Track Listing

Disc 1:

1. Moderato
2. Moderato
3. Allegro molto
4. Allegro
5. Overture
6. Recitative and Romance
7. Valse
8. Theme with Variations
9. Allegretto
10. Moderato con moto
11. Allegro non troppo
12. Adagio
13. Moderato

Disc 2:

1. Allegretto
2. Andantino
3. Allegretto
4. Allegretto
5. Allegro non troppo
6. Andante
7. Moderato - Allegretto
8. Allegretto
9. Moderato con moto
10. Lento
11. Lento - Allegretto

Disc 3:

1. Allegretto
2. Lento
3. Allegro
4. Largo
5. Allegro molto
6. Allegretto
7. Largo
8. Largo
9. Moderato con moto
10. Adagio
11. Allegretto
12. Adagio
13. Allegro
14. Andante
15. Allegretto furioso
16. Adagio
17. Allegretto

Disc 4:

1. Elegy. Adagio
2. Polka. Allegretto
3. Introduction - Andantino
4. Scherzo - Allegretto
5. Recitative - Adagio
6. Etude - Allegro
7. Humoresque - Allegro
8. Elegy - Adagio
9. Finale - Moderato
10. Moderato
11. Allegretto

Disc 5:

1. Allegretto
2. Adagio
3. Allegretto
4. No. 1, Elegy
5. No. 2, Serenade
6. No. 3, Intermezzo
7. No. 4, Nocturne
8. No. 5, Funeral March
9. No. 6, Epilogue

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #104162 in Music
• Released on: 2000-01-11
• Number of discs: 5
• Format: Box set

Amazon.com's Best of 2000
Can an American string quartet grasp the power of Shostakovich's 15 string quartets? By the sounds of this incredible cycle, the answer is a resounding Yes! Capturing every nuance of Shostakovich's emotionally gripping, sometimes humorous, often angst-filled compositions, the Emersons deliver very likely the finest performances of these works available. --Jason Verlinde

Customer Reviews

Fine, but ultimately found wanting.
The Emerson Quartet play with considerable refinement and technical skill and there are places where they offer genuine insight into these works, but I would venture that when the work is at its most eccentric and personal (for example in No 11) they are found wanting. When I first began to explore this set I was impressed, but over repeated listenings they have failed to grow, which means that had I heard these performances in the recital hall I would have been more than happy, but repeated listening on disk brings out the short-comings. Too often they miss the brutal irony and perverse humour in Shostakovich, a quality which is crucial to a complete understanding of the composer. If anything the Emerson set takes away some of the strangeness and makes these works sound well written, but more like conventional quartet writing. The tragedy which seems to lay beneath the surface of even the most apparently sunny of these quartets is often missing, or else over-stated in a way that feels like a point is being made rather than a neccessary condition being communicated. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Shostakovich's cycle of quartets represents the high point for the medium in the twentieth century (yes greater even than the Bartok) and it is good to see a quartet of the front rank, such as the Emerson, recording them, but if it is depth and an ultimately rewarding set of readings you are looking for then stick with the Borodin or Fitzwilliam sets, neither set is so glossy, nor so technically assured, but both it seems to me, are closer to the enigmatic and equivocal truth of Shostakovich.

some of the most important string quartet music.
If you are looking to purchase a complete cycle of Shostakovich's quartets, I cannot tell you which to buy. After much consideration, I chose the Emerson's performance of the cycle, but your own desires might be different. Your choices should likely come down to the Borodin, Fitzwillian, and Emerson versions, and you should read lots of reviews for all of those. Those first two cover the "Russian spirit" of the music best, according to critical consensus, and since both ensembles worked with the composer, they probably have the most credibility. They also are more appealing in terms of price. Despite being often criticized as shallow, I chose the Emerson set for three reasons: I have their Bartok cycle which I think is mind-blowing (I have listened to lots of other interpretations of Bartok's quartets, particularly the third and fourth, and the Emersons have everyone beat). Secondly, I thought I would enjoy an "external" interpretation of these quartets -- fresh performances of the quartets qua music with less overt "Russianness" (nothing wrong with Russianness, mind you). Finally, the Emersons recorded this set live (the only audience noise is applause at the end of each piece), and I thought that might be more intense. Although these are the only performances of these works I have heard and I cannot compare them favorably or unfavorably to others, I think they are very good. Many critics say the Emersons often play too fast, which may be true, but i will attest to the dazzling rush are capable of giving the music. Whether or not it is "too fast" (or "too slow" for that matter) is not relevant to whether the given speed is a factor in the enjoyment one derives from the music's composite. Personally, I think this ensemble is oozing both passion and technical gleam - can't ask for much more than that.

A good introduction to these quartets is probably the Borodin set on Virgin, which covers quartets no. 2, 3, 7, 8, and 12. It is two discs for the price of one and it might be a good item to check out.

As to the music itself, the cycle is about 95 percent outstanding. Shostakovich adapted modern elements to his personal style, a style emotionally connected to the plight of the Russian and Jewish people under Soviet tyranny. It was also a style that earned him scorn quite a bit of scorn from the Soviet authorities. Shostakovich's music draws from modern elements, but his music is considerably more tonal and melodic than many other twentieth-century quartets, although no.12 is particularly dissonant and atonal. It took awhile for Shostakovich to write his first string quartet -- the first was written after he had already tackled five symphonies. This quartet and the next few are relatively bright, occasionally trimmed with irony or sadness or danger. But as tragedy piled up in Shostakovich's life, his music began to reflect deep melancholy and despair. It amounts to some of the saddest, darkest music ever. Later still (starting at about no.11), the quartets become even more depressing, abstract works progressively away from conventions as Shostakovich's health deteriorated. These are more dissonant and unsettling on the whole, with use of serial tones rows. There're a couple of parts that I find kind of tedious, but I'm obsessive about strange things, and for all I know that might be a performance issue rather than a compositional one.

I can't talk about the music in-depth. That would take hours and you would be better served learning about these compositions from experts. i will conclude merely by saying that Shostakovich's quartets are some of the best music i have heard, with numerous amazing subtleties that continue to reveal themselves. I am very pleased with this set.

Fitzwilliam versus Ermerson -- which to choose?
For many buyers the choice for a complete cycle of the Shostakovich quartets will come down to three: the Borodin, Emerson, and Fitzwilliam quartets. I own the latter two and can offer a comparison.

Fitzwilliam: This set, made between 1975-77 in a church in Surrey, has the advantage of price. Although the 15 quartets are spread out over 6 CDs as compared to 5 for the Emersons, Decca offers this cycle at roughly half the cost of the DG cycle (it's even cheaper on the used market). The performances eschew Russian soul, grit, and emotional extremes such as one hears from the Borodin Quartet. The Fitzwilliam Quartet sounds soulful but stops short of impassioned. As much as it is possible, they make this music friendly and easy to listen to without sacrificing all of its bite and sarcasm. They are not a virtuoso group (English critics actually praise them for this lack, as if the Emersons' technical mastery was a sign of glibness), so individual solo lines, of which there are many in these quartets, sound medium well played, not dazzling. Decca's sound as transfered to CD can be a bit shrill and congested but is certainly good enough. One large missing ingredient is tonal variation--the Fitzwilliam doesn't search out the peculiar tonalities that are implied in Shostakovich's string writing, which can be eerie, ghostly, brutal, and caustic by turns.

Emerson: Recorded in Aspen at intervals between 1994 and 1999, these are live performances from the music festival and are thus not ideal sonically. What's sometimes lacking is solidity and warmth. Even so, the recorded sound is considerably more detailed than in the Fitzwilliam set, or any other of the four I listened to. When this cycle was first issued in 1999 it swept the field for good reason. The Emersons are head and shoulders above any other quartet for sheer virtuosity in this music. Not that virtuosity is required very often, but the many solo lines are rendered with exquisite technique, and the Emersons pay very close attention to changes in tonality. As a result, these performances are more varied and interesting to listen to than any competitor that I sampled (including the Fitzwilliam, Brodsky, Borodin, St. Petersburg, and Shostakovich quartets on various labels).

The drawbacks are price (it's hard to find even a used set for under $70) and the prevalent accusation, from some quarters, that the Emersons lack Russian soul--they are supposedly too cool, detached, and efficient. Yet this charge can be turned around to say that the Emersons make Shostakovich sound more modern by removing a layer of sentiment. It's really up to the listener to decide, yet I found that cool detachment is not prevalent here--not by any means--and the reviewer below who thinks that the tempos are uniformly too fast is not aware of the field; the Emersons are not extreme in their allegros, at least not very often, and when they paly a movement for virtuosic speed, it's almost alwaays to good effect.

I bbught this set because I heard the Emersons play Shostakovich in concert on two occasions, and I was deeply struck by how much better these quartets sound when they are given superlative musicianship. I am not one to believe that Shostakovich was a great master of quartet writing, not compared to Bartok, Schoenberg, and Janacek among moderns. But he found an idiom, often spare and therefore one-dimenisonal, that is easy to absorb. The Emersons go a step further and give that idiom all kinds of shading and colors that often make it sound better than it is.

In sum, I did what many collectors befoe me have done. I gave away the Fitzwilliam set, which was a good stop gap for many years, and relish the Emerson set as a great achievement, especially for a non-Russian ensemble.