Comparison recordings:
Borodin Quartet (1970)
[ADD] Rostislav Dubinsky, Yaroslav Alexandrov,
vv; Dmitry Shebalin, vla; Valentin Berlinsky,
vc. Chandos Historical CHAN 10064
Manhattan Quartet (1989):Eric
Lewis, Roy Lewis, vv; John Dexter, va;
Judith Glyde, vc. ESS.AY Recordings
CD1007/13
Fitzwilliam Quartet (1977) [ADD]: Christopher
Rowland, Jonathan Sparey, vv; Alan George
va; Iaon Davis, vc. Decca 455776
Emerson Quartet (2002) Eugene Drucker,
Philip Setzer, vv; Lawrence Dutton,
vla; David Finckel, vc. DG 463284
[For additional comments
and the timings comparisons some other
versions, see my review of the Rubio
Quartet performances ]
The works at
hand are:
|
Nº
|
key
|
Op
|
year
|
Mv
|
Manhattan
|
|
Fitzwilliam
|
|
Brodsky
|
|
1
|
C
|
49
|
1938
|
4
|
14.46
|
13.49
|
15.23
|
13:54
|
15.08
|
|
2
|
A
|
68
|
1944
|
4
|
34.38
|
36.08
|
35.44
|
33:06
|
35.01
|
|
3
|
F
|
73
|
1946
|
5
|
28.39
|
32.58
|
31.30
|
28:06
|
31.11
|
|
4
|
D
|
83
|
1949
|
4
|
25.37
|
25.12
|
25.44
|
24:19
|
25.01
|
|
5
|
Bb
|
92
|
1952
|
3
|
32.58
|
29.34
|
30.56
|
30:10
|
31.54
|
|
6
|
G
|
101
|
1956
|
4
|
24.34
|
24.50
|
26.40
|
22:13
|
22.14
|
|
7
|
f#
|
108
|
1960
|
3
|
12.40
|
11.52
|
12.44
|
11:34
|
13.35
|
|
8
|
c
|
110
|
1960
|
5
|
20.26
|
20.42
|
20.43
|
19:34
|
20.54
|
|
9
|
Eb
|
117
|
1964
|
5
|
25.17
|
28.37
|
27.13
|
24:42
|
25.17
|
|
10
|
Ab
|
118
|
1964
|
4
|
23.33
|
23.40
|
22.53
|
21:37
|
23.37
|
|
11
|
f
|
122
|
1966
|
7
|
16.35
|
16.07
|
16.03
|
16:05
|
17.20
|
|
12
|
Db
|
133
|
1968
|
2
|
26.12
|
28.46
|
27.40
|
24:52
|
27.57
|
|
13
|
bb
|
138
|
1970
|
1
|
19.54
|
18.38
|
19.07
|
19:08
|
20.54
|
|
14
|
F#
|
142
|
1973
|
3
|
26.57
|
-
|
26.30
|
25:04
|
26.58
|
|
15
|
eb
|
144
|
1974
|
6
|
35.25
|
-
|
34.46
|
35:24
|
37.32
|
The point most clearly
to be gained from the table of timings
above is how much alike they all are,
but the exceptions are interesting.
While the best recorded performances
of the symphonies seem to be those which
deviate the most from printed metronome
markings, in the quartets everyone seems
to stay pretty close to the score. The
Emerson Quartet version delivers the
fastest version of #7, #10, and #12
in keeping with the impression of several
reviewers that this is a fast version
overall. With the Brodsky Quartet tempi
are virtually all in the middle, in
keeping with the impression that in
most ways this is a moderate performance
— with the exception of #15 where they
are the slowest version ever recorded!
Yet some of the movements are all but
unrecognisable from one performance
to the next, so, without deviating from
tempo, great individual expression is
possible. The string quartet is a most
flexible, most sensitive instrument.
The Rubio Quartet’s
playing is dramatic and sensual. They
particularly like to settle into a nice
rich tonal chord and let it resonate
among the four instruments and hold
the taste of it for a second. They treat
this music like Art of the Fugue,
keeping a mostly solemn, unruffled mood
throughout. The 1984 Borodin Quartet
on the other hand play some of the faster
movements with a torchy vibrato and
a trace of schmaltz and find
a bouncy Russian folk tune here and
there to which they give an earthy authenticity.
The 1970 Manhattan Quartet play with
a particularly American sense of drama,
that is relatively free of ‘baggage’
from the past. Here do not listen for
Bach, or Stalinist terror, or the ancient
sense of earthy Russian folk music.
If the legendary Hollywood Quartet had
ever recorded these works, I believe
they would have sounded much like the
Manhattan Quartet. Beautiful sound (digital
recording certainly doesn’t hurt), balanced
dramatics, broad range of emotions,
more extroversion here and there than
in the European versions. Their performance
of the slow movement of Quartet #2 has
an almost operatic sense of tragedy,
whereas the 1970 Borodin Quartet performance
of this movement is a totally solitary
and terrifying experience. With the
Manhattan Quartet the peasant dance
in Quartet #1 sounds more like something
from the stage of Oklahoma than
from a Russian village.
The Fitzwilliam Quartet
greatly pleased Shostakovich. He allowed
them to premiere the final three quartets
in the West and their recording was
the first complete one. It has the most
live acoustic of all, and I am not the
only reviewer to wonder if the reverb
were artificially enhanced. Theirs is
the most ‘romantic’ performance in the
traditional sense with greater contrasts
of tempo and texture than the others.
The high resolution transfers by Chandos
on the analogue recorded Borodin set
are exceptionally clear and entirely
comparable with the digital sound on
the other sets.
The performances by the Emerson, Fitzwilliam
and Brodsky are quite different while equally valid. The Fitzwilliam
version is richly romantic and emotionally charged, sort of the
"Leopold Stokowski" performance. The Emerson quartet
version is at times fast, tense, highly energetic, sort of like
an "Arturo Toscanini" version. The Brodsky version is
carefully crafted, balanced, slightly understated, like a version
by "Sir Adrian Boult." Why on earth would anyone want
to understate things? Not because, as some people seem to feel,
Sir Adrian and the British are afraid of expressing feelings,
but because by understating the emotionalism in the music other
aspects of the music are more clearly appreciated, and the overall
musical experience is richer. Therefore one could easily find
the Brodsky version to be the best version by a British quartet.
In the first quartet,
for instance, the Emersons take the
first two "moderato" movements
faster than anybody else, but their
playing does not sound rushed, just
a nicely pulsed andante. Here the Brodskys
are relatively slow but no one plays
the music more interestingly. In the
third movement, "allegro molto"
everybody plays it about as fast as
they can, with the Emersons not noticeably
faster, nor noticeably any more precise
nor incisive. In the first movement
of the second quartet, the Emersons
use slightly exaggerated rhythmic accents,
but their performance is no faster than
the Brodskys or Borodiners nor is it
ultimately more dramatic, just more
marked in texture and perhaps a shade
less graceful. The Brodskys play the
second movement with beauty and great
sadness, but also with a little dignity
as if to say that continuing to live
may be possible after all. But it is
in this movement in the Borodin Quartet
performance where Dubinsky’s solo attains
Olympian heights of passion and terror.
You must have this recording of this
movement in your collection if you love
Shostakovich, but don’t ever listen
to it alone in the dark. The disk should
bear a warning label!
In the Eighth Quartet
the Emersons bring in the fastest version
ever recorded, accomplishing the fourth
movement "largo" in nearly
20% less time than the others, but they
do not slight the stark, dramatic pauses
between the opening chords. The Brodskys
and the Borodiners are both on the slow
side in this one, matching timing within
a second. Both play with passion, yet
things do move along at a properly dramatic
pace, there is no sense of dragging
out the music. Again, the Borodiners
are the most intense.
The Borodiners play
the slowest #12 and the fastest #13
on disk. Since these were the earliest
of these recordings of these works,
more moderate consensus tempi have developed
subsequently, as encountered in the
Fitzwilliam recording based on performances
authorised by the composer, and observed
by the Emerson Quartet. The Brodsky
Quartet plays the consensus tempo on
#12, but gives us the very slowest version
of #13. But in direct comparison these
slowest and fastest performances both
sound perfectly convincing but also
in many ways quite different.
As for the overall
best performed version, it would probably
be one I have never heard, by the Beethoven
Quartet which most often played the
works at home; but they never made a
modern studio recording and such versions
as are available, assembled partially
from Soviet broadcast tapes (and acetate
disks), have poor sound and have been
released on minor labels.
If you do not presently own a version of these
quartets, then the Brodsky would be a very good one as a first
set. Then, if you want them warmer and sweeter, buy the Fitzwilliam
Quartet version; if you want them brisker, buy the Emerson Quartet
version. If you intend to have multiple versions in your collection,
the Borodin I version on Chandos Historical is an absolute must-have
— but only if you are secure that any tendencies you may have
towards suicidal depression are completely under control. By this
time you will have at least one version each of the last two quartets
and can accept their absence in the Chandos set. But what a pity
that we will never hear Dubinsky play the 15th!
In the third movement
of Quartet #2 listen for that little
pizzicato figure that made such a nice
touch in Alan Hovhaness’ Mt. St.
Helens Symphony. In Quartet #13
listen for the "Ya Khachu!"
motif from Shostakovich’s 14th Symphony;
it’s a Russian joke, sounding like a
sneeze, which can have interesting meanings
in Slavic folklore, but it actually
means "I desire!" And listen
if you choose for the so-called "12
tone" experiments in the later
quartets; but as Tovey says it is not
necessary to invent strange systems
to account for dissonant notes in tonal
music, and with the unlamented and nearly
universal disappearance of serial music
Shostakovich’s "experiments"
are actually more interesting viewed
entirely in a tonal context.
One reviewer mistakenly
suggested that the Michael Thomas of
the Brodsky Quartet was the same person
as Michael Tilson Thomas, pianist, and
music director of the San Francisco
Symphony Orchestra, but these are two
different people.
For a most detailed
quartet by quartet comparison and rating
of all known recordings, check out:
http://develp.envi.osakafu-u.ac.jp/staff/kudo/dsch/work/sq1e.html.
(replace the number
in the final entry with the number of
the quartet in question. For instance
for the tenth quartet change it to:
sq10e.html. And if you prefer the Japanese
language version, leave off the "e.")
Paul Shoemaker
Brodsky Quartet: Michael Thomas, Ian Belton vv.;
Paul Cassidy, vla.; Jacqueline Thomas, vc. 