Your favorite string quartets

In some respects String Quartets is a boring subject. They just exist and those who play or listen to them are mature enough to figure out what to listen to him or herself - and that's usually the same stuff.

Life is easy for string qt lovers. They'll just say "K. 464" or "Heilige Dankgesang" and they hear the same thing. I scored women with the Hunt Quartet (long time ago).

You are one lucky guy, Todd, in not liking Mozart string quartets yet. It means you will at some future point, and all this time you'll have this discovery waiting for you - one of the major things in your musical life (and there's the Mozart Operas too!)

I'm not teasing you when I start with most of Mozart's Quartets. It just so happens they are the best. The first out of Mozart's "Haydn" set (K 387) is just like the Parthenon or Byron's Don Juan: it's one of those artistic / technical breakthoughs that has a terrific emotional impact, too. This is something that doesn't happen a lot. Usually there's the avant garde first, and then someone else translates it into human terms.

So this is a list:

Mozart: 387, 421, 428 (first three Haydn Qts: Amadeus Qt)
Mozart: 575, 589, 590 (the Prussian Qts, so spare they often sound like trios: Melos Qt on pre digital Intercord)

Beethoven: 130, 131 (Alban Berg),
Beethoven: Op 59 (1, 2, 3) Italiano
Beethoven: 132, 127

Brahms: 3, 1, 2 (Italiano)

This is the point where all the other mature Mozart and Beethoven Qts enter, wondering why they had to wait in the hall.

Haydn: 76 (Mosaiques)

From here on in all works are ex aequo. String quartets is by nature a democratic genre.

Ravel (Italiano) - it's like robbing the bank: excepting the finale every mvt is just note perfect. How did this young man do it? As the Greek philosopher said you can not rob the same bank twice.

Schumann: 1, 3 Eroica Qt (terribly underestimated works)

Reger: 4, 5, 3 (Mannheim)

Dvorak: 13, 14, 12 (Prazak Qt)

Schubert: 14, 15, 13 (Alban Berg)

Shostakovich: 13 (the aptly numbered alto piece), 15, 12, 14, 3 (Borodin on Melodyia) - what makes these pieces so wonderful is that they're trye renaissance works. They're expressive of the composer's soul, but they're a reflection / reckoning with the entire genre, too.

Enter all other Haydn Qts.

Debussy (Italiano)

Bartok: 6, 2 (Tokyo)

Britten: 3 (Amadeus Qt)

Faure

Sometime in my Michigan years the Juilliard Qt gave a Carter jubilee concert in art-deco Rackham Hall: all Carter string quartets in a row. It was most impressive. It's the great thing about the genre if you go and see the concerts: the most complex things are somehow transparant.

Schnittke's Fourth Qt by the Kronos: anytime.

And so on

Herman

enjoy

ken

good essential first string quartets I guess would be:

Schubert: 13, 14 or 15 (Alban Berg or Italiano Qt)

Middle Beethoven: i.e. the Opus 59 quartets (pref Italiano, but I suspect they only come in a complete box, by now)

Ravel / Debussy (Italiano again)

A coupling with the Mozart, "Dissonances" Quartet (pref Amadeus Qt).

These should give you a lot of listening pleasure. I agree with Ross that Shostakovich is not the ideal starting point, esp if one looks at your tastes in general.

Herman

hold fire!!!! you are talking to an absolute ignoramus here!! all your learned arguments are going straight over my head.

i guess it was an unfair request to make. it may just not be possible to distill to a couple of "must haves".

many thanks for the various suggestions anyway...

tower records allow you to sample records before you buy them. the sound quality thru those oppresive headphones is something else!

so next time any of you are in picadilly circus tower (:D ) and you see this confused individual sitting on the listening sofa by the check-out clutching 30 cd's, please do say "hi" --it could be me...

enjoy

ken

[This message was edited by ken c on SUNDAY 03 March 2002 at 13:00.]

it's very easy. Actually Paul's idea to sneak in Schubert's famous String Quintet is excellent. You're bound to like that piece; everyone does. And I'd second the Amadeus (+ William Pleeth on 2nd cello).

I am a little puzzled by Paul's support for British ensembles (Chilingrian and Salomon); I mean they're good groups and I wouldn't hesitate going to a concert of theirs, but I wouldn't buy my first Ravel / Debussy by any of these players.

The Italiano is just a very good first recording - one of the marvels of the Italiano recordings on Philips is the sound quality. They're from the sixties and seventies and they outclass many current recordings in clarity and heft.

(Same, incidentally, applies to the Borordin's seventies recordings on Melodiya.)

Herman

thanks herm. i am not necessarily after what "everyone" likes, but as it happens, i have quite at least 10 schubert lieder (die schoner.., winterreise, etc) -- so i guess i am already well tuned to schubert's idiom? yes?

enjoy

ken

Im fairly new to string quartets too. [I took a disliking to hearing them at student balls and it took a long time to realize that I had not been exposed to anything like a representative sample]

What I did to get going is buy the complete sets of Shostakovich by the Fitzwilliam on Decca and the the complete Beethoven by the Vegh Quartet. I got both for around £35 each on the internet [sorry, I can't remember which sites now]. This meant that I could explore these two composers work at my leisure. I also own most of those listed by the other guys too and I agree that there are many wonderful SQs, but I think these box sets contain enough good music to get anyone started on the genre.

Steve

Hi Ken,

The Quintet is one of those very rare works "everyone" likes, including the most exclusive chamber music lovers. After all, we're not talking "Music for the Millions" here, but the very best there is.

And, yes, it's very fascinating to listen to the Winterreise (for instance in the Hyperion series, with Mathias Goerne), to the last three Piano Sonatas, the last Great C Symphony, and then to get to know these late quartets + the String Quintet.

The same bewitching major - minor switches; the sudden silences and recommencings, this unique language Schubert invented, in totally different musical spaces, formats and styles.

You're very lucky, Ken, that these works are still virgin territory to you; there's a lot of excitement waiting to happen yet.

Herman

Of course thanks to everyone else and especially Todd for starting the thread.

i might end up doing the same thing ... next visit to tower records will be busy... i will simply print this whole thread and take it with me -- another clue in case you're there as well...

many thanks and enjoy...

ken

Can I cheat and add a cello to the next one? On Thursday night I played the Amadeus Quartet with Robert Cohen,on DG, version of the String quintet in C , with the world in silence, this music making was just incredible, at the end it was obvious that the listening session had come to an end. There was just nothing else to play, this kind of experience makes having a decent Hi Fi worthwhile.

i like that last sentence. perhaps this quintet will be a low risk start... but i know i will come out of tower with quite a few records...

this naim hifi needs serious feeding!!!

enjoy

ken

excellent little list of yours. In my view the Beethoven Opus 59 are better pieces to start in on, but reading your post I realized my mom gave me 130, 131 and 132 on vinyl (what else?) for my 20th birthday. What was she thinking? Three records with very old men (in my view then) on the cover: that was my entry in string quartet music.

And it worked: soon I bought a complete set of Beethoven by the Juilliard Qt, the Mozart "Haydn" Qts by the Amadeus Qt and the magnificent, never remastered, 1962 Juilliard Qt recording of the same Mozart quartets.

Oh and Ken, if you want to get Shostakovich this early in the game, by all means get the Borodin Qt on Melodiya. Those 1978 - 81 recordings are simply the best, virtually everyone agrees they're the reference, and they're dirt cheap. But, as you know, I'd recommend Schubert and Beethoven first; those are, after all, the composers Shos is referring to.

Hi Steve: why don't you give us a list of your faves, too?

Herman

[This message was edited by herm on SUNDAY 03 March 2002 at 21:12.]

many thanks guys. trouble is i am going to sound more knowledgeable that i really am when i start talking to the assistants at tower... hmmm... cant be helped...

enjoy

ken

Since all the warhorses seem to have already been mentioned, I want to recommend two "out of the way" pieces:

Karl Weigl, string quartet no 1 in c-minor (Artis quartet on Nimbus)

Weigl was a pupil of Zemlinsky and an admired composer in Vienna, but had to emigrate when the Nazis took over Austria in 1938. He died in the US, without a chance to continue his career. The first quartet is a truly original work in the late romantic tradition. I can't recommend it high enough. This is not just a concoction of ideas from other composers, as is often the case with "second rank" works - he managed to find his own way of expression! The complex writing reminds one of Schoenberg (just that this quartet predates Schoenberg's d-minor!), but Weigl invented much better tunes...

Since the old dichotomy between "serious" quartets and the "excesses" of opera again came up in this thread, I must recommend:

Verdi , string quartet in e-minor

Delightful piece, in the style of Verdi's late operas. There is an "opera" CD by the Hagen quartet, which includes this piece along with Puccini's Crisantemi and an arrangement for string quartet of Verdi's Luisa Miller... Excellent! (Recording quality could be better, though.)

good to hear from you again. WHy don't you give us some of your favorite string qt classics from a viola player's perspective? Never mind if there's overlap with previous posts.

> trouble is i am going to sound more knowledgeable than i really am when i start talking to the assistants at tower.<

Just don't get arrested, Ken.

Herman

I agree with Paul D: 'A question like "what are your favourite string quartets" is rather like an enquiry into what mood your in. The answer is going to vary with circumstance'

I have found it varies over time too. I like/adore/can't stop playing something for a couple of weeks the I try something else. I og back to the original after an indeterminate length of time.

Having said that three that I go back to more than most are: Shostakovich 10 Fitzwilliam, Beethoven Opus 130 with Grosse Fugue Vegh, and Bartok 3 Tackaks. Then there the Janacek...and musn't forget ... and....

My favourites are definitely the Beethoven Late String Quartets; op131 I consider to be his greatest work - regarding Vuk's comments, I can only conclude he has never heard them - absolutely bizarre - sorry but Shostakovich doesn't even come close. Of the recommendations to the above, I'd add the Busch Quartet, but the peformances are old, so recording quality is not great.

After that the late Schubert quartets and the quintet.

...and after that the Bartoks, 3 and 4 being my favourites.

I also have to admit to never having heard any Mozart quartets that have really gripped me.

David

quote:

---

The greatest quartet of all, without any question, is the Shostakovich 8th.

---

Balderdash. Vuk, there is so much wrong with this assertion that I really cannot fully repute it. Shostakovich's 8th is nowhere near his greatest work, let alone the greatest of the last century. The "autobiographical" content and searing intensity actually wears somewhat thin compared to the far superior 9th. Compared to the last three quartets, this is merely ol' Dimitri warming up. Give me a break.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that one would make such a statement. How can the 8th be better than say, Bartok's 4th or 6th (I would choose one of those two if pushed to pick a "best" of the 20th century, but then only angrily), or Schoenberg's 3rd. Hell, both of Ligeti's quartets surpass the 8th as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to say that I love these threads. I listened to Shostakovich 7 three or four times today, during work, and that's something I had not done for a long while. Usually I do 13 and 14 - and I've reacquainted myself with these works, too, yesterday, thanks to this discussion.

[Todd, no offense, I have to say the Emerson sounds frightfully dull, compared to the Melodiya Borodin.]

We were going to list our favorite quartets. However, I notice folks are posting more peripheral works, like the Mendelsohn Octet. In that case I'd like to mention Mendelsohn wrote some nice string quartets and string quintets. Especially the Op 13 quartet is good fun. I have it on vinyl by the old Juilliard. The string Quintets have recently been recorded on Sony by cellist Anner Bylsma and his equally brilliant violinist wife Vera Beths and several other players - they're called the Archibudelli for some reason.

Herman

herm,

ha ha ha... will try not to...

enjoy

ken

This week I got the complete recording of the Haydn String Quartets by the Angeles String Quartet, recorded in 1994 -1999 in a Belvedere, California church. 21 discs in a Philips box.

I'm not a fan of these huge collections: often it means you shelve the box and "wait till there's time."

I'm not so sure when I'll have time to listen to the first seven discs with pre Opus 20 quartets, but I did listen to a variety of mature quartet and I have to say: not bad. it's certainly a class better than the complete Naxos set by the Kodaly.

A downside of these huge complete recordings is the risk that the players are merely making their way through the oeuvre, while a single Haydn disc means the players chose pieces they've really committed to. With the Kodaly you heard routine performances. The Angeles has authentic spark.

Not every single piece is ideal. The beautiful crowning piece at the end of the Opus 76 is maybe a little too spare for these players; but the other 76 works are excellent. I had to get used to modern, American vibrato; young European quartets would be a tad more aware of period practice; but the Angeles players do not linger and drool over the slow movements, and the finales are sharp and witty.

The sound was praised in a lot of reviews. I would not quite agree. The church reverb does hamper the finales sometimes: deep fast cello figures sometimes blur a bit.

Does the Angeles beat the period ensemble Mozaiques? Well, in many cases it does. The Mosaiques work with a weird concept. On the one hand they pay period instruments and wouldn't even know vibrato if it sat on their faces. On the other hand the recorded sound is so overwhelming, and their pacing can be so ponderous that it's like you're listening to big-time Mahler. And Haydn should dry and snappy; aristocratic and never wallowing.

So, yes, I'd recommend the Angeles Quartet. How many chances are there to get all these great, entertaining and touching works?

Actually, in the best works you want to have both, the Angeles and the Mosaiques. And maybe you want to have something like the Tatrai (Hungaroton, too), who are blessedly unponderous.

The Angeles box comes at the price for say, six fullprice discs.

Herman

Haydn's biggest presents to the violists (I am sure there are much more...):

The short (2 bar) solo in the slow movement of op.76/5. The movement is in F-sharp-major, and after breathtaking modulations the viola states the main theme in G-major, over pulsating eighth notes - sounds like Bruckner!

The sixtuples (is that the English term?) accompanying the beautiful violin melody in the slow movement of op.20/2 in C-major. Yes, the accompaniment can be more fun than the tune! Once you have realized this, you can have all the fun without the hassle of excessive practicing... (Except for the cases where the accompaniment is actually harder to play than the first voice! )

You are right about the Kodaly recordings, they are boring and not much else (except cheap, of course). I do like the Mosaiques, though.

Mozart's best quartets are of course the quintets with 2 violas! The slow movement of the KV515 one is essentially a duet between first violin and first viola, which reminds one of the best moments in the Sinfonia Concertante. All the sad people who dismiss Mozart as "pretty with no depth" should listen to KV516 in g-minor!

Mendelssohn is in my opinion one of the most underrated composers. I especially like op.12, op.13 (it is Beethoven's op.132 taken apart and reassembled differently, but equally resourceful), and op.80 (written after the death of his sister Fanny). I admire his capability to create something "groovy" out of the simplest rhythmic motif, and his effortless counterpoint.

Dvorak was a violist himself, and made us many "presents". Again, in his "American" quartet, I find the viola accompaniment in the slow movement more rewarding than the solo at the beginning of the first. The viola solo in the Dumka of the op.81 piano quintet is wonderful!

The "show off" string quartet solo for violists is of course the beginning of Smetana's first. I'm not sure it is intended to sound show-offy, though.

Brahms has so many great viola passages, they are too numerous to mention. (2nd movement of the B-flat-major string sextet?)

The viola solo in the Adagio of Anton Bruckner's string quintet is something!

E. Dohnanyi (the grandfather of the conductor) wrote great chamber music, with great viola passages. (2nd piano quintet, 2nd quartet, string trio.)

From the 20th century repertoire I played Shostakovich and Schulhoff (great stuff!). It is tough for an amateur to find people who are willing to invest the time needed to fight one's way through a Bartok or Shostakovich quartet... I have yet to convince my friends of the Weigl I mentioned in my earlier posting, will keep trying!

Have fun exploring!

That was a marvellous contribution, which started so many pieces of music playing in my head like a music box.

Haydn 76/5, the "graveyard adagio." I used to think how come I leave the room and then then the music's best part comes and I have to run back in. Then I realized some music consists of nothing but best parts. Haydn 76 / 5, the socalled graveyard adagio, is a case in point.
Yes, your viola moment is wonderful; but next moment is another climax, when the 'cello slides through his sequence, accompanied by violin quaver sighs. It used to be my favorite in the Op 76 six.

Brahms: my favorite viola moments: there's the amazing solo in the third String Quartet scherzo (best on record perhaps by the Tokyo: one hell of a violist, one hell of an instrument) and, completely different: the little seven-note sequence solo in the finale of the third piano quartet we talked about before.

I think it's pretty amazing you play Shostakovich. I know sometimes music sounds hard but in reality it's quite doable, bu Shos can't be in this category.

Have you ever tried the Ravel quartet? There's the successor to the Brahms 3 viola solo, wouldn't you think so. Thanks again for your comments, and stay in touch, please.

Oh, and JWS, I know the Emerson have commenced a Haydn series. I just haven't herd any of it yet.

Herman

glad you joined (and it looks like there's going to be an international Niam String Quartet on the Web soon; anyone playing 'cello out there?).

That sounds like quite an exhausting concert by the Emerson Beethoven 15, Shos 13, 14. I guess they had to mop the stage afterwards...

In case you can afford another Beethoven set you should try the cheap Italiano box. The Alban B I have in the Early Box, some Middle (all ADD) and a later digital set of Late Quartets, and I have to say the latter are very good, maybe too good.

Herman