Both the Mosaiques Quartet and the Lindsays have recently recorded the
Haydn Opus 76 String Quartets, the Mosaiques on period instruments and
the Lindsays on modern ones.  Both groups currently enjoy outstanding
reputations for their past recordings.  The Lindsays have recorded Haydn,
Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Smetana, and other composers to
sterling critical review.  The Mosaiques have recorded much Mozart and
Haydn, even venturing to Mendelssohn string quartets.  Specifically
concerning Haydn's string quartets, these two ensembles are generally
considered to provide among the best interpretations, the Mosaiques on
period instruments, the Lindsays on modern ones.

The purpose of this review is to compare their Opus 76 performances to
one another.  For additional variety, I've added three other Opus 76 sets:
the Tatrai on Hungaroton, the Tokyo on Sony, and the Kuijken on Denon.  Why
these three? I haven't listened to them lately.  The specifics for the five
sets are:

Mosaiques - Astree/Naive 8665 (1999)
Lindsays  - ASV 1076 (1998/99).
Tokyo     - Sony 53522 (1978/79).
Kuijken   - Denon 18045/46 (1995/96).
Tatrai    - Hungaroton 12812/13 (1964).

The Opus 76 Quartets involved some new musical directions for Haydn,
and I'll be commenting on those as the review of each string quartet
progresses.  Haydn's autograph scores of Opus 76 have not survived, but
it is assumed he wrote the six quartets in 1797.  These works are referred
to as the "Erdody Quartets" based on the title page of the Vienna edition
having the name of an Hungarian Count, Jozsef Erdody.

String Quartet Opus 76, No. 1 in G major - Immediately from the onset of
the first movement, Allegro con spirito, Haydn branches out on new paths.
The movement opens with three emphatically played chords; that's not
uncommon for Haydn.  However, in the past, Haydn would follow the chords
with a theme statement involving all four instruments in unison.  For the
G major first movement, the chords are followed by a very light melody
played only by the cello which is then repeated by each of the other
instruments.

Concerning the three initial chords and the light melody, I doubt anyone
would listen to it for the first time and think that anything masterful
would follow, but that's exactly what happens.  The first theme alone
presents a kaleidoscope of moods and emotions; it is literally stuffed
with variety:  humor, drama, happiness, power, anger, sharp bow strokes,
legato passages, speed, comfort, reflection, wide dynamic range, etc.
The movement has so much to offer.  While it would be easy to think of the
movement as a series of delightful and varied episodes, the genius of Haydn
is such that each passage flows so naturally into the next one, uniting the
movement into a unified whole.  In a great performance, the ensemble must
highlight each episode well; when the mood goes from humor to drama for
example, I need to feel a strong shift from one to the other.  At the
same time, it must all sound like a natural progression of musical ideas.
Another important consideration is that excellent forward momentum needs
to be maintained at all times.  This is a spirited Allegro which must
never drag at all.

The Tokyo String Quartet sure doesn't drag; the performance flows as
naturally as syrup while displaying the maximum amount of highlighting of
the various episodes.  It is a very exciting reading with a high degree of
power.  There's no problem with the softer passages, but I leave the Tokyo
feeling that I've experienced a revelation of the power and strength of the
movement.  The performance is outstanding.

The Tatrai Quartet is more relaxed than the Tokyo.  The reading is a fine
one but not special.  The Tatrai certainly cover all emotional bases with
an idiomatic quality.  Although tempo is essentially the same as in the
Tokyo performance, the Tatrai sound a little slower.  I think that's due
to the greater energy released by the Tokyo.

The first thing I noticed about the Lindsays is a timing for the first
movement of over eight minutes, about three minutes longer than the Tokyo
and Tatrai; this must be "repeat heaven".  The second thing I noticed is
the very low recorded sound volume; there is a clear need for boosting
your volume controls.  Unfortunately, that won't resolve the problems.
The Lindsays are often quite subdued, far more than the Tatrai Quartet.
Does the performance drag any? It does; I kept losing concentration.
In comparison to the Tatrai and Tokyo Quartets, the Lindsays are not
competitive.  Also, dragging the performance out to over eight minutes just
exacerbates the situation - I think the Lindsay's should have dispatched
this movement as quickly as possible and moved on to the second movement.
This is not good music-making.

Now on to the pungent sounds of period instruments.  The Kuijken String
Quartet start with the highly emphatic three chords played strongly; the
remainder of the movement is also strong and loaded with excitement.  But,
the Kuijken still are not as exciting as the Tokyo; also, the Tokyo do
better in the more serene passages.  I would give the Kuijken the nod
over the Tatrai.  Did I mention that the Kuijken also give an eight minute
performance? They do, and it comes off much better than with the Lindsays.

Almost nine minutes of music is what we get from the Mosaiques Quartet;
they are about 10% slower than the other four versions but often seem at
least 50% slower.  "Dragging" is a problem, although the Lindsays take
the crown for that feature.  Why? The Mosaiques have more life to them
than the Lindsays; I just would have preferred a faster tempo.  This
is an Allegro!!!  So the order of preference is Tokyo, Kuijken, Tatrai,
Mosaiques, and Lindsays.  Before I started this review, I would have
thought the order to be the exact opposite - listen and learn.

The second movement, Adagio sostenuto in C major, is noble music consisting
of four basic elements:  an opening subject of hymn-like character, a
lilting violin in dialogue with the cello, violin syncopations over the
chords of the other instruments, and a pulsating rhythm through much of
the movement.

The Mosaiques Quartet give a very good performance.  It has a pristine
quality which derives from both the instruments used and the performance
style.  However, I would prefer a reading of greater depth.  To a degree,
the Mosaiques don't convey much feeling except for the more dramatic
passages.  This is more a reading with priority on detail and clarity than
emotions.

The Tokyo String Quartet is not particularly deep either, although it does
score over the Mosaiques.  Also, the first violin sounds rather sour at
times.  This is a "warm" performance with reduced nobility.  Overall, the
Mosaiques Quartet is more rewarding.

The Tatrai Quartet uses a significantly slower tempo than either the
Mosaiques or Tokyo, and it is not advantageous.  The performance seems
very slow; the Tatrai have the opportunity at this slow tempo to provide
a "different" type of performance, but they simply play it slower with
a resulting potential for loss of interest.

The Lindsays are even slower than the Tatrai Quartet and less enjoyable as
well.  There isn't much of a hymn-like quality to the opening subject, and
I find that the Lindsays miss the mark frequently.  The performance is also
somewhat on the romantic side.

Does the Kuijken Quartet save the day? No.  Their opening subject has
"hymn" written all over it - that's excellent.  The lilting violin,
however, is not sufficiently projected.  Also, the performance does not
have the pristine quality of the Mosaiques.  My order of preference for
the second movement is Mosaiques, Tokyo, Kuijken, Tatrai, and Lindsays.
If the Lindsays keep going on the same track, their set will be eminently
disposable; I sincerely hope that doesn't happen.

The third movement is a very short Menuet with central trio (ABA).
Although the piece doesn't last long, there are a number of decisions
that the performers need to tackle.  Among them are:

To what degree do we emphasize the humor, jokes, and surprises of the
music?

How fast do we play the Menuet and what type of bounce do we want?

Do we slow down for the central trio and by how much?

Do we emphasize the plucked strings in the central trio?

I found it very interesting listening to how each ensemble approaches the
movement.  The Kuijken minimize the humor, jokes, and surprises; their
reading has a "dignity" to it which is missing in the other versions,
although it is questionable whether dignity should be a part of the music
at all.  The bounce to their menuet is strong.  They hardly slow down at
all in the central trio - that might be questionable as well.  There is
great emphasis in the plucked strings; I like that very much.  As some of
you know, I'm not much for humor in music.  With that in mind, I favor the
Kuijken over the other versions.  I feel they provide enough of the "fun"
stuff, and I love their dignity, bounce, and those plucked strings.  For
those who favor the humor, the Kuijken would be the least attractive
version.

The Lindsays, Tatrai, and Mosaiques Quartets are equally rewarding.  The
Lindsays max out on the humor and joking in the music, the Mosaiques slow
down the most in the central trio, and the Tatrai give a well balanced
account.  I place the Tokyo String Quartet at the bottom; they don't have
any particular virtues missing from the other versions, and their Menuet
is much too fast for my taste.  Instead of bounce, they offer a grinding
rhythm.  I don't find it highly musical.

The final movement, Allegro ma non troppo, begins in G minor in a somewhat
menacing fashion, although the piece eventually goes back to G major and
a more positive mood.  The movement is monothematic with three motifs
appearing frequently.  Of the two period instrument performances, I prefer
the Kuijken String Quartet.  They provide plenty of menace, capture the joy
of the music, and are highly musical throughout.  The Mosaiques Quartet is
even more menacing, but they often get fussy in their quest for
individuality and expression.

The Tatrai Quartet is very fast, but I don't notice any advantages;
expressiveness is lower and menace is negligible.  The Lindsays display
strong menace, playfulness, and impact.  Their reading is just a little
less enjoyable than the Kuijken String Quartet.  The Tokyo String Quartet
starts off well, maintains good momentum, and provides fine lyricism and
strength.  I'd place them at the level of the Mosaiques Quartet.

Summary for String Quartet No. 1 in G major:

My preferred version comes from the Kuijken Quartet.  This group is
never less than very good, and I consider their third and fourth movements
the best of the five versions.  In terms of general style, I liken the
performance to a "straight-shooter" one in that they use their period
instruments to proper advantage and stay on a well-defined path.  Some
would consider their reading relatively austere, sombre, and lacking in
exuberance and joy; I recall a few reviewers in periodicals expressing
this opinion.  Obviously, I don't share that view.

I also strongly recommend the Tokyo String Quartet.  The first movement
is easily my favorite of the G major, and the Tokyo give it an outstanding
performance; it's just simple.

I find the Tatrai Quartet's performance somewhat problematic.  They have
a tendency to be too civilized; angularity is low, and they don't like to
dig into the darker side of Haydn.

The Mosaiques and the Lindsays are the two versions which take chances and
with varying success.  Of the two, the Mosaiques make the better decisions,
although their tempo in the first movement was too slow.  They are always
interesting, regardless of the results.  The Lindsays are not good in the
first two movements, being too slow and subdued, athough they improve in
the latter two movements.

Overall, the readings of the Tokyo and Kuijken Quartets are essential.  The
Mosaiques Quartet is very worthy.  The Lindsays and the Tatrai Quartet are
not up to snuff in this company.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]