32 of 33 people found the following review helpful
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Schubert: The Late String Quartets; String Quintet (Audio CD)
As it says on the front of the neat little box you receive "an obvious first choice".
The 4 CDs contain recordings from 20 years ago in fairly early digital sound, not "mucked about" by excessive processing (I like old-fashioned stereo as I only have two ears),and you get a decent booklet too.
CD 1 actually has the sublime String Quintet, CD 2 Quartets 14 & 12, CD 3 Quartets 13 & 8, CD4 Quartet 15.
This is pretty much all you need by way of Schubert quartets (and quintet) and I can't see anything better coming along. Better hurry up as I think that the company that produced these recordings has gone!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 11 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 May 2010 14:10:58 BDT
Thank you for this review, but may I respectfully invite you to repost it, referring to the quartets by their keys or Deutsch catalogue numbers rather than by the meaningless and arbitrary "quartet 14", or whatever, which may be popular with recording companies but is never used by chamber musicians? This is not a criticism, I hasten to add, merely a plea for help, as the Amazon list of tracks (as so often) is almost completely useless, making it very difficult to be sure exactly what is included in this set of discs.
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jul 2010 15:28:06 BDT
Mr. Mark A. Meldon says:
I'm sorry about my omission, Mr Teague! Here we are: CD1 = D956; CD2 = D810 & D703; CD3 = D804 & D112; and CD4 = D887. I hope that helps!
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 00:49:29 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 16 Mar 2012 01:21:40 GMT]
Posted on 21 Jan 2011 22:55:24 GMT
Frank T says:
Julian Day: sounds like you have an interesting neurological disorder if you can understand opus numbers but not sequential work numberings. Do the numberings of Beethoven symphonies confuse you too?
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Oct 2011 00:34:02 BDT
I am baffled by the aggression which my polite query has provoked among certain people. It is customary to refer to Schubert quartets by their keys or D numbers. Beethoven symphonies are numbered sequentially. Schubert's quartets are not. If you don't know that, Frank T, you should keep quiet, rather than parading your ignorance before others.
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Oct 2011 06:58:35 BDT
Frank T says:
I am perfectly aware that Schubert's works are referred to by D numbers. The issue here is not that I am parading my ignorance, but that you are snobbishly parading your knowledge under the pretext of not understanding the standard numbering of Schubert quartets among record companies. I managed to look them up on the Web in a few seconds; if you couldn't do the same it suggests you have more "knowledge" than common sense.
Anyway I don't care about ignorance or knowledge, I'm just someone who likes classical music. Sadly, a lot of people are put off it by the pomposity of its aficionados. (I've observed that it's the non-musicians among them who tend to be the most patronising.)
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Oct 2011 22:30:35 BDT
I didn't meant to be patronising and am sorry if that's how I came across. I am not a non-musician. On the contrary, I have been playing and performing quartets by Schubert (among many others) for more than 40 years. I know what I'm talking about. If I were to recommend Charles Dickens's "novel number 5", you might reasonably object that it would be more helpful for me to identify it by its usual title. You would not find it a particularly helpful response if I were to tell you to look it up on the internet. I don't think I said anything that warranted a response of such troll-like aggression on your part.
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Oct 2011 11:08:00 BDT
I agree, Julian. Your request was normal. Some people are so touchy! Maybe they just haven't gotten over Schubert's death whilst he was in the prime of his life.
I've been thinking about that a lot recently. I have a feeling that his late music is so glorious because he was unwell, perhaps had he lived into his 70s we wouldn't have the late sonatas or quartets and he would just be a name in a few history books. You're obviously an expert, what do you think?
In reply to an earlier post on 15 Nov 2011 00:32:05 GMT
I wouldn't describe myself as an expert, but for what my opinion is worth I think you're absolutely right. It's more than just coincidence that Schubert wrote his greatest works while he was ill. The evidence suggests that his declining health caused him to throw himself into composition with far greater intensity than ever before. I wonder, also, whether the death of Beethoven might have been a contributory factor. But I feel sure you're right in suggesting that his late music is so glorious "because he was unwell". I'm convinced there's a direct link.