Mats Norrman to Mike Leghorn:

>>It's mysteriously trivial for such a serious quartet.
>
>Too many times you say exactly to the point what is right but seemingly you
>don't know at all you do.  The rest of your "study" is not worth replying
>to at all.

I don't agree.  Mike pointed out some curious things at Beethoven's op
132, and I think that they are worth of interest, though don't agree with
the conclusions that he gets.  Looking at the bars 206-208 of the second
movement, there's indeed something that could be a variation of the initial
motive (c# - d# - a -g#, being the initial motive g# -a- f - e).  I don't
think that any of this was taken from Mozart, and that the resembling with
the Jupiter symphony is too vague and (ultimately) casual.  But ths is just
my opinion.  However, I like when Mike submits to our discussion things
like this.

>The Emerson Quartett is my preferrance (what doesn't say it has to be
>yours), as they seems to be able to play all the quartetts; the early, the
>middle and the late, excellently, and make sence of that quirky Beethoven.

I like the Emersons playing Bartok (the set of the 6 Bartok's quartets at
DG is superb), but I don't like them much playing Beethoven.  They usually
play too fast.  And the Heiliger Dankgesang in their recording of op 132
sounds too much "eines Genesenen".

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]