Bartok string quartets revived

[hangos]

Hello there from darkest Derbyshire,England.I am new to this forum,having perused several topics last night and then being quickly accepted by Lance.What attracted me to the forum was the mixture of wit, banter and knowledge on display, as well as the vast range of viewpoints. I can't read music but seem to manage to follow Bartok's quartets emotionally and intuitively like several others of you.My favourites are 3,4 and 5 because of their energy and extremity,fantastic soundworld and satisfying finales (Bartok really knew how to finish a piece - no Egmont overture endings here!)Strangely enough, I was "weaned" on no.2 ( Juillard 1963 ) but it does little for me now,same for no.1, but no.6 can really get to me at times.My favourite set is DG Tokyo for their unmatched finesse and concentration, aided by the razor sharp sound, but I also have the Takacs. I used to have the Novak and Keller but found them a bit uninvolving. I have heard the Veghs in 3 and 5 but find the results curious and at times almost comical.Perhaps it's me!What are your favourite sets of these wonderful works?

[Corlyss_D]

Welcome to the boards, Hangos. Glad you decided to jine up. Bartok is a favorite here. I'm sure you will not lack for respondents. Post early and often.

[hangos]

Thanks for the welcome,Corlyss. You guys are really welcoming! I will take your advice about posting early and often. Please don't get the notion that I only like Bartok - I also like Nielsen (who despised Bartok's 2nd quartet, by the way!) Mahler, Wagner (except Lohengrin,Tannhauser and Parsifal), Debussy, Lutoslawski, Beethoven, Sibelius,Bach, Haydn (quartets) and Shostakovich (especially the quartets and trios). I don't like Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann (most of his piano music - I must be a Philistine,I suppose) Everyone else I will listen to with open ears!
Lately I've listened to a lot of jazz - I'm totally addicted to Thelonious Monk and can even hear traces of Bartok in his solos!
Enough about me! Let's have some replies about Bartok quartet favourites. By the way, does anyone out there know what my username means? About 10 million people should know, but they don't all post on this forum! What a brainteaser!

[Corlyss_D]

I don't like Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann (most of his piano music - I must be a Philistine,I suppose)

Me too, sort of. I like the small Brahms and small Schumann, Mendelssohn is okay in my book.

Everyone else I will listen to with open ears!

Mmmm. I have a Perotin disc to recommend . . .

Lately I've listened to a lot of jazz - I'm totally addicted to Thelonious Monk

You'll have to mosey over to the Pub and say a few words in our running threads on non-classical music.

[Lance]

Hello, Martin:

Welcome to the CMG. I'm glad you made it here with no problems. Your enthusiasm is contagious! It's obvious you love great music.

The only Bartok string quartet I know is No. 2, Op. 17 performed by the Budapest Quartet. Being a lover of music from the Baroque through the Romantic period - music written up to the mid-1940s, I'm not into Bartok's string chamber music. I love much of his music, preferably the orchestral pieces. But perhaps you will make us go out and get some of these quartets and expand our horizons!

[piston]

Hello. It's a pleasure to read of your great interest in different versions of the Bartok quartets. What's interesting about any named quartet such as the Takacs or the Vegh or the Juillard for that matter is how they can change to a remarkable extent from one time period to another. While I do not own a version of the Takacs' Bartok recordings, I have been informed elsewhere that there exists a world of difference ("night and day") between the Takacs who played for Hungaroton and those who played for Decca. Similarly, while the 1972 recording of the Vegh Quartet won "Le Grand Prix du Disque" and the "Deutscher Schall Platten Preis," this later version is vastly different, more "polished" but also less "volcanic," from their great master recording, almost twenty years earlier, in 1954. The young Vegh Quartet, to my ears, is still a point of reference. I also enjoy the Berg Quartet.

[Gregg]

My favourite set is DG Tokyo for their unmatched finesse and concentration, aided by the razor sharp sound

Hi Hangos,

Thanks for the tip. I just have the second series Juilliard LPs and the CD set with recordings across the five decades of JSQ incarnations. I can't listen to their Beethoven any more, so I was thinking that I should start looking for an alternative for their Bartok cycle.

Is the Tokyo on LP era or digital?


Gregg

[Opus132]

My favourite set is DG Tokyo for their unmatched finesse and concentration

Wow, first time i see somebody actually mentioning the Tokyo here (also my favored).

Can i have your babies?

[Opus132]

I don't like Brahms

Heresy. Have you tried his chamber music?

[hangos]

Hello opus 132!
I like your username, Beethoven's toughest quartet in my opinion. In my younger days I could listen to Brahms' symphonies all day, and I still do like his late clarinet quintet, but I never cared much for his quartets ( the same applies to Dvorak apart from his op.106). It's my emotional response to the music, nothing wrong with Brahms. I guess I've moved away from the great man. So did Mahler and Tchaikovsky, so I've read - it's just a personal opinion. Glad we both love Bartok!

[Corlyss_D]

My favourite set is DG Tokyo for their unmatched finesse and concentration

Wow, first time i see somebody actually mentioning the Tokyo here (also my favored).

Can i have your babies?

Post of the Day Award to you, 132.

[val]

hangos

I can't read music but seem to manage to follow Bartok's quartets emotionally and intuitively like several others of you.My favourites are 3,4 and 5 because of their energy and extremity,fantastic soundworld and satisfying finales (Bartok really knew how to finish a piece - no Egmont overture endings here!)Strangely enough, I was "weaned" on no.2 ( Juillard 1963 ) but it does little for me now,same for no.1, but no.6 can really get to me at times.My favourite set is DG Tokyo for their unmatched finesse and concentration, aided by the razor sharp sound, but I also have the Takacs. I used to have the Novak and Keller but found them a bit uninvolving. I have heard the Veghs in 3 and 5 but find the results curious and at times almost comical.Perhaps it's me!What are your favourite sets of these wonderful works?

Hi Hangos. Bartok's Quartets are splendid works. My favorite is the 5th, in my opinion the most perfect string quartet composed after Beethoven and Schubert.
I always had some diffculties to understand the 3rd, but I love the 4th and the 6th.

And I agree with your preferrence to the version of the Tokyo Quartet. But the Juilliard are also very interesting.

[hangos]

Hi Val
Yes, 5 is the most balanced of them all. I remember watching the Lindsay String Quartet play it several years ago ( Britain's best quartet at the time), and their leader, Peter Cropper, said that in his opinion it was the greatest 20th century quartet. He then went on to explain why, pointing out that the last movement is mainly a mirror image of the first (apart from the comical peasant bit near the end of the finale) I was amazed. The Tokyo's recording of the 2nd movement is perfect - such refinement, stillness and expression. And the turbulent sections of the 4th mvt beat every other effort hands down for me in their detail and dynamic range.I think the recording quality helps too - the Takacs may be almost as great, but their sound is a lot richer and fuller. I won't pretend that I understand no.3 but I get a lot out of it, and again, the Tokyo hit hardest without the in your face projection of the Emersons. I still have a soft spot for the 1963 Juillard recordings as I heard theirs first of all. Try 3 again - it'll get under your skin (apparently its violence shocked even Webern!!!) You really have great taste!
Best wishes
Martin

[Sapphire]

Just to balance things up a bit, I am not keen on any of these quartets. I have nothing against Bartok. In fact I quite like several other of his works but I find very little to admire in any of the SQs. I had heard odd snippets on the radio and wasn't impressed, but because of recent enthusiasm expressed on another thread, I recently I bought the Alban Berg set (it was all I could get my hands on). I've listened to them several times and find absolutely nothing memorable about any of them. They're not my scene at all. I found Numbers 1, 2 and 6 very poor indeed. The best I can say is that No 5 starts out quite well but then degenerates into yet another meaningless piece. The second movement is just plain boring. I found no melody of any description in any of them. As far as I'm concerned, Beethoven and Brahms are the alpha and omega of string quartets.

[val]

Saphire

I found no melody of any description in any of them.

Well, perhaps you should listen to Schönberg's 2nd string Quartet and Webern opus 5, opus 9 and opus 28. To me all this works have melody, the same as Bartok.
But perhaps we have not the same idea of what is melody.

[Sapphire]

Saphire

I found no melody of any description in any of them.

Well, perhaps you should listen to Schönberg's 2nd string Quartet and Webern opus 5, opus 9 and opus 28. To me all this works have melody, the same as Bartok.
But perhaps we have not the same idea of what is melody.

Thanks but I wasn't looking for advice on what to listen to. I know what I'm doing in classical music, as well if not better than many folk on here. For string quartets and piano quartets, I generally find all I need from the following (in alphabetical order):

• Beethoven No 14 string quartet
  Beethoven No 13 string quartet
  Beethoven No 15 string quartet
  Beethoven No 9 string quartet
  Beethoven No 7 string quartet
  Borodin No 2 string quartet
  Brahms Op 25 piano & strings
  Brahms Op 51/1 string quartet
  Brahms Op 26 piano & strings
  Brahms Op 60 piano & strings
  Brahms Op 67 string quartet
  Dvorak No 12 string quartet
  Dvorak No 14 string quartet
  Smetana No 1 string quartet
  Mendelssohn No 6 string quartet
  Mozart No 19 string quartet
  Schubert No 14 string quartet
  Schubert No 12 string quartet
  Schubert No 13 string quartet
  Schubert No 15 string quartet
  Shostakovich No 8 string quartet
  Tchaikovsky No 1 string quartet

If I were to attach preferences to these, without any doubt the works of Beethoven and Schubert are the best by far. They knock spots off Bartok's efforts.


Saphire

[piston]

The only imaginable consensus about what's great and what's not so great in classical music, on a forum spanning several centuries, is the absence of shared criteria about "great" composers and "great" works. Where fervent listeners of romantic music tend to become provocative, however, is when criteria such as consonance and lyricism are boldly attributed some absolute, universal "top" value, above and beyond any other consideration. But composers in the twentieth century can be perceived as "great" for other or additional reasons, including not "overpadding" their work, avoiding what one perceives as stylistic repetition or, more positively, offering much originality and, arguably, more to discover from one work to another. One of Bartok's greatest qualities, if I may paraphrase a quote here, is that he did not wear five overcoats during the summer. In closing, I have seldom observed twentieth-century classical music lovers diminish, as a whole, the aggregate contributions of composers from earlier centuries. They tend to be open to a lot of periods and styles. But is it true as well of most nineteenth-century classical music listeners?

[Hondo]

My favourite set is DG Tokyo for their unmatched finesse and concentration, aided by the razor sharp sound, but I also have the Takacs. I used to have the Novak and Keller but found them a bit uninvolving. I have heard the Veghs in 3 and 5 but find the results curious and at times almost comical.Perhaps it's me!What are your favourite sets of these wonderful works?

I first became fond of the Bartok Quartets during my college years when the only two recordings available were the first Juilliard and the Vegh, both recorded in the '50s. The Juilliard was the better of the two, by a long shot (I still listen to those LP's occasionally). Since then many excellent recordings have become available. My favorite is the Decca/Takacs, not only because the group is based in my hometown, but also because the performances have a real "Hungarian" feel to them. When those recordings were made the Takacs was made up of two Hungarians and two Brits, so the performances have the best of both worlds - the precision and style favored by the Brits, and the emotion and soul favored by the Hungarians.

I have had the priviledge of attending many concerts by the Takacs here locally, and am convinced that their performances of Beethoven, Bartok and Brahms quartets are unequaled today.

Gabe

[piston]

I first became fond of the Bartok Quartets during my college years when the only two recordings available were the first Juilliard and the Vegh, both recorded in the '50s. The Juilliard was the better of the two, by a long shot (I still listen to those LP's occasionally).

I think we just started on the wrong foot, here. You guys simply need to explain what you find lacking, problematic, etc., with the early Vegh recording. I didn't mean to question anyone's judgment, to be sure. The problem I have is that it has always been critiqued very favorably and used as a reference, even in recent CD reviews of other performers. In 1963, at the time of the publication of Pierre Citron's biography of Bartok, there existed half a dozen recordings of all the Bartok quartets: Ramor (Vox), Parrenin (Vega), Julliard (Philips), Bartok Qt. (Erato), Hungarian (DGG), and the Vegh's (now on Music & Arts). Like many who have since written about the Vegh's, Citron acknowledged their superiority in the discographical section of his book, stating, as usual, that the Vegh Quartet captured the conversational idiom of the composer the best and played the works with the "sauvage" energy and drive the composer intended them to be played. It isn't always a question of being precise, incisive, etc., you know! Moreover, the Vegh certainly cannot be viewed as having "done" the six quartets and then moved on to a different repertoire. Bartok personally knew Vegh Sandornak in October 1940, when the quartet was founded. For the next three decades the Vegh Quartet was the herald of Bartok's works.

[hangos]

I think piston has a good point, but since 1963 there have been many recordings of these works. Various critics and publications seem to agree that they have been well served and that it's hard to find a bad set anywhere. I think that it all boils down to personal taste in the end. The British reviewer Rob Cowan has compared available sets a couple of times on the BBC and the only set he slated was the Vertavo for being too hysterical, while Takacs (2nd version) and Tokyo (1st version) tied for 1st choice. I found the Novak refined but a little underpowered, total antidote to the Emerson (too upfront for me) and the much vaunted (by recommendation from Sandor Vegh no less) Keller uninvolving.I can't explain why.This music, especially 3,4 and 5 is by turns visceral, conversational and very intricate - that's why we love it so much!Would my fellow Bartok fans care to list their preferred sets?

[Corlyss_D]

. By the way, does anyone out there know what my username means? About 10 million people should know, but they don't all post on this forum! What a brainteaser!

I give up. What does it mean?

[hangos]

Hi Corlyss
It's Hungarian for "noisy". No, I have no Hungarian ancestry, but my love of Bartok's music has led me to a fascination with all things Hungarian, and as a linguist (German, French, Swedish ) I find that learning a "difficult"and exotic language keeps my brain active. Pretty poor choice of username,though, I must admit! This posting probably belongs in the pub!

[Corlyss_D]

Hi Corlyss
It's Hungarian for "noisy". No, I have no Hungarian ancestry, but my love of Bartok's music has led me to a fascination with all things Hungarian, and as a linguist (German, French, Swedish ) I find that learning a "difficult"and exotic language keeps my brain active. Pretty poor choice of username,though, I must admit! This posting probably belongs in the pub!

Cool. Most interesting where our passions lead us, no? So are you taking up Finnish next? We have another linguist here, the Canadian John Bleau, but he takes such a bruising in the Pub that he doesn't come around here much any more. He translates for a living.

[Hondo]

It's Hungarian for "noisy". No, I have no Hungarian ancestry, but my love of Bartok's music has led me to a fascination with all things Hungarian

"Loud" is probably a more accurate translation of "hangos" than "noisy." Take it from a real live Hungarian!

Gabe (Gabor)

[hangos]

Jo estet ,Gabor!
koszonom szepen! Gondolom, hogy a magyar nyelv nagyon szep de nehev van.
Szia ,es eljen a Magyar!
Martin
(please be aware that I am a beginner and can't find out how to insert special characters - can one do this on this site?)[/list][/code]

[Hondo]

Jo estet ,Gabor!
koszonom szepen! Gondolom, hogy a magyar nyelv nagyon szep de nehev van.
Szia ,es eljen a Magyar!

Excellent effort, Martin! Your Hungarian is first rate - only one mistake: it should read "a Magyar nyelv nagyon szep, de nehez." I have always admired people who know even a little Hungarian, since it is such a difficult language!

My keyboard does not have accents either, but you know where the accents go.

Gabor

[Corlyss_D]

can't find out how to insert special characters - can one do this on this site?)

Most folks who need the diacritical marks compose their messages in Word using the appropriate character sets and then block-and-copy their messages to their posts. The CMG software can display the marks; however, I know of no way in the software itself to employ the marks when composing directly in our post window.

[hangos]

Thanks for your most helpful tip - I'll use it next time. My next question is how do I use the quote system?

[Sapphire]

.... In closing, I have seldom observed twentieth-century classical music lovers diminish, as a whole, the aggregate contributions of composers from earlier centuries. They tend to be open to a lot of periods and styles. But is it true as well of most nineteenth-century classical music listeners?

Several comments:

(i) I don't know who you've been talking to but I know a few 2Oth C classical music lovers, both personally and a few on music Boards, who do not like great chunks of music from previous times. Indeed, there was one such character who was very active on this Board until not that long ago who took a strong dislike to most 19th C composers, and was very active in saying so, much to the annoyance and occasional mirth of several onlookers. Whilst he had the highest regard for Debussy and a few other 20th C composers, he thought Beethoven in particular was rubbish and often said so

(ii) Given that by far the strongest focus of public interest in classical music is in the Classical and 19th C Romantic era, it's not surprising that many of those who like 20th C classical music will also tend to like the music of such earlier periods. By corollary, it's far less certain that those who prefer 18th and 19th C music will also like 20th C music. So those who like 18th/19th C music but who do not much care for a lot of 20th C music are not the odd-balls that seems to be implied by the above remark.

(iii) There is big diversity of style in 20th C classical music. Many people who like part of it may not like all of it. That's the situation with me personally, where I draw the line in not liking anything atonal, or minimalist or highly expressionist. Apart from that, I'm quite happy with the rest of it. The point of this is that one has to be careful in defining the term "20th C classical music lovers". If what is meant is liking for all of it then the odds of finding people who fit this description are small. The odds of finding people who like some of it increases as the focus is sharpened on particular genres, but depending on which nothing firm can be said about the likelihood of their tastes for pre-20th C music.


Saphire

[Corlyss_D]

Thanks for your most helpful tip - I'll use it next time. My next question is how do I use the quote system?

See the little quote button in the upper right hand corner of a post, next to the edit and delete buttons . . . . ? Just click on it when replying to a member's remark.

If you are quoting several things, when you are in the post window, just hilight the sentence or paragraph you want to quote and click on the quote button. Try it and see.

[hangos]

As this forum seems to be dying a slow and natural death, I thought I would share something special with fellow Bartokians - go to youtube.com and enter Bartok quartets or Fratres Quartet in the search panel (on Music, of course !) You won't be disappointed.I never realised how much this quartet benefits from being seenas well as heard - and it's a spellbinding performance too! To call this an "occasion" is an understatement - their concentration, timing and interplay is outstanding!
( sorry I can't provide a direct URL link - but it's easy to track down )Enjoy !

[val]

Saphire

Thanks but I wasn't looking for advice on what to listen to. I know what I'm doing in classical music, as well if not better than many folk on here. For string quartets and piano quartets, I generally find all I need from the following (in alphabetical order):

• Beethoven No 14 string quartet
  Beethoven No 13 string quartet
  Beethoven No 15 string quartet
  Beethoven No 9 string quartet
  Beethoven No 7 string quartet
  Borodin No 2 string quartet
  Brahms Op 25 piano & strings
  Brahms Op 51/1 string quartet
  Brahms Op 26 piano & strings
  Brahms Op 60 piano & strings
  Brahms Op 67 string quartet
  Dvorak No 12 string quartet
  Dvorak No 14 string quartet
  Smetana No 1 string quartet
  Mendelssohn No 6 string quartet
  Mozart No 19 string quartet
  Schubert No 14 string quartet
  Schubert No 12 string quartet
  Schubert No 13 string quartet
  Schubert No 15 string quartet
  Shostakovich No 8 string quartet
  Tchaikovsky No 1 string quartet

Well, that is a wonderful list. I love all the works you mentioned. I would include several works of Haydn, more of Mozart, Beethoven's opus 127, Tchaikovsky 3rd Quartet, Cesar Franck's string Quartet. But why stop in 1890 (except for the Shostakovitch)?
Schönberg, Webern, Bartok, Ravel, Hindemith, Reger, Alban Berg, Dutilleux, all composed splendid masterpieces.

[Gregg]

Shostakovitch, Schönberg, Webern, Bartok, Ravel, Hindemith, Reger, Alban Berg, Dutilleux, all composed splendid masterpieces.

Totally agree, sometimes I think the quartet is primary musical idiom for the 20th C..

I do mean the string quartet since no one would dispute the dominance of the pop/rock quartet.

Different courses...


Gregg

[Lance]

As this forum seems to be dying a slow and natural death ... [snipped]

What makes you thing we're dying [hopefully NOT a slow, natural death]? We are now monitoring (very carefully) new registrants (I get between 20 and 30 new ones A DAY!). Unfortunately the preponderance are not legal or do not really have interest in "classical music." I've removed 1,000+ names from the roster we had in November 2006 and I'm still thinning it out. In the meantime, I have NOT activated some 1,500+ new registrants since November 2006. We would be close to (or more than) 4,000 members if we just let anybody and everybody register and start posting their porno/pill URLs. Many classical music venues/orchestras/boards, etc. are said to be "dying," but I haven't found that true. We need people like you who will keep us active and alive, and flourishing! (And truly, thank YOU for your outstanding participation and contributions!) Trust me, we're continuing to work very hard to make this among the best boards of its kind on the Net. We've been around a long, long time ... our site is simple to use, nothing fancy, no dazzling graphics ... just talk about classical music! We have a Corner Pub, too, but that's another story.

[Corlyss_D]

As this forum seems to be dying a slow and natural death !

Poor choice of word, Martin. I think, hope, you mean 'thread.'

[hangos]

Dear Lance and Corlyss
Bitte um Entschuldigung! Mea maxima culpa!
Sorry I called this thread (which is slowly unwinding as this topic has already been covered before in your archives) a forum, which is definitely flourishing. Let's have more postings now! Come on, guys!
Semper floreat forum nostrum gloriosum ( stopped learning Latin 40 years ago!)
Martin

[James]

ligeti's 2 string quartets are awesome masterpieces too, particularly the 2nd. just mindblowing...

[piston]

nostrum

P.S. joking, as usual! You're actually stating that this forum smells like the gorgeous rare flowers one can observe on the top of Hawaii's extinct volcanos. See! I got it!

[Corlyss_D]

Semper floreat forum nostrum gloriosum ( stopped learning Latin 40 years ago!)
Martin

John and Brendan will be scrutinzing your Latin closely.