Search - Ludwig van Beethoven, Emerson String Quartet :: Beethoven: The String Quartets

GETTING THERE

DAVID BRYSON | Glossop Derbyshire England | 10/21/2005

(4 out of 5 stars)

"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."

Powerful

Patrick N Stoner | USA | 02/13/2000

(4 out of 5 stars)

"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."

Impressive, though in a few aspects lacking

Cyrus B. Hall | 08/21/2002

(5 out of 5 stars)

"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."