String Quartet No. 2, op. 11 (1916) [18:24]
String Quartet No. 3, op. 2/op. 39 (1909/1937) [30:05]
Ture RANGSTRÖM (1884-1947)
String Quartet Un notturno nella Maniera di E. Th. A. Hoffmann (1909) [13:22]
Stenhammar Quartet
rec. Petruskirche, Stockholm, no date given.
CPO 777 270-2 [61:56]
The German label CPO has done sterling service by these two Swedish composers,
recording all their symphonies (Atterberg
~ Rangström), and much other orchestral music, in the case of Atterberg.
The chamber music of each composer is little known. I can find two other
recordings of the 2nd Atterberg quartet, but none of the other
two works, though CPO doesn’t claim premiere recordings.
I remember relishing each new CPO release of the Atterberg symphonies,
and I see that Chandos
has now begun their own cycle with Neeme Järvi and the Gothenburg orchestra.
Fortunate we are indeed to live in a time when there is a choice of Atterberg
symphony recordings. His best known work is the Sixth, which won the 1926
Columbia symphony competition. His orchestral works are drenched in memorable
melodies. The Rangström set are not quite so rich, but still interesting.
It was on the basis of the symphonies that I looked forward to this recording
when its release was announced. Sadly, I find myself disappointed.
First, a point of explanation regarding the unusual details for Atterberg’s
Quartet No. 3. His first string quartet was incomplete with only two movements,
but still published as op. 2. Those two movements were then incorporated
into a complete work – No. 3.
So to the music. Expecting cascades of melodies, I found few, particularly
in the Atterbergs. Much activity to so little effect is my regrettable
conclusion about both works, as I found myself unable to maintain attention.
The fast movements involve lots of rapid passagework with almost nothing
of melodic interest, the slow movements meander with hints of pleasant
tunes, but there is no sense of going anywhere.
The Rangström, subtitled ‘A nocturne in the manner of ETA Hoffmann’,
for no obvious reason, has some moments of distinct beauty, punctuated
by uninteresting and often harsh scratching away, completely ruining the
effect.
The recording is miked too close so that we regularly hear loud sniffs
from one of the four performers. Other than this, I don’t believe
that the problem is with the Stenhammar Quartet.
A real disappointment, then.
David Barker
Support
us financially by purchasing this from |
|
 |
 |
 |
|