Thank you for the tip. I was able to secure tickets for my entire family for a Cleveland performance next month. Looking forward to it!

I hope you enjoy it. You are fortunate to live close enough to Cleveland. Great city for good music.

Do you happen to know what's on the program?

Bravo! Thanks for the tip also. They just happen to be nearby on the eve a young cellist's birthday (in our family, of course).

Pray that they have tickets left.

We've enjoyed the Cleveland Orchestra, though not often enough. We're able to take our daughters this time for only $5, which is astounding. Here's the link to the Cleveland performance:

http://www.clevelandchambermusic.org/20081007-guarneri.php

Oh, wow.

Two great Beethoven quartets; what a way to go out. That could well leave a mark on your soul.


exlibris:

I hope you can not only get a seat, I hope it is one where the young cellist can peek through the music stands and see Mr. Wiley's technique.

My son and I are going to see them in Ann Arbor next April. Looking forward to it.

Dissidens -- What quartet do you think will take their place as the premier group? My son and I have been listening to a recording of Haydn quartets by the Kodaly Quartet and that group is really good. I really like the tone and style of their first violin player. I've also enjoyed some recordings by the Tokyo and Takacs quartets.

That is a very tough guess. The quartets you mention are good.

There seem to be three factors (at least) that make me doubt my picks. First, so much depends on the marketing and popularity; that’s the sort of call I just can’t make. Second, in its entire history the Guarneri made only one change, and that was from Dave Soyer to his student, Peter Wiley. That is a very different thing from, say, the Juilliard, which has regular turnover and which champions the sort of works which make them less than best-sellers. That doesn’t make them a bad quartet, of course—I don’t know anything out of Juilliard that is bad—it just puts them in a bracket which won’t compete with a Guarneri.

The Takacs, which I like a lot, is already half the quartet it was when I first knew them. I don’t think turnover works in favor of the sort of longstanding ensemble which made the Guarneri what it is. Dusinberre has replaced Gabor Takacs at 1st, and I thought he set the tone for the ensemble; I can’t draw any conclusions from this change because I never saw the Takacs live since then. I like the Chilingirian and the Delmé, but still, they are very different animals.

Third—and this is entirely subjective—but I know of no quartet which has had the informing spirits of the Guarneri Q: the Roismans, Schneiders, Szells, Szigetis, Rubinsteins, etc., the years at Marlboro Music Festival. I think they were unique. This will never be duplicated, and I fail to see how this is anything less than a permanent and irreplaceable loss.

I suppose if I were forced to pick, it might be the Cleveland.

Interesting. The Takacs is in Ann Arbor in April -- the weekend after the Guarneri is in town. (By the way, I misspoke: We are seeing the Guarneri in Detroit, not Ann Arbor.) But I don't know if my budget can handle both concerts.

Do you have an opinion on the Kodaly and Tokyo quartets? Just interested to get your take on them. I am a relative newbie to chamber music. I've always been a piano/violin concerto and symphony guy myself.

I have a couple of recordings of the Kodaly and the Tokyo. Both are excellent quartets. (Unfortunately my copies are on old LPs and don’t get a regular hearing anymore.) I have the Tokyo and the Cleveland doing the Mendelssohn octet. All great musicians. I’ve regretted not finding this version on CD.

The Tokyo Quartet is, I think, on its fifth first violinist. I say that only to relate this to my earlier comment. This is the way business more or less has to be done now…or so I’ve been told. Compare that to a quartet performing these great works together for about 45 years and you can get a sense of my prejudices. There is nothing bad about the Tokyo; I hope their stock rises as the Guarneri leaves them a share of the market.

I don’t mean to be disparaging toward perfectly good quartets; if you like them, you like a good thing. I just think it is worth pointing out the great thing we’re losing here: aside from the musical influences these people enjoyed, it is hard to find four people who can get along for 45 years.

I can’t overstress this quality. These string quartets are gemstones in the history of Western music. They have trickled down to us through the fingers and opinions of the greatest performers like Horowitz and Rubinstein and Szigeti to four guys who’ve played them for longer than some of us have been alive.

These are things worth getting intimate with.

But having said that, I don’t want to leave the impression that Cleveland and Juilliard and Takacs, etc. are fish-wrappers.

Glad you are getting into chamber music. Listen to whatever you like of course, octets, sextets, string trios…all are great, but the string quartet first and then the piano trio have such a large body of work spreading over so many composers and periods that it is especially rewarding.

Far, far better than orchestral.

Great stuff. Thanks for the good overview of the different groups.

Having done a fair amount of small group stuff myself over the years, I can understand the need for longevity and cohesiveness with personnel. Nothing can replace that almost innate sense of oneness that comes from rehearsing and performing together for years, even decades.

It's interesting you brought up the point about being able to stay together for 45 years. I recall seeing the documentary about the Guarneri ("High Fidelity", 1988) and there seemed to be a fair amount of tension between the members, especially directed at the 1st violinist, Arnold Steinhardt. Obviously, they found a way to keep it going for 20 more years.

Thanks again.

Oh, yah; there’s no doubt there are egos large enough to fill the halls they perform in, and in many cases they don’t have opinions, they have convictions. It takes a desire to make things work.

Serious music is nuance and infinitesimal distinctions; time and commitment to ensemble playing are essential.

Well, the Cleveland concert was Thursday night. We enjoyed it very much. The girls were attentive, or at least still (no small accomplishment for a 4 year old!). I think they appreciated the Cheesecake Factory trip that preceded it more than the concert itself, but they'll appreciate it more years from now. It was a pleasure to be able to share with them something the likes of which they'll not experience again.

The 3rd movement of the A minor quartet was especially moving. There was a noticeable difference in the attentiveness of the (generally old, not-capacity) audience at that point, especially at the movement's quiet conclusion. For quite an extended time the hall was entirely still---no one breathed, much less moved. It was as though people had a collective sense that they had been part of a special, not-to-be-repeated moment. It was also as though the other movements were essentially appetizers or desserts for this "main course." It was moving.

I may post some pictures and reflections on my blog.

Thanks so much for the tip!

Ah, Ludwig’s Great Pearl. Wish I could have been there, but I’m sure a Cleveland audience knew what to do with it.

I have a copy of their playing it in the mid-60s. I wish I could hear them do it forty years later.

I’ll look for the pictures.

Wish I could hear the performance from the 60's. Alas, I probably can! :)

Not to be unduly critical, but "forty years later" there were a number of times when it seemed that they weren't quite as precise as I'd expected. It was glorious to hear them in person and observe their familiarity with the music and with one another. They interacted like four fingers of one hand. They've been doing this for significantly longer than I've been alive, after all! But there were occasional and brief moments when I thought I noticed poor intonation (especially from the first violinist, it seemed) that made me wonder if one reason for their approaching retirement may be their inability to meet their own expectations as they age. Perhaps they're the best, but no longer capable of being their best.

Or not. Just posing the question makes me feel like a pompous ingrate.

Excuse me. The concert was Tuesday night.

It’s entirely possible. Steinhardt had problems with his hand earlier in his career. It could be a returning problem, could be age…

When I scanned their final tour, I rather hoped someone would record at least some of the live performances.

One more thing, especially in light of the "who will replace them" discussion. The President of the Cleveland Chamber Music Society introduced them by explaining his disappointment in the 1960's when the famed Budapest Quartet retired. He assumed that they were irreplaceable, but he remembers hearing of a new quartet that would be taking their place at a particular Beethoven Festival...in New York, I believe. At any rate, the name of this green group was, as you've guessed, Guarneri. So perhaps there is another on the horizon. :)

BTW, both Takacs and Tokyo are coming to Cleveland in the next few months. If I were a rich man...

Yep.

In its best day, I liked the Budapest over the Guarneri, unfortunately they had an uneven reputation through the years. Two of the reasons I like the Guarneri are a) the influence of guys like Schneider and Roisman and Casals and b) the almost uninterrupted ensemble of 40 years.