Hungarian Qt LvB Stereo/Mono - long
Steve Emerson
preferred the Hungarian Quartet's stereo cycle to their earlier, mono
cycle, and was asked why. Follows: an attempt at a report.
For me the performances in the later cycle are both richer and more
expressive. And they have a kind of refinement that doesn't quite seem
to be present in the earlier recordings.
(Which of course may be partly due to sound. The sound on the stereo
recording - 1966 - is good (I don't know about the transfer and will be
interested in reports; I'm commenting on the LPs). The mono recording -
from 1953 - is not a particularly good 1953 recording; the sound has
been called "cavernous.")
--This is elegant playing (voices are cleanly delineated, phrases
thoughtfully shaped, and the ensemble's togetherness is gorgeous). But
it never feels mannered. It never conveys the proverbial sense of the
performers "standing outside the music, paring their nails" that I find
in, for instance, the Italianos' Beethoven. (There, a patina of
excessive politeness and style seems to cover over the music -- and its
vitality, its angularity, its sense of surprise, its outrageousness, its
funk...) The Hungarians, by contrast, always seem to be "in" the music.
In any case, the very specific elegance of the later-Hungarians'
recording isn't for me all that present in the earlier cycle (although
the earlier certainly has vitality).
Interpretively, the later set is useful in that several of the late
quartets, though convincing, are markedly neither dark nor furious -- in
contrast with, say, the accounts of the Yale, the Guarneri, and the
('60s) Juilliard to name just a few obvious cases. 131 in particular.
Too, their 131 works; that is, it's coherent and goes somewhere -- which
is not at all the rule in my experience.
Versus the mono account, the stereo 131 seems far more nuanced. In i,
for instance, numerous tiny events of phrasing bring life to a movement
that, dare I say it, can be dull. In 131 ii, the mono performance feels
rushed and somewhat indelicate, with phrases crushed together, whereas
the stereo performance has none of these failings. (At 2:32, the mono ii
is easily the fastest recording I happen to own of the movement.) The
contrasts are similar in 131 vii.
One of the places where I do prefer the mono cycle is 130, where they're
terrific and quite unlike anyone else. In particular, there's an
extraordinary Cavatina, in contrast with a rather dull one in the stereo
cycle. (And the mono account includes the repeat in i.) I don't buy the
very brisk tempo used in the Alla danza in both (again, the fastest in
my collection -- identical timings of 2:40); but that's a complicated
and a controversial matter. Neither Grosse Fuge is anywhere close to
being among my favorites.
There's a very strong Harp in the mono set, but again, I think the
stereo is even better. (And if I've given the impression these
performances are in any way underpowered, the Presto here is extremely
hot.) Neither 59/3 is among my favorites, though both are good.
On the matter of tempo, Zoltan Szekely, the leader of the quartet, is
quoted as follows, from a March 1980 talk, in Claude Kenneson's book
"Szekely and Bartok":
"I heard a performance of the Op. 59, No. 3, by the very good New York
quartet, the New Music Quartet. They played the fugato in the tempo
according to Beethoven's extremely fast metronome markings, and it can
be played. There are more ensembles now who try to follow the original
marks -- which is correct to do -- and most of the time you will find
that we, the Hungarian String Quartet, adopted whatever was the marking.
"But in that fugato we dropped one or two numbers slower. If you
compare our first recordings of the Beethoven cycle with our second,
here and there you will notice that we have calmed the tempi since some
were a little bit on the fast side. Our later recording seems to be
played in somewhat more comfortable tempi."
That last remark in part explains some of what for me is an improvement
in, for instance, 131. And it isn't because the tempi are slow in the
later account, but because they're so singularly fast in the earlier --
and for me sometimes result in the crushed-together phrasing I
mentioned. Too, this variance is not as consistent as Szekely suggests.
In 18/5 (where the mono performance is extraordinary), the earlier
account is one minute longer. A few other comparisons:
Harp i ii iii iv
Mono 9:10 8:40 4:50 6:48
Stereo 8:35 10:05 combined 12:00
59/3 i ii iii iv
Mono 9:40 8:57 5:14 5:50
Stereo 8:15 9:40 combined 11:40
59/2 i ii iii iv
Mono 9:08 11:24 6:23 5:15
Stereo 9:55 12:35 6:50 5:25
132 i ii iii iv v
Mono 8:43 7:06 13:54 2:13 6:04
Stereo 10:00 7:35 15:55 combined 8:55
(Examine that mono 132 Adagio timing for a case of what I'm calling
singularly fast.)
I should tell you that the above impressions, notwithstanding the 18/5
comments, are based mostly on the performances of the middle and late
quartets. I've spent less time with the Hungarians' Opus 18, and
particularly the mono 18. (The esteemed Alan Cooper, however, did
recently suggest here that the stereo Opus 18 is his favorite.)
Personnel on the mono set is Szekely; Alexandre Moskowsky second violin;
Denes Koromzay viola; and Vilmos Palotai cello. On the stereo set,
Michael Kuttner replaces Moskowsky and Gabriel Magyar replaces Palotai.
The personnel on the stereo set is identical to that on the 1961
recording of the Bartok quartets. Koromzay and Palotai were, with Sandor
Vegh, founding members of the quartet. Szekely replaced Vegh as first
violin in 1937, with Vegh continuing as second violin for a brief time
and then leaving. Koromzay went on to found the New Hungarian Quartet,
which made some good recordings for Vox.
SE.
lord_e...@my-deja.com
seme...@dnai.com wrote:
> Last week I mentioned, a-propos the recent French reissue, that I
> preferred the Hungarian Quartet's stereo cycle to their earlier, mono
> cycle, and was asked why. Follows: an attempt at a report.
Thanks very much, Steve! Looks excellent. I've got to study it now.
Lena
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lord_e...@my-deja.com
Well, Steve - thanks for the very excellent report. Just a few
quick questions:
>In any case, the very specific elegance of the later-Hungarians'
>recording isn't for me all that present in the earlier cycle (although
>the earlier certainly has vitality).
Would you say their mono set has more vitality than the stereo then?
>One of the places where I do prefer the mono cycle is 130, where
>they're terrific and quite unlike anyone else. In particular, there's
>an extraordinary Cavatina, in contrast with a rather dull one in the
>stereo cycle. (And the mono account includes the repeat in i.)
I'm particularly interested in the first movement, which very seldom
seems to work. How would you compare the mono one with the Budapest/LC
Op. 130/i ?
This sounds great for the price, but I'm actually looking for more
vitality... ;) The last real missing ingredient in many of my
quartet CDs. The Budapest, at least on the LC/Bridge recording, often
has it. Other quartets occasionally have it. You know what I mean -
a kind of raise the roof natural enthusiasm.
Richard Chon
R. Chon
Alan Cooper
news:9141as$dfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Lena, have you heard the Prazak op. 130 on Nuova Era? The Skampa op. 95 on
Supraphon? They might elevate the ceiling a bit ;-)
Best, AC
Simon Roberts
: Is this set scheduled for CD release by EMI? When?
French EMI 5 73798 2; dirt cheap from fnac. Will presumably show up
eventually as a Tower import (and maybe Berkshire) eventually in the U.S.,
like most of the rest of this series of cheap French EMI boxes.
Simon
Steve Emerson
>
> In article <3A3476...@dnai.com>,
> seme...@dnai.com wrote:
>
> Well, Steve - thanks for the very excellent report. Just a few
> quick questions:
>
> >In any case, the very specific elegance of the later-Hungarians'
> >recording isn't for me all that present in the earlier cycle (although
> >the earlier certainly has vitality).
>
> Would you say their mono set has more vitality than the stereo then?
No. The elegance of the playing on the stereo set doesn't have any
attendant lack of vitality or vigor, for me, and that's some of what's
interesting. Their Harp is a strong case in point.
> >One of the places where I do prefer the mono cycle is 130, where
> >they're terrific and quite unlike anyone else. In particular, there's
> >an extraordinary Cavatina, in contrast with a rather dull one in the
> >stereo cycle. (And the mono account includes the repeat in i.)
>
> I'm particularly interested in the first movement, which very seldom
> seems to work. How would you compare the mono one with the Budapest/LC
> Op. 130/i ?
I made a few highly perceptive notes on this matter, then misplaced
them. --I'm not sure I find that much of a refusal to work on the part
of this movement. But the way the Budapest tear into the thing on that
Bridge set -- the Hungarian mono certainly doesn't compare to that. In
this movement, the Hungarian stereo may surpass the mono (repeat
notwithstanding). There's much more use of dynamics, and that keeps it
livelier and more interesting.
> This sounds great for the price, but I'm actually looking for more
> vitality... ;) The last real missing ingredient in many of my
> quartet CDs. The Budapest, at least on the LC/Bridge recording, often
> has it. Other quartets occasionally have it. You know what I mean -
> a kind of raise the roof natural enthusiasm.
Yes, and a nice phrase to evoke it. Have you listened to the Guarneri
59/3 finale anytime lately? I think the New Hungarian Qt middle quartets
are pretty good for this too.
SE.
lord_e...@my-deja.com
seme...@dnai.com wrote:
> lord_e...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A3476...@dnai.com>,
> > seme...@dnai.com wrote:
> >
> > Well, Steve - thanks for the very excellent report. Just a few
> > quick questions:
> >
> > >In any case, the very specific elegance of the later-Hungarians'
> > >recording isn't for me all that present in the earlier cycle
(although
> > >the earlier certainly has vitality).
> >
> > Would you say their mono set has more vitality than the stereo then?
>
> No. The elegance of the playing on the stereo set doesn't have any
> attendant lack of vitality or vigor, for me, and that's some of what's
> interesting.
OK
>
> > >One of the places where I do prefer the mono cycle is 130, where
> > >they're terrific and quite unlike anyone else. In particular,
there's
> > >an extraordinary Cavatina, in contrast with a rather dull one in
the
> > >stereo cycle. (And the mono account includes the repeat in i.)
> >
> > I'm particularly interested in the first movement, which very seldom
> > seems to work. How would you compare the mono one with the
Budapest/LC
> > Op. 130/i ?
>
> I made a few highly perceptive notes on this matter, then misplaced
> them.
All my highly perceptive notes are usually also misplaced. :)
>--I'm not sure I find that much of a refusal to work on the part
> of this movement.
I love this movement, but I don't have many satisfactory accounts of it.
I do have kind of specific requirements, I suppose...
>But the way the Budapest tear into the thing on that
> Bridge set -- the Hungarian mono certainly doesn't compare to that. In
> this movement, the Hungarian stereo may surpass the mono (repeat
> notwithstanding). There's much more use of dynamics, and that keeps it
> livelier and more interesting.
The problem is not necessarily the enthusiasm thing - though that's
important too. This movement is like a big, but interesting puzzle -
all parts have to work together. Most quartets don't do it.
>> You know what I mean a kind of raise the roof natural enthusiasm.
> Yes, and a nice phrase to evoke it. Have you listened to the Guarneri
> 59/3 finale anytime lately? I think the New Hungarian Qt middle
> quartets are pretty good for this too.
Yes, the latter are. No, I don't have Guarneri middle set (only early
and late).
lord_e...@my-deja.com
"Alan Cooper" <amco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <lord_e...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9141as$dfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3A3476...@dnai.com>,
> > seme...@dnai.com wrote:
>
> > This sounds great for the price, but I'm actually looking for more
> > vitality... ;) The last real missing ingredient in many of my
> > quartet CDs. The Budapest, at least on the LC/Bridge recording,
often
> > has it. Other quartets occasionally have it. You know what I mean
-
> > a kind of raise the roof natural enthusiasm.
>
> Lena, have you heard the Prazak op. 130 on Nuova Era?
No - is it new?
>The Skampa op. 95 on Supraphon? They might elevate the ceiling a bit
:)
I've heard neither, but will try them. (Correction: I want the rafters
blown off, actually. :) )
Thanks!!
Alan Cooper
news:91735i$spk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <915ad7$pg5$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Alan Cooper" <amco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > <lord_e...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:9141as$dfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3A3476...@dnai.com>,
> > Lena, have you heard the Prazak op. 130 on Nuova Era?
> No - is it new?
Not new, but a batch of Prazak Mozart and Beethoven (on Nuova Era and Praga)
appeared in the recent Berkshire catalog. A word to the wise! The op. 130
is the "original version" with the Great Fugue but not the Cavatina. It's
hardly the last word, but it is a fine, vigorous performance.
> >The Skampa op. 95 on Supraphon? They might elevate the ceiling a bit
> I've heard neither, but will try them. (Correction: I want the rafters
> blown off, actually. :) )
Well, the Skampa op. 95 might do that for you (like the New Music 59/3); it
is a thrilling performance, and what makes the disk even more important is
that it includes a great performance of Smetana's unjustly neglected Second
Quartet. I've just ordered the other available Skampa Beethoven (59/2, 127)
with high expectations.
My cd reissue of the stereo Hungarian Qt recordings arrived yesterday, and I
listened to the op. 18 set. They are wonderful performances, although I
have to admit that Szekely's wide vibrato bothered me a bit in some of the
slow movements. They capture the humor in 18/6/i better than any other
performance I know, yet thay also have the measure of the brooding 18/4.
The set is an incredible bargain. I haven't compared the sound with my old
LPs yet, but they're all worn out, anyway.
Best wishes, AC
lord_e...@my-deja.com
"Alan Cooper" <amco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Not new, but a batch of Prazak Mozart and Beethoven (on Nuova Era and
Praga)
> appeared in the recent Berkshire catalog.
OK --- excellent (keep quiet about it until I get to it)... :)
> A word to the wise!
Does that apply in this newsgroup? :)
>The op. 130
> is the "original version" with the Great Fugue but not the Cavatina.
It's
> hardly the last word, but it is a fine, vigorous performance.
>
> Well, the Skampa op. 95 might do that for you (like the New Music
59/3); it
> is a thrilling performance, and what makes the disk even more
important is
> that it includes a great performance of Smetana's unjustly neglected
Second
> Quartet. I've just ordered the other available Skampa Beethoven
(59/2, 127)
> with high expectations.
Thanks for all that, and the stereo Hungarian comments, Alan!
Lena
>
> My cd reissue of the stereo Hungarian Qt recordings arrived yesterday,
and I
> listened to the op. 18 set. They are wonderful performances, although
I
> have to admit that Szekely's wide vibrato bothered me a bit in some of
the
> slow movements. They capture the humor in 18/6/i better than any
other
> performance I know, yet thay also have the measure of the brooding
18/4.
> The set is an incredible bargain. I haven't compared the sound with
my old
> LPs yet, but they're all worn out, anyway.
>
> Best wishes, AC
>
>