The
Shostakovich Quartet was formed in 1967 by four students
of the Moscow Conservatory, three of whom had been friends
since childhood. The second violin, the odd man out, sometimes
varied but was usually Sergei Pischugin. They
took the name of Shostakovich for their group in 1979,
mostly because they played so much of the composer’s music.
They have also recorded all of his quartets, the piano
quintet and other string pieces. Although not as famous
an ensemble as the Borodin or Beethoven Quartets, their
intensity and constant urge to get to the bottom of a piece
put them in the front rank of Russian string quartets of
their time.
The
Shostakovich Quartet naturally did not limit themselves
to the music of their namesake composer and their recordings
of the Borodin quartets and two of the Glazunov are very
fine. One of their best-known recordings is this set of
the Complete Music for String Quartet of Tchaikovsky. A
word is in order here as the set also includes five short
pieces from 1863-4 and the B-minor Quartet movement. There
is also here the Adagio molto for quartet and harp,
but this set does not include the early pieces for quartet
with double bass or the elegy for I. V. Samarin for quartet
(later arranged for string orchestra).
As
mentioned above, the five pieces for string quartet from1863-4
were examples of the composer trying out his musical resources
and, along with a number of other pieces written at this
time, were not meant for performance or to be played together.
All of them are enjoyable and show some inkling of basic
Tchaikovsky traits. The first (in D-major) is rhythmically
typical Tchaikovsky, if in little else; the third (E-major)
shows his predilection for sequences and the second (B-flat)
his struggles with form. The longest, in E-minor, is also
the least interesting, giving one no idea of what the composer
would do with this particular key. The fifth (G-major)
again shows him trying to consolidate his technique. These
five works are not of great import, but are definitely
more interesting than the Adagio molto for string quartet
and harp. This sounds like an ensemble tailor-made for
a composer like Tchaikovsky, and the introductory material
is interesting, but it is developed lugubriously and the
harp and strings do not blend together at all as in similar
works of Ravel or Bax . The Quartet Movement in B-flat
was actually performed and is a more substantial piece
with a good first subject. Unfortunately the second subject
material is not as interesting, even with it’s use of a
Ukrainian folk melody that would appear again in the later Scherzo
ala Russe. But the latter part shows some interesting
harmonic experimentation and the coda is quite poignant.
This
string music written in the mid-sixties did not much please
the composer, who was heard by his friend LaRoche at this
time to say that he would never write a string quartet
or a work for piano and orchestra. By 1871 he had changed
his mind and in between bouts of work on his opera The
Oprichnik produced his first string Quartet Op.11,
which was premiered at an all-Tchaikovsky recital on 28
March 1871. It was well received and shows a lot of advances
over the music of five or six years before. By this time
the composer had already written the first symphony and Romeo
and Juliet. He is much more assured in his blending
of instruments and is far more willing to experiment harmonically.
Not only is his material more powerful, but he knows what
to do with it.
As
the three quartets have been recorded many times, I will
devote extra attention to aspects of the Shostakovich Quartet’s
performances. In the first movement of Quartet #1 their
ensemble playing is very good, although not as smooth as
that of the Borodin Quartet. They handle the second subject
very well although the recording somewhat lets them down
here and in the last third of the movement. The second
movement contains the theme that made Tolstoy cry and this
part of the piece has been played ad nauseum, a
practice the composer despised. The players here wisely
play it as the second movement of a quartet without any
intimation of anything else. Alexander Galkovsky, the violist,
plays his part beautifully in the second subject. The players
begin the Scherzo energetically, but at too rapid a tempo
for me. Things settle down with the trio-one of the most
beautiful moments in this on these discs. In the last movement
the players bring out a light-hearted element that is not
always heard in performances of this piece. This time the
cellist, Alexander Korchagin, is center-stage, both in
the reprise of the second subject and at the end.
The
2nd Quartet, of 1874, shows how Tchaikovsky continued to
perfect his art. Now he had two symphonies and an opera
or two behind him. The beginning of the first movement
contains some of the composer’s most daring harmonic experiments
of this period. There is a masterful development of the
basic material and the dramatic pace is maintained to the
end of the movement. Unfortunately Korchagin, who shone
so brightly in the last movement of the first quartet,
is a little out of step with his colleagues in the first
movement of the second. The charming scherzo of the second
quartet demonstrates the composer’s evolving ability to
use both harmony and instrumentation in his unique fashion.
Galkovsky again plays beautifully and the entire group
shows an unusual lightness of touch, as they did in the
first quartet. The andante shows the composer creating
his melodic material from sequences. Korchagin again shines
and the group demonstrates a great ability to make each
instrumental line stand out distinctly while not losing
sight of the overall structure. The finale is a little
disappointing after the intense slow movement, but the
players don’t let this affect them. They bring out the
charm of the first part of the movement and make the fugal
section more interesting than in other performances. The
end of the movement is full of brio, ending with a beautiful
rendition of the staccato passages.
The
Quartet No. 3 was written two years after the second, inspired
by news of the death of a friend and colleague at the Conservatory,
Ferdinand Laub, who had also been the first violinist in
the premier of the Op. 11 quartet. While most of the mournful
feelings are in the third movement, the first has plenty
of sadness too; sadness that is demonstrated by Tchaikovsky’s
increasing ability to use his distinctive style in the
service of self-expression. The Shostakovich players start
off very well but bog down a little with the first subject.
It should be pointed out that this is the longest of all
movements in the quartets and for some people goes on too
long. Things pick up with the second subject and the four
players are fine in the second half of the movement, with
two violins performing the end wonderfully. The scherzo
is played in a very sprightly manner, although I found
in not as well-played as the corresponding movement in
the second quartet. This is a shame because the movement
is a textbook example of Tchaikovsky’s ideas on the scherzo
form. The slow movement is Tchaikovsky’s formal elegy for
his friend Laub. That this movement is a deeply lyrical
one does not prevent it from containing some of the most
advanced harmony and also structural experiments in all
of the quartets. The players show a good understanding
of the emotional import of this movement, pacing it exactly
right. The last movement contains the best playing in this
recording-the ensemble is together and at the right pace.
It’s a fitting conclusion to this set of the three quartets.
As we said above, the Shostakovich Quartet is notable for
their powerful playing and their ability to get deeply
into the emotions of a work. These particular aspects as
opposed to attention to structural complexities or an objective
distance from the music are what are demonstrated in this
entire set.
These
recordings were made for the State Radio-TV at the Moscow
Central Recording Studio about thirty years ago, presumably
for broadcast performance. The first and third quartets
and the movement from Souvenir de Florence were recorded
in 1976 and the second quartet two years later. The rest
of the pieces date from 1973 to 1975. The originals were
remastered for Regis by Paul Arden-Taylor of Dinmore Records.
Mr. Arden-Taylor has done a very good job, although some
things in the originals can’t be made right. There is a
blunted quality to some of the recording, especially in
the Quartet Movement and the first Quartet that takes away
from the conviction of the playing. In the 2nd quartet
the upper strings are shrill while the cello reverberates
too much, especially in the first two movements. The last
two movements sound better. In terms of recording the Quartet
#3 is the cleanest of the lot; no complaints here. The
smaller pieces also sound well. Obviously the engineer
in 1978 was not the same one that was in charge at the
earlier recording sessions.
The
major competitors to these recordings are the two sets
by the Borodin Quartet, one historical one on Chandos and
a more recent one on Teldec. Without comparing the Borodin
performances to each other, one must mention that both
sets comprise the three quartets, the B-flat minor movement
and the complete Souvenir de Florence. Neither
Borodin set contains the early works heard on the Regis
set. On the other hand, the Regis set contains only one
movement of Op. 70. Since completeness is therefore impossible,
one must choose between the more serene Borodin performances
and the slightly rougher, but heartfelt Shostakovich ones.
William Kreindler
BUY NOW
AmazonUK
|
|
The Shostakovich
Quartet (Andrei Sishlov, violin I; Sergei Pischugin, violin
II; Alexander Golkovsky, viola; Alexander
Korchagin, cello) 
