Stanford Quartets 1, 2 and 6 announced

[eschiss1]

Presto Music lists them as forthcoming from SOMM (volume 3 and presumably last) 10 January 2020 (here.)

[Jimfin]

Excellent! Finally I'll be able to hear all eight quartets!

[eschiss1]

I still haven't heard the Hyperion CD of nos.1 & 2, and no one's recorded no.6. In any case it's great that we've gone from no recordings, to a few broadcasts (which I did not hear at the time, but will have to include here for completeness, of course, of at least nos. 3, 7 and , to recordings of nos.1 & 2, online recordings of nos.3 & 5 (thanks again matesic, says this particular fan of #3...)  to recordings of all 8 quartets, those last within a decade ...

[matesic]

Who's next among British composers of string quartets? Charles Wood and Cecil Armstrong Gibbs wrote eight apiece, of which I think only one of the former's has been commercially recorded. Eugene Goossens wrote (and published) two 4-movement works, a Phantasy Quartet and a couple of short pieces, all very inventive. Going back a bit there are surprisingly good pieces by Charles Lucas and Henry (Home! Sweet Home!") Bishop that have never had commercial recordings although my efforts have mysteriously found their way onto youtube

[eschiss1]

A quartet in A by Gibbs may have been recorded by the Griller Quartet on multiple 78s, I gather, but!

[Kevin]

Stanford's String quintets will be recorded in March next year by the Dante quartet for SOMM.

[semloh]

matesic ... These days, Charles Wood is described as Irish rather than British, but I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. 

[matesic]

So's Stanford! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Villiers_Stanford. Pretty soon we'll be losing all those great Scottish composers too

[Mark Thomas]

They, of course, would have described themselves as British - we should ignore these rather pathetic attempts at re-writing history.

[eschiss1]

I'm not entirely sure that's what matesic meant, actually?

[matesic]

It does seem a bit ironic that the prime architect of the British Musical Renaissance is no longer referred to by authorities such as wikipedia and IMSLP as "British"! Next to go will be Mackenzie, not so great a loss. Parry I think we'll get to keep.

[Kevin]

Why cant Stanford be considered both Irish and British?. I'm sure the Irish are entitled to brag that he come from there - he was a great composer after all.

[Gareth Vaughan]

Why does it matter, one way or the other? He was a great composer. Period.

[Kevin]

Why does it matter, one way or the other? He was a great composer. Period.

Quite true.

[Mark Thomas]

Why cant Stanford be considered both Irish and British?

From a historical point of view that's entirely correct, but I doubt whether anyone today would accept the notion, more's the pity. He was, indeed, a great composer nonetheless.