Die Streichquartette Doppel-CD

Bartok's String Quartets are often mentioned as the greatest contributions to the string quartet genre since Beethoven's Late Quartets. They make for a deep, intense listening experience, and like Beethoven's late quartets, it is difficult to fully grasp the enormity of the music in one or two takes. However, I found that, just like with Beethoven's late string quartets (especially Op.131), if one truly approaches them with an open mind and gives them a chance on their own terms, fully appreciating that this is unique music, one can have a transcendent experience somewhat similar to late Beethoven, but updated for the 20th Century. At first they will seem difficult, in light of the heavy chromaticism, dissonance, and tonal ambiguities. Those who only know Bartok from his most popular work, the Concerto for Orchestra, are in for a shock. Actually, the Concerto for Orchestra is somewhat of an anomaly; most of Bartok's compositions are "difficult" works, however, the more you hear them, the less difficult they become, and, ultimately, they offer many unique rewards! I would need a few hundred pages to attempt a formal analysis of the structure and Bartokian(?) tonality v. atonality. Suffice it to say that these are uncompromising works with a lot to listen for. The most uncompromising or "difficult" works are the middle quartets. Nonetheless, those middle quartets are my favorites. It sure sounds like Beethoven's Op.131 quartet was a significant influence. I believe Bartok wrote the 3rd and 4th quartets after hearing Berg's Lyric Suite, and while Bartok wasn't a strict serial or 12-tone composer, the middle quartets do manage to somewhat occupy a similar sound-world as Berg's L.S. What's amazing is that this uncompromisingly dissonant music is juxtaposed with a good deal of fairly genial Hungarian folk and dance music with a strong rhythmic drive, as well as some interesting polyphony and thematic arcs, somewhat similar to late Beethoven. Furthermore, Bartok directs his string players to play their instruments in unusual ways in certain sections. Although the music may initially seem tough, particularly the middle quartets, they often conclude with crowd-pleasing, rhythmically-driven flurries of rustic folk music and dance. Listening to this music is a special and unique experience that will make you happy you put the time in to appreciate one of the great artistic legacies of the 20th Century.

As for the Takacs Quartet, they really knock it out of the park. Their big sound, aggressive approach, and ability to occasionally exaggerate to bring clarity to difficult sections is perfect for the music. Their virtuosity is jaw-dropping and they're recorded in excellent digital audio sound.

Of all the recordings I've heard of the six Bartok string quartets this set presents - in my opinion - the best example of how the composer would have wanted the music played. All the groups performed this masterwork with technical accuracy, but the Takács Quartet reflects much more convincingly the combination of Bartok's intellectual cleverness with the down-to-earth soul of the peasant culture from which he derived much of his inspiration (and a number of the themes). To put it briefly, this collection swings!

It's great music, probably the greatest chamber music of the first half of the 20th century. It's superbly performed, both technically and musically. All in all, an impressive listening experience.

The CD was excellent, and same as I expected.

I know I'm going to find myself on the wrong side of Bartokians with this review. But I have to say what I have to say; and if you disagree that's my bad luck. At least allow me that I've lived with these quartets for nearly half a century, read the scores and owned six recordings over that time. All the same, it's been a rocky passage, a long love-and-hate affair.
Now there are writers who have the gall (I know not on what grounds) to compare these quartets with Beethoven. And this is my problem: It sounds to me like a category error, like defining something by something else, as if e.g. there was no difference between diamonds and graphite, because they have a similar atomic structure.
Consider for a moment Shostakovich's late quartets. Compared to the extremely tight mesh of Bartok's works, those of Shostakovich are certainly loose, repetitive and "baggy monsters", quite apart from a continued leaning on traditional harmony even in serially organised movements. This is quite Beethovenish; and looking at opp. 130-32, we may well find analogous "problems" there (and indeed some "almost anticipations" of Shostakovich). This is apt to throw some light on the issue.
Bartok's quartets are among the "tightest" compositions ever, down to his mania for timing scores to the second. Thus we have an opposition between "wasteful/ample" and "economic/tight" that becomes meaningless at the very moment when (as Beethoven wrote) "the spirit wants to speak". But what kind of spirit prevails in Bartok? Bartok is a craftsman, a note spinner par excellence, who is an expert at hiding his yearning melodies and his folk tunes under a forbidding exterior and chains them to sundry technical exercises like fugues and canons, which are almost meaningless in terms of the harmonies in which they are clad. In a word, his quartets are intellectual and elitist toys, deliberately written in a mode of affront to public sentiments, as the surest way of acquiring a reputation as a "difficult" master of his metier.
There is hardly any space in this for "the spirit to speak". Bartok makes no allowance for, and gives precious little space to it. This, I believe, is the essence of the interpretive problem that lies dormant in his compositions, as a challenge.
Under such auspices, certain common performance criteria seem to be out of place. Any quartet player who articulates e.g. one of his cello melodies to draw out some quality of humanity (or even spirituality) is instantly falsifying that spirit. Any quartet that plays one of these compositions 5 second longer than prescribed, ought to hang their collective heads in shame. These quartets must be played as if they were games with fixed rules, second by second, with absolute fidelity. Just about the only licence they have is how loud or soft, because Bartok could not after all (perhaps to his chagrin) specify the exact decibels of volume required for each note. Had it been possible you may rest assured he would have done it.
Bearing these circumstances in mind in reviewing the present album, I will say it gave me a lot of pleasure. I find their manner refreshing and enthusiastic. Some previous recording I had (Juilliard, Novak, Emerson) gave me very little or no pleasure at all. I admit I did not bother to check whether the Takacs group adhered closely to Bartok's markings, especially time. I think those markings are an attempt by the composer to forestall - indeed forbid - musicians to interpret the music. It is in fact in virtue of ignoring this obsessive trait and disregarding the control freak that musicians rescued Bartok's music for our world, which might otherwise have decided that is not worth perpetuating. So: full marks to the Takacs Quartet for their very excellent readings. Their's is the first album in many a long year that I actually enjoyed, because they get stuck into it with enthusiasm, a snappy attack and a determination to turn these paper constructions into vibrant music.