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]