Heroes of the Miaskovsky
discography (see my long essay on their
recordings of the quartets elsewhere
on this site) the Taneyev Quartet
has been equally devoted to Shostakovich,
all of whose quartets they recorded
and of whose last quartet they gave
the premiere. They have also exhaustively
investigated the chamber works of the
composer whose name they took, as well
as recording all Schubert’s quartets
and those under discussion here, those
by Beethoven. So, a word about the Taneyev
Quartet. Founded in 1946 whilst they
were students at the Leningrad Conservatory
they were until 1963 known as the Quartet
of the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra,
in whose ranks they all played. The
original line-up was Vladimir Ovcharek
and Grigory Lutsky, violins, Vassarion
Soloviev, viola and Benjamin Morozov,
cello. Ovcharek alone remains from the
original 1946 quartet, an indomitable
embodiment of style, whilst Alexander
Stang is now second violin, having replaced
Lutsky in 1984 and Vladimir Stopichev
has taken over the viola chair. Joseph
Levinzon had taken over the cellist
position way back in 1967.
The Beethoven quartets
are contained in nine single CDs, all
available singly, and were recorded
in St Petersburg during the course of
the 1980s – a makeweight Sextet for
horns and quartet was recorded in 1971.
Of the Op. 18 set they
bring out the Haydnesque charm of the
opening of the quartet in F but don’t
press the contrasts. They establish
the musical aesthetic that remains consistent
throughout the set; well equalized tonally,
quite serious, spacious, often in fact
slow, without great tonal effulgence
– clean and patrician playing. They
see in the slow movement I think an
embryonic taste of the later Beethoven
because they vest it with an extremely
slow tempo and stress the occasional
harmonic strangeness that stalks it.
Though the Scherzo is marked Allegro
molto it really isn’t up to tempo in
the Taneyev’s hands. The second of the
set stresses the stately formality but
takes the Adagio cantabile at a more
flowing tempo (as they generally due
when confronted by a cantabile instruction).
They are good at bringing out the multi-faceted
humour of the first movement of Op.
18/4 but remain aristocratic in phrasing
and deign glutinous displays of tonal
exaggeration. They far prefer to bring
out all the rococo elegance of the Scherzo.
Highlights of the third disc are the
bright opening of No. 5 and its well-phrased
Andante cantabile in which the theme
and variations flow fluidly. Only their
view of the finale mars the performance
for me – very strangely becalmed and
unanimated. The last of the Op. 18 set
has a fine slow movement and in the
Maliconia section of the finale the
Taneyev play with a kind of rapt dispassion.
Their quite lean and
considered approach is maintained in
the Razumovsky Quartets. The first sees
Ovcharek cannily vary his expressive
shading in the slow movement but clearly
these Russians know something others
don’t about the Theme Russe finale because
it’s exceptionally devitalised. I liked
the resinous exchanges between the fiddles
in the opening movement of Op. 59/2
whilst their slow movement is one of
the slower ones on record. It is well
sustained though and interior though
not as moving as, say, the Budapest
(my favourite happens to be their late,
1960 recording). The Taneyev’s Prestos
tend to be of a piece; genial, clear,
generally slower and more considered
than their rivals and so it is here.
Their approach, structurally at least,
in the slow movement of Op. 59/3 reminds
of the 1952 Vegh traversal but the Minuet
is forceful and brisk and not at all
grazioso as marked. They start
the fugal passage of the finale well
enough but they do tend to play safe
with the tempo and whilst their dynamic
range is reasonable it is sometimes
flattened out by the recording level.
Op. 74’s slow movement
has a songful momentum with some excellent
work from violist Stopichev but whilst
Op. 95 has some well judged tempi the
contrastive material of the Allegro
con brio tends to be stretched out too
much. There is tremendous clarity and
concentration in these performances
if sometimes a certain detachment, as
evidenced in the drawn out Adagio of
Op. 127. The Taneyev remain stoic, with
a jovial middle section, and generally
clear-eyed. This extends to the Scherzo
which is quite heavy and slow. I have
broadly similar things to say about
the companion last quartets. In Op.
130 they tend to be businesslike in
the passagework of the opening movement
and whilst they take an affectionate
look at the Alla danza tedesca they
see the following Cavatina more in terms
of the earlier movement – it’s less
complexly moving as a result. They include
a good performance of the Grosse fugue
as a separately tracked item at the
end of the work so one could programme
it in place of the finale if one wished.
The opening of Op. 131 is expressive
without exaggeration - another constant
of these performances – and much here
is convincing. I did baulk at the slack
Presto (Movement 5) however. They catch
the wildness of the vivace second movement
of Op. 135 and are moving in a patrician
way in the grave introduction
to the finale. Op. 132 receives a fine
all-round performance. The slow movement
is almost as slow as the Léner
Quartet’s 1930s traversal, which is
saying something, but they lack the
extraordinarily moving charge that the
older players managed to impart – still
one of the best accounts on record.
Otherwise the Taneyev take a balanced
and sane view of the music.
The sound is not too
over-expansive though sometimes it can
expand just a touch too much for clarity
of articulation. In the main though
it’s warm and fine. I enjoyed listening
to the Taneyev Quartet. Instrumentally
they are gifted, intellectually they
are properly engaged; their slow movements
and slow tempi generally point to profundity
and elevation of expression. In the
end though I found myself relatively
unmoved by them, finding them rather
too often devitalised and somewhat aloof.
Jonathan Woolf
Taneyev
Quartet 
