Classical Music Forum banner
201 - 220 of 243 Posts
My first introduction to these works was the Emerson's recording of the late quartets, and it never did anything for me. Then a friend lent me their Takacs' recording of the Razumovsky quartets, and suddenly it clicked. I picked that set up, along with the Decca recordings of the early and late quartets, and those have remained my go-to recordings. I've listened to other sets recommended around here, to see if I'm missing something, but I keep going back to the Takacs recording.
 
My first introduction to these works was the Emerson's recording of the late quartets, and it never did anything for me.
Starting with the late quartets is usually a mistake for most people. It was for me; I started out with the Yale Quartet's set of the late quartets, when it was the only cheap way to hear the Beethoven Quartets in decent sound. It took me many years to appreciate them - I'd have been better off starting with Op. 18 or 59.
 
There is a new recording of the Op. 18 quartets by the Dover Quartet.

Beethoven Complete String Quartets, Volume I - The Opus 18 Quartets (2020)



Many years ago, I had a conducting teacher, with whom I was taking a chamber music literature course, talk to me about the wide variety of styles and content of the Beethoven Quartets. I commented on the extreme difficulty of the late quartets, whereas he began to tell me of a conversation he had (he was a violinist) with a member of one of the famous quartets of the time (and I cannot remember which), sometime between 1940 and 1970. He had asked this person about the problems of the quartets, and which one his ensemble found the trickiest. Without hesitation, he looked at my teacher and said, "opus 18, number 1."

Any time a quartet ensemble attempts these works-and it seems the ones worth their salt all must have a go at them-they feel there is something new or particularly significant they bring to the table. If it is solely an ego trip, say just to prove that they have the mettle to present these works, failure is guaranteed. I know of many sets of the complete quartets that absolutely do not measure up, and no, I am not going to name them! But I will include this set under review as being among the best I have heard, any time or anywhere. There is a reason why the Dover Quartet has been so often compared to the legendary Guarneri. They may not have the burnished warmth of the Alban Berg, the incisive technical precision of the Emerson or the old Juilliard, or even the interpretative finesse of the Budapest. What they do have is a large enough slice of each of these musical pies to put together, at least in these first six, an extraordinary and intensely moving account of each. The Guarneri was known for the "rightness" of its interpretations-they had an instinctive sense of what the essence of any piece was about, and the ability to convey this to the fullest. by Audiophile Audition | Nov 18, 2020
I am listening to them now.
 
Starting with the late quartets is usually a mistake for most people. It was for me; I started out with the Yale Quartet's set of the late quartets, when it was the only cheap way to hear the Beethoven Quartets in decent sound. It took me many years to appreciate them - I'd have been better off starting with Op. 18 or 59.
Oddly enough, I actually connected very quickly with the Grosse Fuge. But yes, everything else didn't click. Now, though, it is the late quartets that I return to the most. The 15th in A Minor is one of my absolute favorites. And I still love that Grosse Fuge.
 
For anyone that owns the Ebéne set I'm sure you've noticed that the music doesn't breathe but the mics are so close you can hear the musicians draw breath. It's a little creepy and I wish they had included a bit of room ambiance in the recordings. But despite this fact I still enjoy their superb playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merl
Ebène is very good but too polite for my taste. Belcea are very beautiful but I really love Prazak and Hagen. In the past and in a very beautiful sound Italiano are marvellous. And Fine Arts quartet of course.
 
My current favorite is by Guarneri quartet. I would also recommend Italiano and Melos, both are excellent in terms of performance and recording. Amadeus is great in performance but in dry and harsh stereo sound. Takacs is in perfect sound, but their performanc is a bit rush and superficial for me.
 
I decided to start with another Beethoven string quartet cycle I haven't heard yet and chose Ebéne. I started from the middle quartets and the playing is so far utterly beautiful. I don't think I've heard another LvB string quartet recording with such a stunning sound. It allows every detail to be heard but it creates a certain kind of subtle and delicately fragile atmosphere. Makes me as a listener aware that one wrong note or bad intonation would ruin all its otherworldly beauty. That of course doesn't mean that any of Beethoven's characteristic muscularity is absent ;). In any case, interesting and exciting playing!

I'm so glad to be listening to Beethoven's string quartets again. I don't want to listen to them too frequently to keep them special.
 
My earliest set was by the Talich Quartet. I still enjoy it greatly. I suppose the approach is quite an old fashioned one now. I have several other sets and probably rate those by the Alban Berg, Belcea, Borodin, Budapest, Italiano and Takacs Quartets most highly. I would need to remind myself of the set by the Vegh Quartet. I also consider the old Busch Quartet recordings of the late quartets to be absolutely essential.

I find it interesting that so many here rate the Emerson Quartet set so highly as I never really found much in those recordings.
 
When the Emerson came out in the late 1990s it was the most brilliant of the "virtuoso modern" approaches (like Alban Berg, Guarneri, Cleveland...) Quartets have become so highly proficient since then that such blistering tempi, virtuosity are not special anymore. But on the flipside the Emersons had been considered "cold" since they came out, I believe.
 
When the Emerson came out in the late 1990s it was the most brilliant of the "virtuoso modern" approaches (like Alban Berg, Guarneri, Cleveland...) Quartets have become so highly proficient since then that such blistering tempi, virtuosity are not special anymore. But on the flipside the Emersons had been considered "cold" since they came out, I believe.
I've always found the 'Emerson hate' a bit bewildering. This is a quartet that most people agree are technically very proficient, yet are often stereotyped as being 'cold' (see also Rattle 'micromanaging', HVK 'smooth', etc). As a set I'd have no problems recommending the Emersons in Beethoven (but there are few complete sets i wouldnt endorse, tbh). Is it the best or one of the best complete sets out there? Hard to generalise. What I will say is that in certain quartets the Emersons are very good indeed (listen to both of their accounts of the 16th SQ). Elsewhere they arent the finest but many ensembles arent either. The late quartets are possibly where many feel they are strongest and i'd partially agree with that assessment but again thats a generalisation. I think youre right, Kreisler, that the Emersons are now considered 'old new' but does that invalidate their approach? Well not for me. I suppose it depends what youre looking for. We all have our favourites but im finding the more I revisit others' performances the more i appreciate them. Truth is my tastes keep changing and I like to revisit. There is nothing worse than a fixed mindset, for me.
 
The 1952 Vegh Quartet recordings pulled me into the world of Beethoven quartets many years ago. I have since enjoyed many of the fine performances mentioned in this thread. Harder to go wrong than right in picking a cycle to listen to. Most recently I’ve enjoyed the Ebene and Cuarteto Casals recordings.

I’ve a fondness for the Takacs recordings because I listened to them while reading member Edward Dusinberre’s enjoyable Beethoven for a Later Age.
 
Here's David Hurwitz's take on the best complete cycles:
That dilettante doesn't deserve a tithe of the attention he receives. He helps propagate so much of what are the worst and most harmful anti-musical, anti-artistic tendencies, among a certain prevalent class of classical music afficionados.
 
Could you be a bit more specific about which tendencies you mean?
There's a whole thread abiut the massive problems with Hurwitz. I'm not going to derail this thread, but if you're truly interested, it's a pretty exhaustive discussion. Short answer: his obsession with "The BEST," with himself as arbiter or the BEST, of course.
Hurwitz's YouTube channel - your thoughts?
 
There's a whole thread abiut the massive problems with Hurwitz. I'm not going to derail this thread, but if you're truly interested, it's a pretty exhaustive discussion. Short answer: his obsession with "The BEST," with himself as arbiter or the BEST, of course.
You obviously didn't bother to watch this particular podcast. He highlights not one, not two, but sixteen favorite sets, and quite an interesting mixture of older and newer traversals.
 
201 - 220 of 243 Posts