quartet by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, et. al.


----------



## jurianbai

I like string quartet because it is more social activity. they can have a friends visiting, a beers and a string quartet.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

It's all relative. Many would suggest classical music as a whole is an acquired taste.


----------



## Taneyev

If you want to have an idea of the place and importance relative of string quartet -and chamber music in general- a good beginning is to examine the classical videos on YouTube. Of each 100 videos, nearly 45 are piano solo or with orchestra, 25 symphonic music in general, 15 string with piano or orchestra, 10 opera, lirics and songs, 2 harp, guitar or other solo instruments, and 3 chamber ensambles. Chamber was, is and will be the Cinderella of classical music.


----------



## Head_case

Odnoposoff said:


> If you want to have an idea of the place and importance relative of string quartet -and chamber music in general- a good beginning is to examine the classical videos on YouTube. Of each 100 videos, nearly 45 are piano solo or with orchestra, 25 symphonic music in general, 15 string with piano or orchestra, 10 opera, lirics and songs, 2 harp, guitar or other solo instruments, and 3 chamber ensambles. Chamber was, is and will be the Cinderella of classical music.


I'm in love with Cinderella. The rest of you can have the ugly sisters lol


----------



## Des

This is my favourite form of music, my favourites being Beethoven late, Per Norgard, Bartok, John Pickard, Ligeti, Schubert...
I don't think it is an acquired taste, but a distilled pointiliste dream with sound picked out.


----------



## jani

I love Grosse fuge


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Odnoposoff said:


> Well, string quartet is like caviar; not for anyone taste. IMO one should'n begin with it, but left for a later time, when one had listened to a lot of other forms.


Does anyone here like listening to SQ *and* consuming caviar at the same time? I do.


----------



## Guest

jurianbai said:


> I like string quartet because it is more social activity. they can have a friends visiting, a beers and a string quartet.


I agree I do wish I had kept with Violin


----------



## jurianbai

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Does anyone here like listening to SQ *and* consuming caviar at the same time? I do.


 yes... also with instant noodless..;p


----------



## jani

jurianbai said:


> yes... also with instant noodless..;p


Coffee is the only refreshment you need! While listening to Classical music!


----------



## powerbooks

Is the string quartet an acquired taste?

Well, you can always start with some simple sunshine pieces like those famous Haydn quartets. Beethoven is of course need more serious attention, but some romantic quartets are quite popular, such as Tchaikovsky, Smetana, etc.


----------



## Head_case

Hoho. Sunshine pieces lol. 

Haydn and Beethoven would seriously have put me off the string quartet genre. In the romantic era, the intensity of a full burn out solar plexus like Janacek's Intimate Letters (hmm...maybe it's not that kind of romantic lol) or Smetana's Ma Vlast made more of an impression on me than the middle of the road twiddle-dee string quartets revered as the ultimate models of the classical string quartet genre. Wow. Coming to think of it, I actually saw the Wihan Quartet play Smetana's Ma Vlast twice! Janacek's Intimate letters (Hagen Quartet) was mindblowing, as was their Schubert D887 intepretation. It's so hard putting up with the bourgeois orchestral after hearing them move the boundaries of the chamber room with sheer emotional scale of the four instruments, written by composers on the verge of a nervous breakthrough (and getting through to you).


----------



## powerbooks

Head_case said:


> Hoho. Sunshine pieces lol.
> 
> Haydn and Beethoven would seriously have put me off the string quartet genre. In the romantic era, the intensity of a full burn out solar plexus like Janacek's Intimate Letters (hmm...maybe it's not that kind of romantic lol) or Smetana's Ma Vlast made more of an impression on me than the middle of the road twiddle-dee string quartets revered as the ultimate models of the classical string quartet genre. Wow. Coming to think of it, I actually saw the Wihan Quartet play Smetana's Ma Vlast twice! Janacek's Intimate letters (Hagen Quartet) was mindblowing, as was their Schubert D887 intepretation. It's so hard putting up with the bourgeois orchestral after hearing them move the boundaries of the chamber room with sheer emotional scale of the four instruments, written by composers on the verge of a nervous breakthrough (and getting through to you).


You meant Smetana String Quartet No. 1 "From My Life",in Czech: "Z mého života", right?

Ma Vlast ("My Country" or "homeland") is a set of six symphonic poems.


----------



## powerbooks

Sounds like you are just into the romantic melody and emotion, not necessarily the string quartet per se.


----------



## Head_case

That's the one! From 'Ma Vlast' (or 'My Homeland')? My Czech isn't great. It's No.1. The No.2 never got much airplay here. 

Sorry - I'm not into romantic melody and emotion. Most of my music interest starts when the romantic era is killed off. 

90% of what I listen to is exclusively string quartet too. Last year it was more, but this year, I've added in Susan Boyle.





(j/k)


----------



## jurianbai

Of course Smetana no.1 "From My Life" and no.2. And Janacek No.1 "Kreutzer Sonata" and no.2 "Intimate Letters". Don't confuse with the other very fine Sibelius "Voice Intimae". 

All these my early string quartet that I found it myself without many help from outside my brain. I still proud of this, it was the time when internet and forum still not yet there and I need to examine which string quartet that really stand out works.


----------



## Guest

jani said:


> Coffee is the only refreshment you need! While listening to Classical music!


I am so sorry but coffee?????? never not no how :scold: no self respecting music lover would attempt to enjoy any chamber music with coffee or chewing gum, it has to be a glass of Red, really.... do try to keep the standard up :cheers::cheers:


----------



## powerbooks

Head_case said:


> That's the one! From 'Ma Vlast' (or 'My Homeland')? My Czech isn't great. It's No.1. The No.2 never got much airplay here.
> 
> Sorry - I'm not into romantic melody and emotion. Most of my music interest starts when the romantic era is killed off.
> 
> 90% of what I listen to is exclusively string quartet too. Last year it was more, but this year, I've added in Susan Boyle.
> 
> (j/k)


How about another question:

Which is your favorite String Quartet group?

I ask this because I just read that Tokyo String Quartet will end their run after 2013. They are one of the "resident" quartet groups in Yale for the past decades, and I am sad to see they dissolve.


----------



## Quartetfore

I have no favorite group, there are just too many outstanding String Quartets in the field today. I do get to hear the Emerson Quartet once or twice a year.


----------



## Head_case

> How about another question:
> 
> Which is your favorite String Quartet group?
> 
> I ask this because I just read that Tokyo String Quartet will end their run after 2013. They are one of the "resident" quartet groups in Yale for the past decades, and I am sad to see they dissolve.


That's a shame - they're well recorded in much of the popular repertoire, even if I don't own a single of their albums.

Pretty much as Quartetfore mentions ... I find it hard to isolate favourites - main problem being, that my taste in the string quartet field is regional. For example - my favourites (lol) - the Taneyev Quartet, record repertoire which no other string quartet group touches: the complete Myaskovsky string quartet (STILL, 50 years later, remains the only viable and complete cycle in recording existence); the complete Taneyev string quartet cycle; the complete Salmanov String Quartet Cycle; the Prigozhin and Basner String Quartets too. My favourite regional taste for string quartet probably is slightly commie Soviet and Polish, so they are a runaway lead - simply because they are original in their recordings, and no one else can be bothered to interpret and record the same music.

Even when it comes to the Shostakovich String Quartet Cycle - of the Petersburg String Quartet; the Borodin String Quartet, the Emerson Quartet, and the Taneyev Quartet, by far the crown of the most original interpretation for me goes to the older Taneyev Quartet. That is not to say they are the best recorded; the Hagen Quartet recordings are exemplary, although I only have a disc of theirs in this cycle.

Other favourites, are the lesser known Varsovia String Quartet, who recorded the prize winning Szymanowski string quartets in the 1980's. The CD recording is fabulous for the era, and the vinyl LP is richer and warmer, neutralising whatever advantage the Carmina Quartet recordings offered, as brilliant as that was. All the other later generation copycats, like the Royal String Quartet, the Maggini String Quartet etc don't cut it for me.

Taste is quirky: mine mostly is. Do people still know who the Vlach Quartet are? These are some of my favourite LPs' - alongside the Vegh Quartet era vinyl LP recordings of the Beethoven String Quartet Cycle, and the Bartok String Quartet Cycle. The Vlach famously did the epic Debussy/Ravel string quartet couplings, and although I discovered the Italian Quartet's splendid recording first, and of course, their Schubert string quartet recordings, which extend beyond the late quartets into the early ones too. I verge more towards the Vlach Quartet recording as my favourite for the famous French coupling. Why so....well, I can only venture that the idiomatic playing of their epoch, was very stylistically different - more poetic - than the modern interpreters, like the younger French Ebene Quatuor. There are some brilliant individual string quartet interpretations in this field; like the Hagen's interpretation (again - they resurface again and again with exemplary musicianship, even if their repertoire is never as adventurous as the Taneyev).

The international 'supergroups' like the Emerson; the Fitzwilliams; the Brodskys didn't ever do much for me, and find their way just a notch above the technically brilliant and sterile string quartet readings, by the Alban Berg Quartet (their Beethoven Cycle is a great example of technical perfection to its most sterile objective for me). Now the Brodsky's weren't all evil, just because they were commercial. They were the first string quartet to premier Morgan Szymanski's Five Pieces for string quartet although sadly never lived up to that truly eclectic edge. We all know the Kronos Quartet, who are probably more famous for the pop mainstream, as well as some kooky albums, some good, some to pass over, and a gem to watch out for - their 'Early Music' anthology. They record my favourite recording of the Schnittke Quartets. The Borodin Quartet is very good too, but somehow, I am fonder of the Kronos Quartet, maybe because they also did Gorecki's String Quartets.

But. Not as well as the Silesian String Quartet! This is a group who also offered an interesting repertoire, ranging from Alexander Tansman (neoclassical stuff I still enjoy, but don't listen to) and some contemporary Polish music. I'm a big fan of the Wilanow String Quartet, having witnessed their understated craftsmanship in concert, and their recordings of Meyer and the Polish '78 group. They did bring my attention to Bacewicz, whom I thought was really interesting, but ultimately don't listen to her music as often enough to call a favourite.

Regionally, the ex-eastern Yurop bloc quartets covering Czech composers have been on my modern favourites list. I'm a big fan of the Dvorak string quartet cycle, and it is Jana Vlachova, the lead of the New Vlach Quartet, the daughter of the original Vlach Quartet, whose cycle I tend to depend on for its entirety. Nonetheless, these are still supplanted by her father's original LP recordings, and the late quartets from XI-XV, I prefer the Prazak Quartet's interpretations over these, rather unusual since I seem to like my grand-dad's era of string quartet, than my dad's or even mine. The Talich Quartet recordings are okay for this field, but they are outclassed, so I'm trying to flog the remaining Talich Quartets I have 

The Prazak Quartet have possibly offered some of the most superlative recordings of the late Dvorak Quartets, in addition to the complete Martinu String Quartet Cycle, with their friends, the Zemlinsky Quartet, who also have brought some unusual repertoire into being (the Kalabis String Quartet Cycle - not a cycle to shout home about, but very satisfying). The Stamitz Quartet aren't bad too, but again, not quite in that upper ledger that I'm poking at for the extra one or two percent.

Back in Britain, it's probably the Dante Quartet who have woken me up to British Talent. Their recordings of the Faure and Ravel string quartets are so left of the centre compared to the Vlach Quartet favourite. I do listen to my LPs through a tube amp and a Michell Gyrodec, just in case any modern yuppie MP3 listeners out there think vinyl LP is yesterday's outdated technology.

On the other hand, if I was a normopath, and listened to mostly Haydn and the Austro-Teutonic music much more, my favourite string quartet group would look completely different. It would be the Quatuor Mosaiques playing on period instruments (and baroque pitch A=415, 400, 392, 398 or whatever Hertz you care for lol) for Haydn, and probably one of the populist quartet groups for the rest. I do really like the Fred Sherry String Quartet. They are quite special. In the James Bond originals, I imagine the Concord String Quartet are grossly neglected and deserve emphasis on the American frontier of new music (Crawford-Seeger, and some downright weird ones). String quartets who were my favourites for a year or so...and then petered out - the Arditti Quartet. Still, this is splitting hairs. All the string quartet groups I've referred to, offer incredible interpretations. Taking a polyphonic dialogic perspective: why settle for one interpretation, or one recording, by one string quartet group. I find listening to parallel recordings very enriching, although friends often think it's pointless, and don't get it.

Programming of a string quartet cycle also contributes to a favourite too: for instance, string quartet groups like the Prazak Quartet, who record trios; quintets, or non-purist add-ons to a string quartet album, infuriate me. I don't like collecting trios and quintets just to get a complete cycle of string quartets. This kind of programming seems more popular in modern marketing. Maybe record labels fear that they will bore the listener with too intense a programme? Live recordings also seem to have gone out of fashion, which is just as well since whooping cough and bronchitis seems to be much worse in cold Soviet recording halls where quartets played live, than say, the more rareified Wigmore Hall Live CD recordings, which seems to have an impeccably trained audience who do not cough and splutter during cadenzas and allegro movements with percussive frequency.

So errr....yes it's hard to nail down a favourite lol.


----------



## Guest

Quartetfore said:


> I have no favorite group, there are just too many outstanding String Quartets in the field today.


I am with you on this, I can't think of a bad Quartet off hand.


----------



## Quartetfore

Just a note on the Toyko Quartet. Living as I do In New York City, I have had a chance to hear them many times. They have given a series for many years at the "92nd Street Y". For my money, they produced the most beautiful quartet sound of this era-for "Strads" did help a bit. I`m not sure if recording did full justice, but then again I think that only way to to really know how a quartet sounds is to hear them live.
Typo! it should read four Strads.


----------



## powerbooks

Andante said:


> I am with you on this, I can't think of a bad Quartet off hand.


Now come to think of it, it is hardly a understatement! Really can't think of a bad one. I guess as a group, the combination needs the devotions from every four of them! And they'd better get along very well! 

But I also like Quartetto Italiano for many of their Philips recordings, Beethoven's among many of them.


----------



## Renaissance

I got into classical music through listening to string quartet, especially Bartok's String Quartet #1. It still gives me shivers...What a joy to discover such works...

My personal favorites QS are those from Early-Romantic and Modern Period. I am not so much into Classical one.


Bartok - String Quartet #1 
Schubert - String Quartet #13, #14. (Rosamunde and Death and the Maiden)
Beethoven - String Quartet #10 "Harp", #14 Op.131 (actually, I like all the Beethoven's Quartets)
Ravel - String Quartet in F major 
Dvorak - String Quartet #4, #5, and #12 "American"
Brahms - I dig pretty much all his works for small string ensembles


----------



## Quartetfore

Try the Op#105 and 106 of Dvorak, the last of his String Quartets and great works (my opinion).


----------



## Head_case

Yes....absolutely. The Vlach Quartet vinyl LP and the Prazak Quartet SACD versions service me immensely on these two. 

Whereas so many composers have their 'late' works vaunted, like Beethoven's late metaphysical quartets; Schubert's late genius quartets, I find with Dvorak, his mature direction penetrates the string quartet form with a personal language of his own, so much that these two really embody an unreserved recommendation to his string quartet oeuvre.


----------



## Head_case

> Originally Posted by Andante
> I am with you on this, I can't think of a bad Quartet off hand.


Ho ho. Shall I introduce to you a few? 

From what I hear in my own exploration of the string quartet, most string quartet formations tend to reach a tighter (and more proficient?) assembly, without the complications of recordings for say, a much larger ensemble. Like the local orchestra of Moravia conducted by Baron von Cut-Preis-van-der-Lido on early Naxos records, where the recording halls were so small that the soundscape was choked and 2-dimensional, or recorded in crypt like churches desacralised with communist spiritless; violins sounding fierce and shrill; stage backwards, engineering all gone wrong with ultimately a disappointing CD.

Of the bad string quartets; several come to mine - from perhaps, the least expected contenders.

The famous Debussy/Ravel string quartet coupling, was recorded and played with no Gallic charm, and a rather flat and tedious reading throughout the complete disc by the famous Borodin Quartet. As much as fans of the Borodin Quartet might complain, this weak rendition never made the cut against the competition, and it is here where the other problem lies.

Some famous quartets, have so much fierce competition around, that even competent readings, can end up lacklustre, due to the insights and depths offered by others. The Debussy/Ravel quartets are an example; the early recordings were all exemplary, however some were done on historical recording materials, so the sound quality disappoints, particularly ones like the Lowenguth Quartet, although fans of historical music will put up with mono, hiss and crackles for such beauty. Here, the Borodin Quartet have no excuse. Similarly, in their 2nd recording by the Borodin Quartet of the Shostakovich Quartet Cycle on Melodiya,they go and flop the cycle by including a live recording, in one of the quartets, with Pertussis, whooping cough; audience chair scrapes and clothing tremolo from the cold Soviet climate. Worse yet - in their recordings of the Vainberg Piano Quintet, the sound is just serviceable, and if anything, for its age, mono recordings by the Busch Quartet would be preferable.

Then there is the Kodaly Quartet, famed for their more classical era output. When they record Debussy & Ravel, they are only marginally better than a Kentucky bargain bucket. The Chilingirians thin sound and somewhat encyclopaedic scope, loses all of the intense Gallic frolicking in the playing, and comes out as a weak recommendation. Just about every other string quartet group who have recorded the Debussy/Ravel couplings would be better than these ones.

Looking at the reverse situation, where a French string quartet, the Renoir Quartet, winners of a prestigious international prize, try and interpret the Soviet Myaskovsky String Quartets and make a complete balls up of the music. We know what this music is supposed to sound like; much was premiered by the Beethoven Quartet, and then the Taneyev Quartet as the original interpreters who had direct instruction from the composer; equally, the ancient Bolshoi Theatre Quartet mono recording has come back to life, and confirms the lyrical Soviet works with the mature deftness of Myaskovsky's style (in the No. XIII). And the Renoir Quartet? Somehow they interpret their select recordings as 'Myaskovsky meets Debussy'. As attractive as that might seem to non-purists, all it achieves is lightening the interiority of Myaskovsky's work, and frivolising it with their long drawn out bows.

I should also add that the Moyzes Quartet on Naxos made a truly horrible number of recordings. They were so infuriating badly phrased, with more sound to the sleeve movements than the pianissimo 3rd octave, and gratingly cheese like in rubato and arpeggio parts. It became my coffee mug coaster :/

Of the modern CDs out, yes, generally there are few recordings to fear. One noticeable failure, by another supergroup, is the complete Shostakovich Cycle by the Brodsky Quartet. These guys (and girl) are loveable for their repertoire, however their renditions of Shostakovich are so left of the centre, than nobody bothers even looking for their CDs. They were the best thing since sliced bread when their cycle came out; I guess they should've paired up with the Moyzes Quartet and added the latter's grated cheese to try and record the Enescu' Octet, which was adequately serviced by some Roumanian nobody group on Olympia, however doesn't really deserve any mention.

It's been years since I followed the Penguin Guide; they had some good recommendations specifically for chamber music, or at least, they (clandestinely) warned listeners of weak string quartet recordings. Sometimes they were worse than modern pop critics, who proclaim "Forget last year's recommendations - this one really is the best! Until the next year.." but generally, it was better than just buying any old MP3 file from listening to 30 seconds on iTunes of a string quartet recording through tinny computer speakers.


----------



## powerbooks

Well, I guess I need to listen more to make judgement! Thanks for the comments on bad quartets!


----------



## Head_case

No problem!

I have my curmudgeonly moments 

Speaking of acquired taste, here is a CD I acquired which I'm really digging by the Neo Quartet:>

http://avaxhome.ws/music/classical/neo_quartet_neo_quartet.html










It was primarily the Alexsander Lason No VI which I was interested in, however I was surprised to find myself really enjoying Agnieszka Stulginska and Marek Czerniewicz's string quartets with electronic tape. Very inventive and immensely fascinating to delve into the textures of this new fusion.

The only other reference point for string quartet with electronic tape which I've got is the incredible Silesian Quartet's take on Danish composers:

http://www.dacapo-records.dk/en/recording-getstring.aspx

It is unusual, and not scarey at all. The electronica tape sections are woven seamlessly in between the string quartets, so the little narrow minded purist traditionalists like me can fast forward to just the string quartets, or the more open minded horizon expanding fractionally little minority of which I might be becoming, can listen to the whole album and savour the experience.


----------



## Quartetfore

I think that the case of the Kodaly Quartet is interesting. Back in the fairly early days of Naxos they seemed to be the "House Quartet". I can`t imagine they played the Debussy and Ravel to often in concert, as well of all things the Quartets of D`Indy! Yet they recorded them.
I don`t much care for the Brodsky Quartet, the tone of the first Violin gives me sort of a headache. They did do a nice Respigh disc, and a nice Deliuis quartet, but their Tchaikovsky 2nd and 3rd is overheated.
I have one recording of Moyzes, its the Shostakovich 2nd and 4th. It was the first Shostakovich that I bought and it sounds ok but in this music there are much better. Right now I listen to the Hagen and St, Petersburgh.
Now for the Renior Quartet. I must admit that that this is my first exposure to the work that they play, I am going to wait until I can pass judgement. The Taneyev 7th and 8th are on my list for this Fall


----------



## jurianbai

Again for the Kodaly. Actually it's a good news for me. Mean I have plenty of room to fill in my Haydn quartet cycle with other version. I need to refresh my Haydn' cycle experience after almost ten years exclusively listening to Kodaly in Naxos.

I think string quartet required extra taste to dig in. I have little experience with other chamber genre, but I think string quartet need more attention to grab the beauty and meaning in its contents. And they need to have extra background knowledge too. For example if the listener never really know it is played by four instruments, they will just dismissed the music for being too melodic and feel less harmonic layer fill in background as in symphony. More melody line need extra energy to process.


----------



## Quartetfore

Each time I hear a work that I think that I know, I hear more of the music. That is the beauty of the string quartet.


----------



## Head_case

Re: The Kodaly Qt - somehow it was the Quatuor Mosaiques on their period instruments which really made me think Haydn's work had little else their equal (go for it Jurianbai!) Although I didn't always have this appreciation.

The D'Indy Quartets were partially recorded by the Quatuor Prat on Auvidis Montaigne. I like their sound, although his string quartet music is completely forgettable, if not rather tedious, much like the arguments of the League de la Patrie of which D'Indy contributed. Following the political blindness of almost a whole nation, at least as man and composer, he was consistent. Well done for the Prat Quatuor for doing him justice, beyond name only 

The Moyzes version of Shostakovich' Quartets rank alongside (well, alongside the underbelly of) the eponymous Shostakovich Quartet who recorded the completely cycle rather loosely in their 1970's style. I came across some of the older Gramaphone Magazine archives, and was shocked to read editors laud this cycle, before realising, back in 1970's, close to the time of recording in great sound quality, this was an important landmark, particularly for bringing Shostakovich to the wider European/world audience. Now, we're spoilt terribly with countless brilliant readings of Shostakovich. The Shostakovich Quartet aren't one of these, however they are a stark reminder that we now have a lot of choice, and thankfully we don't have to choose this one 

Of the recent yuppie quartets recording Myaskovsky, the Pacifica Quartet version is more acceptable as an interpretation for me. The Borodin Quartet and the Kopelman Quartet readings of the same Quartet No. XIII are essentially the same, or little to choose between them, as both being better than the Renoir take on the same quartet. Kopelman having survived the end of the Borodin Quartet's era and formed his own quartet. The advantage of the Renoir Quartet disc, is that it brings a new (yes! New! NEW!) interpretation of the mature and anxiously agitated Quartet No. I (No.III chronological). It is a fascinating piece of work which thankfully doesn't take as long as the Enescu Quartets to get into. It is recorded much better than the Taneyev Quartet's original classic, when the sound engineer appears to have been laid ill during the sound mix by jamming in a double vodka or twenty.

Here is the Strad's review of it:

http://www.thestrad.com/CDReviewsArticle.asp?ProductID=136

Not that I agree with any of the reviewer's nutcase comments (and that's coming from a headcase).

Now ...here's a critic to respect...Jonathan Woolf is not a reviewer to be sniffed at - one of my favourite reviewers:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Sept10/miaskovsky_qts_20101.htm

He is far more polite about this crud of a CD than I am. It's possible that I just don't like it's romantic jazz take on Myaskovsky, anymore than adding electronic drums to Beethoven.


----------



## BurningDesire

I think it has more to do with the individual quartet, rather than the medium itself that determines if you like it. I hadn't really listened to many quartets, and I hear Beethoven's Op. 131, and its one of the most amazing pieces I've ever heard. I have some really awesome ones to recommend that I don't believe has been mentioned yet, and those would be both of Charles Ives' quartets, which are both very different from one another (though still in his voice) and both amazing ^_^


----------



## jurianbai

Charles Ives No.1 "From the Salvation Army" is lovely melodious pieces. The second one is rather conceptual.


----------



## jurianbai

wider taste


----------



## Head_case

Isn't the Ives quartet just sublime?

Mine is the fabulous Concord String Quartet version, along with some other rather fierce pieces. Crumb(s)...there is some
'difficult' music in this set when the take the score into their own hands.


----------



## Novelette

The first String Quartet to which I was exposed was Beethoven's String Quartet in G Major, Op. 18/2--first movement.

It has such a distinct dignity to it, and I was attracted by the refinement of that work. From there, I explored the string quartets of Haydn and then of Beethoven, and so on. My initial exposure was when I was 7, and I hardly had the musical sense to appreciate the genre fully. Not so much "acquired", for me anyway; it was rather a process of discovery. "Acquired" connotes initial distaste which is somewhat forcedly overcome. The genre may very well be my favorite these days.


----------



## neoshredder

Novelette said:


> The first String Quartet to which I was exposed was Beethoven's String Quartet in G Major, Op. 18/2--first movement.
> 
> It has such a distinct dignity to it, and I was attracted by the refinement of that work. From there, I explored the string quartets of Haydn and then of Beethoven, and so on. My initial exposure was when I was 7, and I hardly had the musical sense to appreciate the genre fully. Not so much "acquired", for me anyway; it was rather a process of discovery. "Acquired" connotes initial distaste which is somewhat forcedly overcome. The genre may very well be my favorite these days.


I tend to prefer Symphonies more but I don't mind changing every once in a while.


----------



## Novelette

Understandable, Neoshredder. 

Have you listened to Rameau's Pièces de clavecin en concerts? The album recorded by the Kuijken Ensemble is amazing! Some of my favorite Baroque chamber music, along with Purcell's and Couperin's.


----------



## neoshredder

I heard some Rameau, Couperin, and Purcell though I put more of my focus on the Italian's and German's. Maybe I should give more listening time to those 3.


----------



## Novelette

My Baroque listening has been primarily focused on the Germans and French. 

I adore the French Baroque, but the latter half. The Louis XIII and XIV eras aren't my favorite in music, with notable exceptions.


----------



## neoshredder

I don't know. Just couldn't get into it. Vivaldi and Bach got me into Baroque. But I'll try to with the suggestions you make. What do you prefer for Couperin and Purcell?


----------



## Guest

The intimacy of the StQt is just not attainable with an orch I think those that start classical listening later in life tend to go for Big Orchestral works and then as their tastes mature go onto Chamber and of course the StQt


----------



## bejart

Novelette said:


> The first String Quartet to which I was exposed was Beethoven's String Quartet in G Major, Op. 18/2--first movement.
> 
> It has such a distinct dignity to it, and I was attracted by the refinement of that work. From there, I explored the string quartets of Haydn .....


Just listened to a lecture about that work. Apparently, Beethoven was composing in the style of Haydn so he could understand and absorb from the inside out. From that point, he started pushing the boundaries of the genre.


----------



## Quartetfore

Most people feel that the op#18 Quartets are a summing up of the Classical Style for the String Quartet. Around the time that Beethoven composed these works Hummel composed his three Quartets. In a sense these are a bit more advanced since they seem to be on the cusp of the "early Romantic style". The third of them is a very good and enjoyable work.


----------



## Head_case

Is the string quartet an acquired taste?

This one is worth acquiring: a solid 57 minutes of continous music - one of the longest string quartets ever written:










Fans of Bach - rejoice!


----------



## quack

I assume that is Robert Simpson's 9th. The Hyperion site doesn't like image hot links. Didn't strike me as particularly Bach like, i'll have to schedule an hour to listen to it again.

This is an interesting modern composer who I had never heard before Christos Hatzis. Two string quartets one with tape, and trains! shades of Reich and Adams, and probably more obvious people, I am useless at spotting influences.


----------



## KenOC

quack said:


> I assume that is Robert Simpson's 9th. The Hyperion site doesn't like image hot links. Didn't strike me as particularly Bach like, i'll have to schedule an hour to listen to it again.


Supposedly the Simpson No. 9 is "thirty-three palindromic variations and a palindromic fugue on a palindromic theme by Haydn." I have the quartet and have listened to it only once. All very intricate and ingenious I'm sure, but it didn't seem very interesting on that first hearing.


----------



## quack

I'm kind of glad I can't hear that, it would surely drive me mad.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> Supposedly the Simpson No. 9 is "thirty-three palindromic variations and a palindromic fugue on a palindromic theme by Haydn." I have the quartet and have listened to it only once. All very intricate and ingenious I'm sure, but it didn't seem very interesting on that first hearing.


Robert Simpson didn't sound very interesting to me when I first listened to his symphonies. He's one of those composers that gets better with each listen.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> Robert Simpson didn't sound very interesting to me when I first listened to his symphonies. He's one of those composers that gets better with each listen.


True of the symphonies and (I assume) the quartets as well. But for me at least, it takes a bit.


----------



## Head_case

KenOC said:


> Supposedly the Simpson No. 9 is "thirty-three palindromic variations and a palindromic fugue on a palindromic theme by Haydn." I have the quartet and have listened to it only once. All very intricate and ingenious I'm sure, but it didn't seem very interesting on that first hearing.


That sums up my initial superficial reaction to Simpson's magnus opus too.

However that was years ago: he wrote much music for the BBC television - granted that I can't stand commercialism or television, Simpson is perhaps one of the last British composers I would come to appreciate - way after McCabe (excellent flute concertos and string quartets); Matyas Seiber (Hungarian expat in Scotland); EJ Moeran's pastoral works alongside the impressionistic Cyril Scott; Richard Arnell, the inventive Stephen Dodgson and of course, the late romantic tinged York Bowen. Vaughan Williams and Benjamin Britten are not names which rivet me in the string quartet literature either, however like McEwen, Robert Simpson wrote fifteen string quartets; as many as Shostakovich; more than Myaskovsky and much more than Bartok.

For newcomers to Robert Simpson; starting off with the spiralling textures of string quartet no. VII/VIII; dedicated to the mystery of the universe (Simpson's friends were people in high places....up there with the Hubble telescope peering into the skies  ) as well as fascinated by the micro-detail (another dedicated was to an entymologist) - the intense emotional development of the VII/VIII are much easier to grasp than the IX.

The string quartet no. IX occupies a strange place; it is not written for first impressions, nor for the superficial listener and most certainly, not for the amateur string quartet. The Delmé Quartet to whom it was dedicated for their elegantly refined prowess, have an unequalled position in the history of the British string quartet - this quartet marked their 20 years in existence.

Little surprise, no one else has come along to record it. Its monumental scale and architecture dwarfs human attention span and it is one of those string quartets which are written by the composer's incisive devotion to the medium.

Whether that is 'successful' as a string quartet, will be determined much in the way that such a lengthy quartet can be listened to. Enescu's lengthy string quartet no.I at 47 minutes (Ad Libitum Quartet recording on Naxos) doesn't come close to this, let alone Taneyev's string quartet no. II at 42 minutes (Taneyev Quartet, Melodiya/Norther Flowers). Even Franck's use of the cyclic principle extended his string quartet to a mere 44 minutes.

Interestingly, none of these lengthy string quartets feature highly in terms of programmed repertoire. With the phenomenal powers of concentration required by both the ensemble and the audience, this is either heading towards the ecstasy of sheer enlightenment, or complete turn off into dull boredom extending for almost an hour.

I'm still trying to work out which side of the fence I'm heading for.


----------



## Mahlerian

Head_case said:


> Little surprise, no one else has come along to record it. Its monumental scale and architecture dwarfs human attention span and it is one of those string quartets which are written by the composer's incisive devotion to the medium.
> 
> Whether that is 'successful' as a string quartet, will be determined much in the way that such a lengthy quartet can be listened to. Enescu's lengthy string quartet no.I at 47 minutes (Ad Libitum Quartet recording on Naxos) doesn't come close to this, let alone Taneyev's string quartet no. II at 42 minutes (Taneyev Quartet, Melodiya/Norther Flowers). Even Franck's use of the cyclic principle extended his string quartet to a mere 44 minutes.
> 
> Interestingly, none of these lengthy string quartets feature highly in terms of programmed repertoire. With the phenomenal powers of concentration required by both the ensemble and the audience, this is either heading towards the ecstasy of sheer enlightenment, or complete turn off into dull boredom extending for almost an hour.


Schoenberg's First Quartet in D minor runs 46 uninterrupted minutes. All of the material is developed from stuff laid out at the beginning, and like many other single movement works, it encompasses larger sections that correspond to those of a normal quartet work: allegro, scherzo, slow movement, finale. It also is a single sonata movement. It's a little long, but I think it's great. I have an easier time digesting it than Schoenberg's Pelleas, that's for sure.


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg's First Quartet in D minor runs 46 uninterrupted minutes. All of the material is developed from stuff laid out at the beginning, and like many other single movement works, it encompasses larger sections that correspond to those of a normal quartet work: allegro, scherzo, slow movement, finale. It also is a single sonata movement. It's a little long, but I think it's great. I have an easier time digesting it than Schoenberg's Pelleas, that's for sure.


I love that quartet!


----------



## Ukko

Thanks, _Head_case_, nice post. If I were editing it I could trim some, but I ain't, can't, and the information is valuable. I purchased the CD yesterday at Berkshire Record Outlet; soon we'll see if I have the head for it.


----------



## moswanted

he he he very good point


----------



## Head_case

Thanks guys ... I think the Simpson quartets do take a rather brave string quartet listener to fathom them in their completeness. 

Not lest because it's friggin' expensive! 

The Shostakovich quartet cycle can be had as cheap as £30 for all 5/6 CDs in some places. These Robert Simpson quartets were never assembled into a collection reissue, and thus, sell individually at full market price. 

What's worse, is that I see some of them are being gradually deleted 

Interesting and thanks for reminding me of the Schoenberg string quartet no.I. I've forgotten how satisfying his early string quartets are. If it wasn't for this forum crabbing on about Schoenberg and serialism I probably would still be having on my hit list to play :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

Head_case said:


> Interesting and thanks for reminding me of the Schoenberg string quartet no.I. I've forgotten how satisfying his early string quartets are. If it wasn't for this forum crabbing on about Schoenberg and serialism I probably would still be having on my hit list to play :lol:


I'm assuming you're including the String Quartet in D major in this as well? It's amazingly accomplished for his age and still fully within his style. I love all of Schoenberg's quartets, personally. He gets such a range of color and feeling out of such a small ensemble (as with any great string quartet composer). In my book, he's up there with Bartok as the best composer for string quartet in the 20th century.


----------



## Head_case

Yup....I like his work up to about string quartet no III and then it gets a bit hairy for me. Lol it's probably just the last one I don't like, and then even that one, I do like after the Kocian Quartet and the Fred Sherry Quartet brought it to life with exemplary playing. 

The vocals and string quartet genre is quite appealing - I'm surprised to find that I'm inadvertently developing a collection.


----------



## Ukko

Head_case said:


> Thanks guys ... I think the Simpson quartets do take a rather brave string quartet listener to fathom them in their completeness.
> 
> Not lest because it's friggin' expensive!
> 
> The Shostakovich quartet cycle can be had as cheap as £30 for all 5/6 CDs in some places. These Robert Simpson quartets were never assembled into a collection reissue, and thus, sell individually at full market price.


Some of the Simpson CDs are available at www.berkshirerecordoutlet.com for $7 ea.


----------



## Mahlerian

Head_case said:


> Yup....I like his work up to about string quartet no III and then it gets a bit hairy for me. Lol it's probably just the last one I don't like, and then even that one, I do like after the Kocian Quartet and the Fred Sherry Quartet brought it to life with exemplary playing.
> 
> The vocals and string quartet genre is quite appealing - I'm surprised to find that I'm inadvertently developing a collection.


Interesting. Most people seem to find No. 4 more accessible than 3. It has that unison melody at the beginning of the slow movement, for one thing. Anyway, we both seem to agree that Schoenberg's contribution to the string quartet genre was far more valuable than Stravinsky's!


----------



## Head_case

Haha ...Stravinsky :lol: 

He just won't go away. I have three of his pieces on a Brodsky String Quartet album which I love ...apart from his three pieces which they *had* to go and programme at the start of the disc. So I press >>FF<< three times each time I listen to the disc to skip it.

How those three pieces annoy me...!


----------



## Mahlerian

Head_case said:


> Haha ...Stravinsky :lol:
> 
> He just won't go away. I have three of his pieces on a Brodsky String Quartet album which I love ...apart from his three pieces which they *had* to go and programme at the start of the disc. So I press >>FF<< three times each time I listen to the disc to skip it.
> 
> How those three pieces annoy me...!


Well, I don't hate them that much, but I do prefer his orchestrations as the first three movements of his Four Etudes (the fourth was an orchestration of a player piano piece!).


----------



## Head_case

Of the string quartet composers (or those string quartet composers whose contributions are outstanding in this particular genre, withstanding their orchestral or other works), Alois Haba's works strike me as particularly hard to acquire a taste for:










They are innovative and exciting for us associated with equal temperament and just temperament scales however much listening to them leaves us feeling bad tempered at the sheer lack of a handle to grasp the music by. I've been listening to these for some time now, and still find at the end of the day, I can't remember a single thing I heard, other than a vague fleeting impression that I might enjoy it, but I'm nowhere near enjoying it when I am actually listening to it, waiting for the next string quartet, hoping it will be better only to find that the promise falls short.

It's still fascinating however. The microtonal slides are particularly intriguing. There are few instruments so well suited to this technique off microtonal scales - other fretless instruments are ideal however I don't play any.


----------



## Ukko

Does Partch's music have the same effect on you?


----------



## Head_case

Haha! Yes indeed!

And Ben Johnston too!

I think I encroached beyond my very limits and foolishly found myself wasting money in something called 'avant garde' music. Buyer's remorse lol


----------



## Vaneyes

Listener's remorse is far more severe...realizing those many hours of worthless (string quartet) music could've been better spent with dog and frisbee, for example. Prioritizing becomes more important with age, as Hilly & Moody can/may tell us.


----------



## Head_case

Unfortunately the Haydn string quartets come into that 'wasted time' category for me. 

Even yesterday at a concert listening to his "Frog Quartet", I sat there thinking: "What's the point in writing stuff like this?"

It was so superficial, pitted before the Bartok string quartet no.II. The programmers couldn't have done a worse job of programming a light Haydnesque filler before the main horsemeat of the concert. As soon as the Bartok No. II started playing, Haydn's Frog had turned amphibious and gone under memory under the aggressive slash and burn, and emotionally tensile moments climaxing in ecstasy and sonorities undreamt of by Haydn's fluffy feather quill. 

I've lost count of how many he wrote. I still have a frisbee. 

Shame about the dog. He never understood frisbee. It was more a case of me repeating myself hoarse: "Fetch! Fetch! Harry Fetch!" and then scurrying on all fours to put the frisbee in my mouth to show him. 

He'd look at me as if I was a right weirdo and give a big dog smile and run the opposite way. 

Dog gone!


----------



## Guest

Head_case said:


> . I still have a frisbee.
> 
> Shame about the dog. He never understood frisbee. It was more a case of me repeating myself hoarse: "Fetch! Fetch! Harry Fetch!" and then scurrying on all fours to put the frisbee in my mouth to show him.
> 
> He'd look at me as if I was a right weirdo and give a big dog smile and run the opposite way.
> 
> Dog gone!


No fool that dog...................


----------



## Ingélou

Yes, it's an acquired taste. It wouldn't be the first thing I'd introduce to a non-classical friend, either. It demands patience.
If you don't grow up in a 'classical' family, it's hard not to find all classical music boring, & string quartets were numbingly boring for me when I was in my teens, even though I was learning the violin. (It was the Beatles/Stones era). As for Opera, especially sopranos, I found it excruciating and/or hilarious. But thank goodness, my mind opened as I matured. Good music is the Epiphany of my third age.


----------



## Alydon

In my experience I have found most of us 'classical listeners' start off with the big pieces and explore that repetoire first and then feel our way towards the string quartets and other chamber works. The only string quartet which knocked me sideways as a very young man was Schubert's, _Death & The Maiden_ (a scratched to pieces LP I bought at a jumble sale) which I kept playing inbetween Beethoven's symphonies and a record of Rossini's overtures.
The strange thing is that the older I get the more chamber music I listen to, and less and less big orchestral pieces - so yes, an acquired taste and taken up in greater measure as our musical palette becomes more experienced and refined.


----------



## arpeggio

peeyaj said:


> Schubert's quartets are highly recommended.


I have mentioned this in other posts. I read an interview of Carter where he stated that one of his favorite composers was Schumann.


----------



## Ukko

Alydon said:


> [..]
> The strange thing is that the older I get the more chamber music I listen to, and less and less big orchestral pieces - so yes, an acquired taste and taken up in greater measure as our musical palette becomes more experienced and refined.


I share your experience described before the dash (-), but not so much your explanation for it. Experienced yes, but refined? Hillbillies don't do 'refined', not even in DIY booze. Hmm... listening to a string band play Bluegrass may give us an edge on you intellectuals though.


----------



## Head_case

arpeggio said:


> I have mentioned this in other posts. I read an interview of Carter where he stated that one of his favorite composers was Schumann.


...and Elliott Carter states when asked "Would you like to play the Tarentello?"

"I'm going to have to go home very soon...."

LOL!!!!! :lol: :lol:

Anyhows - that quartet group destroyed the majesty of the D887 String Quartet No.XV in that clip.

It is never as piecemeal pastisched in four parts glued together. Granted that they were just improvising however the seamless blending of the four parts is essential for the climax. Sadly they all sound mistuned too.

Carter interrupts it to say "I love it" and then goes on to analyse it.

When I listen to it (live; or a decent recording, like the Prazak Quartet or the Italian Quartet or the Vlach Quartet, I'm completely spellbound in silence. I can't even spell tremelo then :lol:


----------



## Alydon

Hilltroll72 said:


> I share your experience described before the dash (-), but not so much your explanation for it. Experienced yes, but refined? Hillbillies don't do 'refined', not even in DIY booze. Hmm... listening to a string band play Bluegrass may give us an edge on you intellectuals though.


Ok - maybe experienced or educated rather than refined! I guess I was trying to say you have to go through a lot of music to appreciate the string quartet. As for Bluegrass, I don't know much about it, but will give it a go over next few weeks.


----------



## Head_case

Romantic string quartet fans and non-string quartet listeners - get your tin foil hats out quick!

This is the Stadler Quartett - some truly ferociously carved string quartet music framed elegantly with rather poetically winded yearning:


----------



## Head_case

and more:

some very emotional string quartet writing to acquire. And playing:






Love this stuff!


----------



## Vaneyes

Head_case said:


> Unfortunately the Haydn string quartets come into that 'wasted time' category for me.
> 
> Even yesterday at a concert listening to his "Frog Quartet", I sat there thinking: "What's the point in writing stuff like this?"
> 
> It was so superficial, pitted before the Bartok string quartet no.II. The programmers couldn't have done a worse job of programming a light Haydnesque filler before the main horsemeat of the concert. As soon as the Bartok No. II started playing, Haydn's Frog had turned amphibious and gone under memory under the aggressive slash and burn, and emotionally tensile moments climaxing in ecstasy and sonorities undreamt of by Haydn's fluffy feather quill.
> 
> I've lost count of how many he wrote. I still have a frisbee.
> 
> Shame about the dog. He never understood frisbee. It was more a case of me repeating myself hoarse: "Fetch! Fetch! Harry Fetch!" and then scurrying on all fours to put the frisbee in my mouth to show him.
> 
> He'd look at me as if I was a right weirdo and give a big dog smile and run the opposite way.
> 
> Dog gone!


"Fetch, dude," probably would've done it.


----------



## Guest

Don't be hard on Haydn he was among the creators of sonata form plus the symphony, string quartet which are the fundamental genres of classical music to day, he is also the composer that I recomend to those wishing to venture into classical being easy to follow and basic. Long live Joe :tiphat:


----------

