Customer Reviews

Beethoven: The String Quartets

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This set divides opinion sharply, and I expect to satisfy nobody by sitting on the fence, as I honestly must. One criticism I have not noticed is that the Emersons take anything too slowly. My own impression, after taking my time over this set and playing a selection of alternatives, is that while they are generally fairly swift in allegros and prestos and don't dawdle over andantes and allegrettos, there are only 3 cases where their velocity seems likely to raise many eyebrows, namely the fugue in the 3rd Razumovsky and the outer movements of the F minor. I find them more or less exemplary in the first 10 quartets, Razumovsky fugue perhaps excepted. That accounts for 10 out of 16 (or 17 if the Grosse Fuge counts separately), which is not bad going at all. There is even one movement, the danza tedesca from op130, which is actually too slow for me.

One touchstone for how you are going to like or dislike this set comes with the very first phrase of the very first quartet. For some reason the first 3 quartets are given in the order 3,1,2, but I played them in their numeric sequence. The florid ornamental phrase at the start of the first quartet gave Beethoven trouble, and the Emersons despatch it with a gliding offhand ease that sets the scene for much else. Their technique is no doubt exceptional, but no quartet of technical slouches gets near a recording studio these days nor has done since the war, and the difference is only marginal. In the 60's there were a number of east European quartets with a particular affinity for Beethoven, and I own a selection of these. In the late quartets I have the Busches on vinyl, in remarkably good sound except for the F major; I have recently acquired the Razumovskys and the `Harp' from the Lindsays to mark their impending retirement, and these are the comparisons I have used. In the Razumovsky fugue the Emersons are unquestionably showing off, but the movement is marked `allegro molto', they are faster than the Lindsays (who should be a safe bet for anyone) by 17% or 18%, and I have no problem, although I expect to play the Lindsays more often. I have in mind readings by Richter of the finale of the Appassionata hurtled through by that great player in contempt of Beethoven's instruction not to do this, to my own disgust but to the obvious delight of many. In the circumstances I would not expect complaints when Beethoven says `allegro molto'. Otherwise tempi in the first 10 works seem unexceptional to me. Both the first movement and the adagio of the first Razumovsky are taken significantly faster than by the Lindsays, but the difference is only of the kind one finds between performances of similar movements by the major exponents of the sonatas.

Things turn more problematical from the F minor onwards. The first phrase of that is abrupt to the point of violence. I'm accustomed to greater decorum from the Hungarian Quartet, but Beethoven had a rough side to say the least and so far I can't make up my mind about the Emersons' approach. The last movement of this quartet was admired by Mendelssohn, and no wonder - he could almost have written it. The Emersons seem outstanding to me in Mendelssohn's quartets, and they seem outstanding to me here. I love the fast tempo, and the conclusion is a wonderful piece of Mendelssohnian gossamer. In the late quartets the Emersons do only one thing wrong for me - the danza tedesca in the B flat should ideally be a whirling waltz as the Busches give it, or if the players didn't want to do that they could have taken a hint from the Hungarians and flipped up the last beat of the first bar in each phrase. In the skeletal and awesome Grosse Fuge, where beauty is not part of the deal, the Emersons are as good as absolutely anyone, but I don't go along with sequencing this movement after the cavatina and stranding Beethoven's new finale after he changed his mind as an extra. This quartet is to a 6-movement format recalling the concerti grossi of Beethoven's revered Handel, and for all the Beethovenishness of the expression the shadow of Handel lies over it. Beethoven's original plan was to append a blockbuster finale, as Bach appended the chaconne to his D minor violin partita, but he decided to keep to a more Handelian model, as in any case the Grosse Fuge is viable as a freestanding work, and I see no reason to dispute his opinion.

The other late quartets are built round long slow movements containing some of the deepest and most beautiful music that any man ever wrote. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way the Emersons express these, but I feel they perhaps have a little more living to do to allow music like this to sink into the depths of their souls, which is where it must penetrate before they can convey its real significance. Never let anyone tell you that the late quartets are obscure. They are clarity itself, and the roughness that is a barrier against coherence in some of Beethoven's middle-period works makes only one partial reappearance in the scherzo of the final quartet. The C# minor is an extended fantasia in 7 continuous movements or sections, although Professor Tovey, for whom the sonata form possessed a sacramental significance that would have made Beethoven laugh, tries to argue that the opening slow fugue and the pastorale following equate in some way to the function of his sonata form, that apparently increasing the significance of the music. The others are to the standard 4-movement format, although there is an introduction in the form of a short and very characteristic march to the finale of the A minor, as such a powerful piece should not be juxtaposed with the Lydian Song. All perfectly clear and perfectly wonderful. To hear what the Emersons have still to rise to, listen to the Lydian Song from the Busches. The main sections are absolutely immobile, and the ecstatic climax is beyond words. Again, the Emersons do very well with the andante of the C# minor, but the final variation with its `glory of trills' in Tovey's great phrase is not a patch on the Vlach Quartet's performance, nor is the finale, where the Vlachs surpass anyone I've ever heard. The lento of the last quartet doesn't have to be taken as slowly as the Busches do it, as the Janacek Quartet prove to me, but it would have done no harm either. And the climactic phrase in the cavatina of the B flat, again well and thoughtfully done by the Emersons, does not hit me in the solar plexus as it does from Adolf Busch.

The recording is excellent, and there is a lengthy and affectionate commentary. With the few exceptions I've mentioned, there is not much to criticise in this set in terms of taste or sense for the composer's style. The smooth glistening tone perhaps lacks a little in the way of variety, but I think that will come when they have internalised this great music in a few years' time. I shall make a point of living long enough to purchase their next set of the Beethoven quartets.

After listening to the Beethoven String Quartet cycle I wonder from where most of the negative comments regarding the Emersons come. These are both exciting to listen to and are technically and artistically sound. I won't say, however, that this Emerson String Quartet's production will be to everyone's liking. It is as usual a virtuoso performance performed a bit faster than others.

The quibble over tempo is just that. Some prefer a more upbeat tempo to a slower syrupy one. Both, however, can be well within the tempo markings of the piece. I do not find any of these quartets overly fast but I do find many other versions to be performed overly slow. If your "preferred style" is to have each note stretched out in order to savor the experience then I suggest you look elsewhere. At the price, most of us cannot afford to have several renditions sitting in our libraries.

Because of the vitrium displayed by some reviewers over this set as well as nearly every other Emerson CD sold by Amazon, I obtained copies of several versions of specific late quartets that other reviewers have recommended. I did like the Quartetto Italiano and Takacs as well. Putting this version below The Lindsays, however, may only show that the vitrium against the Emersons is actually most likely directed toward Deutschegrammophone and their high priced offerings.

For me, this album brings back the Beethoven I imagined. Fierce, fiery, tempestuous, and in your face.

I highly recommend this album even at the relatively steep price here. I also highly recommend that you listen to some of these side by side with other interpretations if possible. You may prefer the other more traditional interpretations. But if you have listened to other Emerson recordings and found you like their style, you won't be disappointed with these.

If you like these quartets strong and right in your face, then here you are. However, many of the delicate, intimate passages are almost brushed over as unimportant. The Cleveland Quartet does a great job with the intimate details and is highly recommended. I had access to both sets to enjoy and compare and I purchased Cleveland. However, I do appreciate the superb performances of Emerson and their smash face style that many would claim was Beethoven's priority. Cleveland is more elegant, and detail oriented and quite simply paint more beautiful pictures. Do you want Joni Mitchell or The Clash performing your Beethoven? Buy both if you can for total mood coverage and an enjoyable comparison study.

The wide disparity of opinions here made me want to hear this set and decide for myself. I have done do. My verdict is that it is an excellent survey of Beethoven's sixteen quartets.

Emerson purveys an ensemble sound with strong contrapuntal clarity. In a way, they are much like the legendary Budapest String Quartet of the 1930s and `40s; and, if any readers of this review have done research, they will discover that Budapest's Beethoven and Mozart quartets, when they first appeared, elicited strong reactions that are remarkably similar to what Emerson has received here.

This is a quartet that has spent years studying, restudying, analyzing and working out there approach to these quartets. So much is obvious from the listening experience. To dismiss them as glib or inexpressive is to do them a great disservice. While it is true that ensemble richness and unified bowing are principal concerns, ignoring the composer's directions is not what they do. On the contrary, anyone who studies these scores will discover that Emerson comes very close to everything that Beethoven directed.

Their performances of the early quartets are without peer. You may, of course, prefer the Takacs, Alban Berg or Tokyo Quartets if you wish, but none of those ensembles have as strong a spirit of joie-de-vivre heard here. It's obvious to me that Emerson tried very hard to strike a balance between studied precision and spontaneous enthusiasm. I like their energetic approach as much as I prefer Artur Schnabel's energetic approach to the early sonatas better than anyone else's.

In the middle quartets, their tempi are very brisk, but a point-by-point comparison with the superb Tokyo Quartet recordings of these works reveals similar detailing. The difference lies in certain details of balance. Tokyo enjoys "breaking up" the quartet sound a little more to reveal inner details a shade better, and the soft playing of violist Kazuhide Isomura and cellist Sadao Harada is less hollow and "edgy" sounding in the softest passages than that of Lawrence Dutton and David Finckel here. In other words, the Tokyo Quartet is the sine qua non of performance standard in these middle works; Emerson presents a good representation that, if the Tokyo recordings did not exist, would be world standard.

At first listen, I thought Emerson a bit too glib in the late quartets, but on second listen I realized that this is simply because, as in the middle works, their focus is on ensemble rather than individual or duo playing. My standards here are the recordings of these works by the Yale Quartet circa 1960 and the late-1980s recordings of the Vermeer Quartet. Yale's tempi are faster than Vermeer's, much closer to what Emerson produces here. Both Yale and Vermeer penetrate a shade deeper into the angst of this music, but only a shade. Emerson is excellent, better in my mind than the recordings of these pieces by the Budapest, Hungarian, Amadeus, Juilliard or Takacs Quartets.

My preference for the Tokyo Quartets in the middle works and for Vermeer in the later ones is conditioned by the fact that I already own these recordings. If I hadn't, and did not have them for comparison, the Emerson Quartet would come up on top for all sixteen quartets. If you want an integrated set by one group, this is it. It's a pity that the early quartets are not available as a separate unit, but that's life.

The only complaint I have is that the price is barely competitive with other sets. $17 per CD? I don't think so. Just because DG's logo is yellow doesn't mean the discs are made of gold.

The Emerson String Quartet combine a strength of performance at the same time giving the listener subtle shades of color producing one of the supreme recordings of Beethovens string quartets ever. They've almost done the unattainable, by producing a new approach to this old musical literature, while maintaining integrity. They bring a level of thought to these performances that have rarely been matched. Enthusiastic and sensitive interpretations rolled into one.

This box set (autographed by each member, thank you very much) is my favorite interpretation. The Budapest, Busch, Guarneri, Talich and Vegh quartets are also very good, but these provide technical brilliance and are faithful to the score, while being heartwarming and intellectually inspiring. Also, these are definitely not cold readings, but ecstatic one's. I found them refreshing and different, and still deeply moving and of course, thrill with excitement.

The main reason I recommend these recordings is because they're carefully edited performances, so well edited in fact, that I never heard a single edit, and I'm a headphone listener. They recorded many takes (versions) so that they (the Emersons & producer Max Wilcox) could cherry pick the best parts within each movement, creating "the magic take" or at least something very close. I also read that they'd like to enjoy hearing these recordings someday, without worrying...could we have done it better? Sure, they could have done the "one take" perfectly (I've seen them live), but perfect doesn't necessarily mean...magical. They utilized the recording studio for all it's worth. Bravo!

These musicians have obviously polished their form to a high level of refinement, and anyone interested in the string quartets of Beethoven would likely rate this set as a valuable addition to their collection.

Highly recommended.

Despite my admiration for this set, I have to strongly disagree with the music fan who wrote this is the only recording of these quartets you will ever need. For once, the richness of this extraordinary music can never be encapsulated in one single version. Then, there's the fact that the Emersons are technically amazing and bring an impressive and refreshing sense of urgency to the music, but they lack the passion that emerges so strongly from, for instance, the much less polished Lindsays. Sometimes the Emersons just make the music sound too beautiful, other times they just sound rushed. There's no denying it's an extremely worthy set, that ranks high in the catalogue, but when the Talich and the old Lindsay are still out there, and there are new sets en course from the excellent Petersen and Takács, this is hardly the first choice, much less the "only" choice.

The Emerson String Quartet brings a level of thought to these performances that is rarely matched. An excellent collection for the music scholar or the Beethoven aficionado, these quartets vividly illustrate the differences between Beethoven's compositional periods. Balance is occasionally off and tempi are sometimes a bit fast, but the performances are enthusiastic and sensitive interpretations.

I have proudly owned this set since its release in 1996 and I must admit that its worth has sadly diminished rather than increased over the years.

Why???

Two major drawbacks:

For one, the unusually brittle, cool and distant Deutsche Grammophon sound has worn very thin and this collection - in both sound quality and performance realization - has been far surpassed by at least two other more recent recordings.

And secondly, these quartets, from first to last, are played at such break-neck speed that one is at a loss to comprehend (let alone enjoy!) these marvelous quartets as Beethoven originally intended. I have said to myself all too frequently while listening to these recordings, "For the love of God, SLOW DOWN!" That is surely not the desired reaction while listening to some of Beethoven's most incredible masterpieces.

Do yourself a twofold favor by firstly avoiding this rather dated and unfortunate set and purchasing the marvelous recordings on Decca by the Hungarian Takács Quartet. Here you will not only find interpretations and performances to last you a lifetime, but elegant and lush recorded sound to die for!

The choice is yours - given the substantial reputation of the Emerson Quartet - but you have been given fair warning.

I can't believe people are still buying this one, when the same recordings are availabe for 1/3 the price: Beethoven: the String Quartets.

Take the $60 you save and buy me something from my Amazon.com wishlist. Thanks!

There's a new intent behind the Emerson's fast, unromantic readings of Beethoven. I don't know the status of Beethoven's metronome markings in the quartets (there were many works for which he left no exact metronome readings), but those for the symphonies are very fast--to the point that their speed seemed impossible for generations. It took a complete change of style, one that discards romantic lingering, nuance, and "deep" phrasing, before the music sounds right at extreme velocity.

The Emersons don't go all the way into period style. They employ vibrato, and they don't use hairpin dynamics, for example. Even so, they achieve their fleet readings by substituting different expressive techniques in place of romanticism: sharp attacks, springy rhythms that often dance in cut time, and a strong emphasis on counterpoint. At times we get a virtual x-ray of Beethoven's complex part writing.

All this seems terribly wrong if you can't adjust to their perspective. To a traditionalist, the Emerson's approach is like Beethoven without the Beethoven, a stylistic non-entity disguised with ear-catching virtuosity and precision. Yet in a world where we already have dozens of traditional Beethoven quartet cycles, the Emerson's set can be listened to as an experiment or a new hypothesis waiting for others to react. My rason for giving only three stars, frankly, is that I don't find enough variety here. Even if you decide to be novel, each quartet desdrves its own personality. Here, only personality fits all. Early, middle, or late, we hear one style of music-making, which ignores the evolution that Beethoven went thourgh over a lifteimte of struggle and innovation.