# Blind comparison : Beethoven's Große Fuge



## Discobole

I'm launching today a Blind comparison on Beethoven's Große Fuge. I've selected 20 versions (all by string quartets, no orchestral arrangements). I already counted 15 participants from this french forum, and you're welcome if you want to join.

There are 5 groups of 4 versions each (randomly dispatched), all in the same excerpt, that you can listen in the 1st round. Everyone ranks the versions from his favourite (1) to his least favourite (4). I accept ex aequos.
At the end of this round (in 2 weeks) I'll mix all votes (with the Condorcet method), and only the best of each group will progress to the 2nd and final stage  Each participant will listen to one group but those who want can listen another group, or even all of them if you have the time.

Just say right below that you want to participate, I'll count you in and send you your group.


----------



## Moira

Sounds like an interesting project, but listening to twenty versions of the same piece of music to rank them sounds like work for which I need to be paid.


----------



## Discobole

:lol:
Just 4 if you want to stick to one group. And it's just an excerpt. Well, just do as you wish


----------



## mleghorn

I'd like to participate.


----------



## Kopachris

I wouldn't mind participating.


----------



## kv466

Listening to twenty versions of the same piece is just another weekend for some of us.


----------



## Discobole

Thanks mleghorn and Kopachris, I've just sent you your groups 
Please don't forget to hide your vote and commentaries (at least when you give precise opinions on versions) to avoid influencing others.



kv466 said:


> Listening to twenty versions of the same piece is just another weekend for some of us.



Do you want to try in this case ?


----------



## Discobole

So, for the moment, 2 participants here (mleghorn and Kopachris) + 3 on Good Music Guide + 15 on Classik = 20 people to judge which is the absolute best version of the Great Fugue


----------



## mmsbls

I'll give it a shot. How long are the excerpts?


----------



## jurianbai

I would like to listen the excerpt too, but can't promise to give you immediately feedback.


----------



## Discobole

Thank you for joining, that makes 4 of you


----------



## iracema1

I would like to participate!


----------



## Vaneyes

I'll do it, hit me.

On second thought, having seen the website, I probably have to register...so, no thanks.


----------



## Discobole

Register to what ? What website ? What are you talking about 
And do you still want to join ?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

A substantial portion of the website I cannot understand. Is it just me or is it written in French?


----------



## Discobole

You don't need to register anywhere, I was just indicating the other forum where I gathered participants, but there is no need to post over there, as I intend to organize an englishspeaking counterpart on this forum, kind of a mirror if it makes things clearer.


----------



## mmsbls

@Vaneyes, ComposerOfAvantGarde: The website listed in the OP has nothing to do with this exercise. You don't need to visit it, register, or have anything to do with it to participate. Discobole will PM you the selections for you to listen to.


----------



## Kopachris

Okay, here are my votes for group E: (Spoiler alert!)
E1: rests are too long, but a very clear recording
E2: even slower but more even tempo, also very clear recording; very easy to hear minor defects in performance (this applies to all the recordings)
E3: slightly different intro, better pace, more reverb in recording, greater dynamic range
E4: also has a lot of reverb, faster pace but still has long rests, more compressed dynamic range, recording seems of lower-quality equipment

FINAL VOTE
E3
E2
E4
E1


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Okay I would definitely like to participate.


----------



## Discobole

Great, I just sent you your group.

Let me remind you all that I can send you a second group or even more, if you wish to listen more than 4 versions.

Here are groups & participants here until now :

Group A : iracema1 (+ 4 others on GMG and Classik)
Group B : jurianbai (+ 4)
Group C : mleghorn ; ComposerOfAvantGarde (+ 3)
Group D : mmsbls (+ 4)
Group E : Kopachris (+ 3)


----------



## PetrB

kv466 said:


> Listening to twenty versions of the same piece is just another weekend for some of us.


But people really do get paid to do this sort of thing


----------



## Discobole

I'm still waiting for a few votes here (iracema1, mleghorn, ComposerOfAvantGarde) and on the other forums. Things are looking interesting and, as you can imagine, there will be several surprises, maybe even big ones among those who will be eliminated...


----------



## Discobole

I can already announce results for groups B and E. Still waiting for a few votes in groups A, C and D.

As always with the Condorcet method I start by compiling preferences for each couple of versions. Then, if there are paradoxes or equal scores, I use the mean ranking of each version to solve the problems. That allows me to find the ranking. More details here (in French).

*Group B : Results*

5 voters in this group.
Ranking :

*1st : B4* --> qualified for Finals
2nd : B3 --> eliminated
3rd : B1 --> eliminated
4th : B2 --> eliminated

The eliminated versions are :

*4th (B2) Quatuor Pascal (Concert Hall, 1952)*

This was a pioneer version, the most widely sold complete set of Beethoven quartets in its time. I just love it, I find it savage, violent, thrilling, but voters didn't agree...
The last quartets have been re-released by Forgotten Records.










*3rd (B1) Amadeus Quartet (DG, 196?)*

A great reference, superb, but voters found it much too cautious and expressed their need for more powerful interpretations. It is still a tremendous accomplishement.










*2nd (B3) Hagen Quartett (DG, 2008)*

The second version of the Hagens is indeed phenomenal, full of ideas, risks, it is full of fire and passion. They don't have the most perfect technique and sound though.


----------



## Discobole

*Group E : Results*

6 voters in this group.
Ranking :

*1st : E3* --> qualified for Finals
2nd : E1 --> eliminated
3rd : E4 --> eliminated
4th : E2 --> eliminated

The eliminated versions are :

*4th (E2) Quartetto Italiano (DG, 4/1969)*

This incredible reference is eliminated almost unanimously. Too slow, too much concentrated on sound quality and not on rhetoric. When you listen to it without comparison, of course, it is still wonderful, but it's difficult to resist other versions here...










*3rd (E4) Yale Quartet (Vanguard, 1971)*

I really love this version, which is one of the most furious you can imagine. The acoustics are also excellent. Really, I can't resist it. But you preferred E3...
Also the best bargain for the Late Quartets, you can get it easily for 10$ or less.










*2nd (E1) Smetana Quartet (Supraphon, 1965)*

Better than their later recordings for Denon, the ones the Smetanas did in the sixties are still among the very best. The violence is really incredible here, and the acoustics excellent too (close mikes, as in the Yale version indeed). Another great loss before the finals.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sorry, can I pull out?


----------



## Discobole

Of course, thanks for telling me. I'll publish results for group C during the day then.


----------



## Discobole

Again, BIG surprises in this group... I'm still waiting for one vote in groupe A and another one in group D.

*Group C : Results*

5 voters in this group. Ranking :

*1st : C3* --> qualified for Finals
2nd : C1 --> eliminated
2nd ex aequo : C2 --> eliminated
4th : C4 --> eliminated

The eliminated versions are :

*4th (C4) Prazak Quartet (Praga, 2004)*

This very successful complete set has been judged a little too coarse by comparison. Still, everyone recognized its qualities, other versions were just too strong.










*2nd ex aequo (C1) LaSalle Quartet (DG/Brilliant, 12/1976)*

This is one of my favourite versions. One of the most violent, instruments fight more than they dialogue here (influence of the Viennese school recorded by the LQ ?) One of the best bargains too, thanks to Brilliant.










*2nd (C2) Juilliard String Quartet (Columbia, 1964-1970?)*

And, again, a big surprise in this group. After the Amadeus Quartet and the Quartetto Italiano, you decided to eliminate the Juilliard SQ. Actually, 3 different recordings were made, this one (in studio) and 2 live versions, for the complete set in the 1980s and then on a 1996 CD. This might sound funny, but there is much more fire here than in the later versions, maybe because the quartet took more risks when not in front of the audience. Still, this was not sufficient for you and the sound was maybe insufficiently "smooth", at list when compared to C3...


----------



## Discobole

*Group A : Results*

6 voters in this group. Ranking :

*1st : A2* --> qualified for Finals
2nd : A3 --> eliminated
3rd : A4 --> eliminated
4th : A1 --> eliminated

The eliminated versions are :

*4th (A1) Alban Berg Quartett (EMI, 1983)*

That will sound like a big surprise. Not really for me, I really don't think this set deserves the status of a reference I frequenlty hear or read about it.










*3rd (A4) Raphael Quartet (Globe, 1992)*

An unknown version I truly admired when I heard it by chance. Finishing before the Berg Quartet, and with 2 voters putting it on 1st place, is already quite a performance. I really recommend this CD, by the way, a very pleasant discovery.










*2nd (A3) Takács Quartet (Decca, 2003)*

A2 and A3 were very close, but in a group where reactions were less enthusiastic than in others. The Takacs are indeed very passionate and with a great intensity, but lack a certain sense of balance, which is maybe why it didn't totally convince you...


----------



## Discobole

*Group D : Results*

6 voters in this group. Ranking :

*1st : D1* --> qualified for Finals
2nd ex aequo : D4 --> eliminated
2nd ex aequo : D3 --> eliminated
4th : D2 --> eliminated

The eliminated versions are :

*4th (D2) Guarneri String Quartet (RCA, 196?)*

Better than the second complete set (Philips/Brilliant), but still, it probably sounded a little too laborious, compared to other versions here..










*2nd ex aequo (D3) Alexander String Quartet (Foghorn, 2009)*

Frequently described as the "new reference" by critics and some listeners, it is certainly interesting, its main interest is the structure, the architecture they reveal. Good version, but maybe not much more...










*2nd ex aequo (D4) Budapest Quartet (Columbia, 1951)*

Well, that's quite a disappointment... This is old-fashioned, yes, of course, but so beautiful, classy, with a natural sens of drama. Well, anyway, voters judged otherwise, and it finishes far behind D1...


----------



## Discobole

So, now is time for the big finals, with the 5 remaining versions : A2, B4, C3, D1 and E3. 

Are there new participants to finish this blind comparison ?


----------



## jurianbai

Alban berg, takacs, budapest, quartteto italia, julliard,hagen all eliminated. of these I familiar with the Hagen, Julliard and Alban Berg. On other hand, my other two set of Beethoven haven't mentioned / eliminated...


----------



## Discobole

Because of a little mistake from one of the voters in group D (inverted versions), the ranking is actually 2) Alexander SQ and 3) Budapest. That doesn't change anything about D1 ahead.

All participants should receive informations about the finals shortly. 

Please don't hesitate to join the listening, just ask !


----------



## jalex

Go on, I'll join for the finals.


----------



## grocklin

I'll join, if it's still possible.


----------



## grocklin

After this waste of a post I'll have the minimum number of posts to send a PM to Discobole with my rankings


----------



## Discobole

Thanks for your vote ! I really think everyone could be interested by your commentaries !



grocklin said:


> Here are my rankings-
> 
> #1 (Best) - B4. Great forward momentum, best tempo for me. Great dynamic range and very sharp articulation. Just the right balance between sharp/staccato and relentless sustained notes. Favorite thing about this version is the momentum. Extremely polished without sounding too "pretty", as Takacs sometimes can and as A2 can. Ends of sections have a great sense of arrival. Beautiful sound quality, clear as a bell. Kind of like a great merger between the super fast/intense Takacs and the slower *** who dig more into each note and each phrase.
> 
> #2 - E3. Pretty sure this is the ***, which was the first version that I ever heard and still one of my two "known" favorites (along with the Takacs, though now surpassed by B4!). I could easily see favoring this version over B4 if I was in a different mood. I generally dislike slower versions like this, but they use the slower tempo to really shape every note/phase and manage to create a high level of intensity which other slower versions don't accomplish IMO (A2).
> 
> #3 - D1. Also very good, but for some reason doesn't sound as coherent to me as the above two. Sudden accents seem more jarring and less musical than for B4, even though overall the effect is positive. Has a very good sense of momentum. Can't really explain it but can't shake the feeling that this is 95% of a great performance compared with B4 which is 100%. After listening/ranking all I think I figured out that this is the ***.
> 
> #4 - C3. Don't really care too much for this performance. Too much reverb, somewhat slow tempo. In addition to the reverb it seems like everything is way too legato, although it's hard to tell. Voices are not as distinct as other versions. Does a decent job of building momentum considering the slow tempo but not as good as E3.
> 
> #5 - A2. Don't really care for this version. Poor recording quality. Everything sounds too clipped and too staccato. Maybe with better recording quality I would like this version better, but it just isn't there. I don't here much momentum driving the fugal sections their finales; things just seem to happen and then they end, ends of sections don't really have any sense of arrival. Sounds very irritatingly treble-heavy in certain parts.


:tiphat:

Just a thought : I hope A2's ranking is not caused only by the mono sound (which is quite magnificent by the way)


----------



## Discobole

This listening was supposed to close tonight, I'll wait until tomorrow after some voters asked for a delay. Do not forget to vote, and if you think you might be late mention it to me so that I wait for your vote before giving the results...


----------



## Kopachris

Discobole said:


> This listening was supposed to close tonight, I'll wait until tomorrow after some voters asked for a delay. Do not forget to vote, and if you think you might be late mention it to me so that I wait for your vote before giving the results...


I hope it's not too late... 

B4: Very crisp articulation. The tempo seems just fast enough without being hurried and not so slow that the rests seems forever. Very clear recording.
A2: Recording is mixed with more treble and less bass (as though using old equipment). A lot of reverb and instrument noise. The mix sounds less "full." The dynamics are very good, though, and the instrument noise make the pizzicato sections sound more "real."
C3: Sounds more rough and organic. Dynamics are good, but I like the dynamic range in A2 better.
E3: More delicate than the others.
D1: A bit too hurried.

FINAL VOTE, BEST TO WORST:

B4
E3
A2
D1
C3


----------



## Discobole

It is not, still waiting for a few late votes, so don't worry yours is taken into account 

Things are VERY close right now...


----------



## jurianbai

I only take one or two listening due to time , but here my votes:

best to worst

B4- perhaps because I am listening to this more often than other in preliminary round. I still love this version. The other I can't really comments and mostly because I like its audio recording taste rather.
E3
A2
C3
D1


----------



## Discobole

*Results*

Thanks to all voters !

Things are very close in this final round. Actually, the Condorcet system doesn't help as the two best versions, B4 and D1, are tied : on 17 voters, 8 preferred B4, 8 preferred D1 and 1 put them at the same ranking. I therefore had to use the difference in average ranking (2,35 for B4, 2,41 for D1) and the number of times the two versions were ranked first (7 for B4, 5 for D1) to declare that the winner is *B4* !

Here is the ranking of the final round :

*1st : B4, Artemis Quartet (Virgin, 2010)*
*Natalia Pritchepenko, Gregor Sigl, Friedemann Weigle, Eckart Runge*










*2nd : D1, Emerson String Quartet (DG, 1996-1997)*
*Eugene Drucker & Philip Setzer, Lawrence Dutton, David Finckel*










*3rd : C3, Tokyo String Quartet (Harmonia Mundi, 200?)*
*Martin Beaver, Kikuei Ikeda, Kazuhide Isomura, Clive Greensmith*










*4th : A2, Barylli Quartet (Westminster, 195?)*
*Walter Barylli, Otto Strasser, Rudolf Streng, Richard Krotschak*










*5th : E3, The Lindsays (ASV, 7/2000)*
*Peter Cropper, Ronald Birks, Roger Bigley, Bernard Gregor-Smith*


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I simply cannot believe that the Alban Berg Quartet didn't make it.


----------



## Discobole

The ABQ were last of their group. And it was truly not a surprise. Frankly, if I only took into account the quality of each and my own impressions I would not have selected them. I did because otherwise it would have fueled disagreement on the method I followed, but I was sure they would not convince.


----------



## jurianbai

Good exercise, I aware the release of Artemis sq last year. Btw, my version Vermeer sq and Borodian sq are not included in the here.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I only just now caught up with the results here...

I noticed that the _Vermeer Quartet_ didn't get past the nomination process.

Then again, I like the Vermeer Quartet for non-musical reasons- see *here*.


----------



## Discobole

Among 51 versions I listened to before this listening :
- I listened carefully to the Vermeer Quartet. I found them to be really interesting but with too many technical limits : their sound is really not very comfortable, and with even a few sour notes. I like this version but too many limitations to hope for them winning in the end.
- The Borodin did 2 versions. The first one (Virgin 1989) is very inspired but with many technical approximations, a little like the Vermeer. 
The Chandos recording (1994) is much more precise but loses all enthusiasm, it is a very cold reading which sounds really boring in the end. I did not like all the versions I selected (I frankly hate the Emersons) but I always preferred the readings which took risks, when I had to make a choice.


----------

