Monday, 10.19.09, 6:00 am
Haydn 2009 – The String Quartets (Part 3)
op.17
.
.
Haydn’s op.17 quartets are closely related to his set of op.9 quartets and were composed in 1771. Haydn listed them in his catalogue of works (the “Entwurf-Katalog”) in the order of no.2, 1, 4, 6, 3, and 5—the numbering attached to them nowadays stems from the first edition by J.J.Hummel (Amsterdam). What is true for op.9 (“Like all quartets before op.33, they get short shrift—like all quartets of Haydn that get short shrift, they’re still superb. [F]or the ambitious Haydn lover, they’re joyously requisite listening…”) is equally true of op.17. If anyone could have reason to complain about these works, it’s the second violinist who gets much less interesting work assigned than the soloistic first violinist—for a greater share of melody, the second violin has to wait until the later quartets. But that’s hardly a concern for the listener who concerns himself with the lovely results, not the particular division of labor employed to get there.
Haydn was alone at the forefront of the four-movement string quartet when he wrote these quartets in 1771; the fruitful back-and-forth with Mozart did not start until the years after his 1781 set of op.33 quartets. So he experiments on his own, although given the similarity in structure to op.9 (Moderato opening-Menuet-Adagio-Presto/Allegro Finale), the process might better be understood as one of maturing and cultivating the form, rather than experimenting with it. (Something Haydn was more prone to do in ‘wayward’ ways in his early symphonic writing.) The progress is very subtle (especially compared to the difference between the opp.1 & 2 Divertimentos and op.9, or op.17 and op.20), but when pointed out, the slow movements can be noticed to be more complex (“opera without words”), the instruments slightly more evenly weighed, the Menuets have less an entr’acte character, and there is a deliberate juxtaposition of extremes.
Recordings of these early quartets are slowly beginning to sprout, after they had been available only as part of complete surveys. That’s still the case with most of the choices, but at least the more recent additions to the Haydn String Quartet bonanza are also available separately. If some of the recordings mentioned below are not yet easily available in the US, they will be within due time. (Specifically the Arcana and Tacet labels are in the process of smoothing out North American distribution.)
The Auryn Quartet (Tacet) have a cultured elegance about them that is not to be mistaken for “boring”. It simply means that they produce a cultured sound, play in tune, and offer wonderful ensemble work in a generous acoustic. They, the London Haydn Quartet (Hyperion, HIP) and the Quatuor Festetics (Arcana, HIP) play all the repeats, unlike the completion. The latter HIP quartet, whose op.9 I commented on as being the work of “spirited amateurs” (which wasn’t actually meant derisively), are difficult to pin down; as a historical performance quartet, one might expect them to go into Haydn quartets with gusto and brisk speeds, but throughout op.17 they tend to be very leisurely. Their first movement of op.17/2 (Moderato) makes the Kodály Quartet (Naxos) sound like regular speed demons, which is a rare achievement. (The Naxos-Hungarians sound like they are vibrato-sailing through these works like on a big piece of butter.) But where the Buchberger Quartet (Brilliant, HIP) sounds as though they never had enough rehearsal time for op.17, the Festetics rarely leave something to be desired as regards intonation and coherence (the Presto of op.17/5 is a right mess, though). Their darkly sinewy tone (they are the only ones to tune down to A=421Hz) is not conventionally beautiful in the way the Auryn’s or Kodály’s is, but much more satisfactory than the Buchberger’s.
The latter, though not without truly exciting moments, are just too uncouth. This has nothing to do with a choice of “excitement over prettiness”, it’s simply a matter of not playing consistently well in these op.17 quartets. The first violinist is downright sloppy in the faster movements and in that case the spacious, yet very dry acoustic doesn’t help. It’s a really a shame, because all that which is good about the Buchberger’s is very good; they do manage for a joyous liveliness that’s great fun and demonstrate individual moments of very involving ensemble work. But then they irritate and give it all away with some blunder again… like a murderously dragged op.17/4 Menuet. Yikes.
The slow, detached way of the London Haydn Quartet may not be to everyone’s taste, but it offers an intonation that no other ensemble matches even remotely. That’s not to say that all others are sloppy, nor even that such painstaking precision (the Hagen Quartett has nothing on these guys) is necessary. It isn’t. But it is impressive and very notable in direct comparison. Since they take all repeats, slow movements with them can take twice as long as with the repeat-skipping others. If your temperament allows you to move along leisurely through their finely honed exploration of Haydn, rather than scurry about in the assumption that blundering is historically more correct than sauntering, then the London Haydn Quartet and their finely nuanced performances could just be the ticket. Otherwise nuance could be their downfall: Anyone lacking the patience to hear their Adagios out might miss the fact that every detail—dynamics, phrasing, voicing—is lavished with extraordinary care. And lest anyone get the idea that they are only relaxed, their last movements are the fastest among these five groups; blazing feats that sacrifice none of the dead-on precision of their (truly) slow movements.
The Auryn offer the recording about which one can’t make any complaints; it has no kinks, no weaknesses, no extremes. It’s a celebration of feel-good Haydn without making it quite as obvious as the Kodály. The matter-of-fact playing of the Quatuor Festetics is difficult to pin down; spirited it may be, but not immune to sounding stodgy when they slow down: Their short-breathed phrasing can’t always withstand the slow tempos as well as the long-spun lines of the London Haydn Quartet can. Not just because it’s nice to get the repeats (I’m not ideological about it and in live performance might prefer an elegant incision, but for home-consumption this music lends itself to hearing in full) the choice would be between Auryn, LHQ, and Festetics for op.17. It’s a most ungrateful task, solvable only by choosing two: the Auryn for non-HIP beauty and moderation and the LHQ for their detail and remarkable contrast between furiously fast movements and their otherwise calm pace. Their thin-ish HIP sound is made up for with plenty elegance.
This continues “The String Quartets (Part 1)” and “The String Quartets (Part 2)“
See also:
Haydn 2009 – The Seven Last Words
Haydn 2009 – Fricsay’s Symphonies
Haydn 2009 – Minetti Quartet(t)
Haydn 2009 – Harmoniemesse
