...forthcoming from cpo:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/carl-heinrich-reinecke-streichquartette-vol-1/hnum/7971829 (https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/carl-heinrich-reinecke-streichquartette-vol-1/hnum/7971829)
I noticed these earlier, Alan, and have already added them to my "must have" list - which is getting longer and longer! A worthy follow-up to the Bargiel cycle no doubt.
How splendid!
Agreed! I've been wanting to hear 1, 3 and 5 (and new performances of 2 and 4).
I'm particularly pleased! ::)
http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,4866.msg51997.html#msg51997 (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php/topic,4866.msg51997.html#msg51997)
Yes, good news indeed. I'm sure that few of us would have these quartets on our real or virtual shelves.
Superb music - am currently listening to Quartet No.5 (1909). Of course, it's 30 years behind the times, but who cares when the music is of such quality? More when I've got got round to absorbing these wonderful pieces...
This is wonderfully resourceful music from a master-composer. No.2 in F, Op.30 (1851) begins in Schubert 9 (finale) mode - the similarity is hard to miss - but soon goes its own way, with some 'scrunchy' harmonies, and is followed by a songful slow movement that is not without anguished-sounding passages of its own. The minor-key scherzo scurries along anxiously before the finale scampers off in a whirlwind of invention at even greater speed, sidestepping into calmer episodes as it progresses.
To imagine that Reinecke's music might be like 'Mendelssohn + water' couldn't be further from the truth. This is big-boned chamber music with real sinew and purpose. No.2 is absolutely SUPERB. I look forward to listening to the other SQs in due course.
No.4 in D major, Op.211 (1890) breathes different air entirely. The first movement is denser stuff; what's most interesting is the way that 'clouds' invade the basic air of contentment - what fabulous quality and variety of invention is on show here. The slow movement begins in sonorous, songful mode, but soon diverts into a more questing section. There is mystery here too - and then, in a trice, the movement is over. The scherzo is pizzicato-dominated and strangely fragmentary in effect - very original. The finale begins in a more comfortable mood, but the music shifts and changes in kaleidoscopic fashion as the movement progresses, returning frequently to the opening theme. And it's all over within five minutes. Another masterpiece of the genre. Who knew?
well, different performances of those two have been already available (thanks matesic)...
I'd never heard them. Get the cpo set!
Well, thank you Alan for that accolade!
However, leaving amour propre to one side, they are good pieces and I'm looking forward to hearing them played by a quartet consisting of four professionals!
I do apologise, Steve. I was on my way out to help put up a large Xmas tree this morning and rather dashed off my response without thinking. All I meant was that I knew nothing of your renderings (congrats on all your hard work, of course) and that the cpo set is an urgent, indeed mandatory purchase - for the reason you yourself give. Again, I apologise for my haste.
Obviously I should have known about the SBB renderings - but I didn't. My loss, clearly.
Well, it just shows that beauty - or indeed mastery - lies in the ear of the listener. I don't agree at all, as my descriptions of nos. 2 and 4 indicated.
Herzogenberg and Fuchs are composers of a later generation, of course; and Raff is a very different sort of composer.
How one can describe the troubled opening of, for example, No.5 'bland' is beyond me:
https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/carl-heinrich-reinecke-streichquartette-vol-1/hnum/7971829 (https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/cpo/detail/-/art/carl-heinrich-reinecke-streichquartette-vol-1/hnum/7971829)
Well, as I said, I simply disagree. Great that we can do so amicably!
First, I would say that the Reinhold Quartet's renditions of Reinecke's string quartets leave nothing to be desired. It is a pleasure to listent to their performances. They are outstanding and do their very best to make a strong case for Carl....but
Caveat, what follows is just one man's opinion, well, perhaps those of his quartet compatriots as well. But as Zino Davidov once wrote, 'Gentlemen have the right to defend the cigar of their choice'. The same goes, I suppose, for string quartets.
I do not know how many people here, other than Steve J. have actually played these works. I have played all five, albeit, not too recently. As background, I play in two different quartet groups weekly. Our groups go after the unsungs. We have done our Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc. When we find an unsung that is convincing, it is sure to be rescheduled. I must report that none of the Reineckes was ever rescheduled. Why you might ask. I would say that although they are workmanlike, they are not compelling. The thematic material, though in short bursts is inventive and interesting, overall is not particularly memorable.
And then there is the issue of sounding like someone else. If you are going to sound like someone else, you had better have some really first class thematic material. Although Reinecke never studied formally with either Mendelssohn or Schumann, their influence upon him was tremendous and perhaps impossible to escape having been so close to both. Schumann used to joke, 'Oh Reinecke, he knows what I am going to write before I do.'
So, on to the quartets. No.1 is a pretty good work in parts The opening of the first movement is indeed promising, the main theme is lovely, but soon the hand of Mendelssohn appears in the running passages over long-lined melodies. Much thrashing about to no real purpose. Subsequent themes are rather ordinary. The second movement, again, the main theme is attractive. The variations that follow are decent and Mendelssohnian. The third movement is very difficult to pull off at speed and the music, for all of its forward motion, does not really have any memorable thematic material. The finale, jovial but prosaic. You are not going to remember the themes from this.
No.2 from the opening bars the heavy had of Schumann rests upon the music. It virtually drips of Schumann but compared to Schumann it is pale, as to its melodies which are basically forgetable. Movement two is the strongest. The third movement is a nothingburger. And the finale, well my goodness, is Robert S. in the room. At times it borders on imitation. Zum schluss, it is a pleasant enough work but is that enough to make you want to program it, or play it again, when there are sooo many other deserving works to be heard?
No.3. The first movement is genial but the thematic material is thin and not very memorable. The second movement, this is the sort of music junior plays for grandma on a warm Sunday afternoon in her parlor as she sits on the sofa with its antimacassars. Sweet but totally forgetable. The third movement, perhaps the best of the lot, starts off sort of Brahmsy, promising. But its lugubrious mood in the end drags it down. The finale, lots of motion signifying nothing. No real thematic material, just a lot of running passages.
No.4 is there light at the end of the tunnel? To its credit, there is less and less Mendelssohn and Schumann but they are not entirely gone. The opening movement begins in promising fashion. Some excitement coupled with good thematic material. But the development makes a hash of things and the it is downhill from there. A noble melody clothes the opening to the second movement, but eventually developmental problems stymie Carl, a recurring problem. The scherzo which comes next again begins strongly But again compelling thematic material seems to escape the composer and he substitutes a lot of fast passage work. The opening to the finale borders on the trite and it does not improve much from there. Entirely forgetable.
No.5 The first movement, wow, is this the same composer. Well, yes it is. Reinecke was one of those rare composers who toward the ends of their lives improved tremendously. Published in the year of his death, it may have been composed twenty years before at which time he was only a young 65. Anyone familiar with his Op. 249 magnificent string trio and the Opp.264, 272, and 274 all first rate chamber works, will not be surprised by the huge improvement one finds here. The dark and brooding opening measures of the first movement immediately grab one's attention and for once Carl does not go on to spoil things. Moody, urgent and memorable, a first rate movement. The slow movement, melancholy and reflective full of sonority. The third movement is original and compelling. The finale begins with a foreboding, stately introduction. The main section jovial and upbeat is decent but a bit of a let down from the standpoint of thematic material, after the excellence of the introduction. And this is a shame. The old saying goes, the opening and closing need to be strong and memorable. Still of his five quartets this is, in my opinion, the best of the lot.
The only masterwork for strings alone which he wrote, in my opinion, is the Op.249 String Trio. To the best of my knowledge, he never wrote a string quintet, sextet or octet. Perhaps he needed a piano in his chamber music.
An expert assessment. But I beg to differ overall. I find them much more interesting than is suggested above. Do try them for yourself - don't be put off!
Much the same thing was said of Reinecke's VC when it was issued on CD. But I count it one of my all-time favourite VCs. If one is looking for a change from, for example, Bruch VC1, then the Reinecke of the Dietrich are fine, memorable substitutes.
As I said in my post, what I wrote was only one man's opinion or perhaps that of his quartet compatriots with whom he played these works.
But I wonder if only listening to the works is different from listening to them after having played them. I think so. You often get a very different perspective from playing a work than from just listening to it. Of course, one could argue that perhaps the player(s) have not penetrated or properly understood the composer's intentions or have no affinity for his music....
There is another factor to consider with regards to just listening to a work---the nature of the performance. Some performers are able to take a mediocre work and make it sound magical wherein the great bulk of others cannot. Good works can usually withstand poor performances, and while listening to such may be unappetizing, the excellence of the music somehow usually shines through....
I cannot imagine a better performance of the Reinecke Quartets than that given by the Reinhold Quartet and I cannot help but think that to some extent this colors the praise his quartets are receiving.
I like Carl Reinecke very much, the man and much of his music. As to chamber music I have already mentioned and praised the Op.249 String Trio and the Opp.264 and 274 trios, the Op.272 Piano Quartet. To these I would add the cello and violin sonatas, the Op.188 trio, the Opp.43 and 146 pieces for cello and viola and the three student or easy piano trios Op.159. But I do not think his string quartets nor for that matter his Op.34 Piano Quartet or the Op.83 Piano Quintet can be favorably compared to those works nor would I program them on a concert.
I find that there is, at least for me, so much dross in these quartets alongside several short excellent episodes and this exacerbates my overall opinion of these works. I am glad, however, for Reinecke's sake, that his quartets hold some charm for many writing here.
Dross? Well, I love 'em. Sorry!
This set has languished unplayed for a few weeks but, spurred on by this debate, I listened to the second and fourth quartets today. Sad to say, I found Quartet No.2 a dull thing, amiable but unmemorable, at least at first hearing. Quartet No.4 has more to it, with much stronger thematic material in the first three movements, some atmospheric passages and even the hint of genuine emotion here and there, but unfortunately it's let down by a banal finale. I had been hoping for quality akin to the fourth quartet of that other conservative, Bargiel, whose own String Quartet No.4 has been a really welcome discovery, but on this showing the string quartet wasn't Reinecke's forté. Sorry Alan, maybe No.5 will be a revelation?
I'm obviously in a minority here. Maybe I just have poor taste. But then I find Brahms' String Quartets heavy going - no enjoyment there at all for me. Shhhhhh - don't tell anyone: I'll take Reinecke's five over Brahms' three any day. And Reinecke's PC3 is perhaps my favourite piano concerto of all. This week, anyway.
Hopeless, I know.
Somewhat but only somewhat tangentially, I notice/am given to understand that cpo, besides recently releasing the Reinecke (works I've mentioned a few times I've wanted to hear based on the 2 I've heard, and hopefully will catch the cpo recording soon), has or will soon have the Gernsheim and Draeseke string quartets (and Gernsheim string quintets) in the can for eventual release. Among, I assume, other things. Thumbs-up to them...
All of the Draeseke quartets as well as his quintet have been recorded. Do not know if they are still available. They could even be on Youtube...
String Quartet No.1 in c minor, Op.27 Holderlin Quartet CD AK/Coburg DR 0011
String Quartet No.2 in e minor, Op.36 Holderlin Quartet CD AK/Coburg DR 0011
String Quartet No.3 in c# minor, Op.66 Holderlin Quartet CD AK/Coburg DR 0012
String Quintet- 2 Cellos Op.77 in F Acantus String Qt & Hartman CD AK Colburg DR 0004
Gernsheim No.2 was recorded by the Mandelring Qt on an Audite CD 97.503
You can hear soundbites of all of the above at www.editionsilvertrust.com
It would, of course, be great if someone would finally get to the rest of the Gernsheim quartets, they certain deserve it.
I know that the Draeseke quartets have been recorded. The difference is, the cpo recordings might actually be widely-distributed and available. You can find the the Constanze-Quartett Salzburg in a brief documentary-of-sorts about their upcoming cycle here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5VZYYjsrO0); they also have a video with the beginning of a movement from the C minor quartet. (In the event, of those AK/Coburg CDs I have only the (wonderful) one with the two string quintets. You omitted to mention that it contains the (very lyrical...) quintet-with-violotta in A arranged as a "normal" 2-cello string quintet, by the way.)
Similarly, while Matesic has recorded (for IMSLP) most of Gernsheim's quartets and the first of the string quintets, it is meant as no insult to him that I still look forward to the planned cycle (and to hearing the 2nd string quintet and the 4th quartet for the first time...)
But I would agree, yes, back to Reinecke :)
(I wonder if these 5 are all his quartets?... I have several "complete" recordings- again, eg, Gernsheim "complete" violin sonatas- that aren't.)
Yes, back to Reinecke, please.
What a relief to hear No.5, which is on an altogether higher plane than it's predecessors. There's something bloodless and academic about them and that's totally absent from this fine dramatic quartet, a work of high romanticism which seems to come from the heart, not the head. Santo has described it very well, and I won't repeat what he's written, but I do heartily recommend this quartet at least as being a very rewarding listen, which unfortunately isn't true of the other four.
Well, I'm listening again to No.2 and I find it extraordinarily vigorous, exciting and often beautiful - with nothing academic or bloodless about it at all. Just shows how opinions can differ.
Doesn't it. And it's not unknown for me to change mine on re-listening...
I've always had a soft spot for Reinecke, I admit. Probably something to do with him having been dismissed virtually everywhere in the literature as the dry-as-dust teacher under whom countless later composers studied in Leipzig. But I've never found him dry at all and have found him a faithful companion when wanting to listen to well-constructed, beautifully crafted and melodically grateful music.
When the things of this world are so rootless and ugly, it is a relief to find such solidity and beauty in his music.
I decided to spend some more time with the Reinecke quartets and I wish to amend some of my earlier comments.
I have started with Quartet No.3. Upon rehearing, I found the first movement rather appealing. The main reason I think I felt the material was too thin has to do with the fact that every repeat was taken. Maybe back in the day when everything moved a lot slower and players and audiences had thicker sitzfleisch than we do today, it did not make much difference. Perhaps one or two repeats in this movement could be justified, but not all. As for the second movement, I recant, it is not something junior would play in grandma's parlor. It is a good, but not a great movement. It is well done and worth hearing. The third movement was made worse by the repeats all of which were taken and have a deadening effect almost making the material sound trite. Without the repeats, it is okay but I could not call it good. As for the last movement, it is better than I remembered, workmanlike. A lot of fast passage work which is not bad to listen to but not really memorable and the ending is a bit weak. To sum up, the first movement stands out from the others. Overall, this quartet reminds me of so many others I have played and forgotten. Decent works, not to be despised by any means, but not with any real melodic material which sticks with one afterwards, with the exceptin of movement 1. It might be worth hearing in concert since it is by Reinecke, but given the fact that so few quartets by unsungs get a chance at resuscitation, I would plump for No.5 well before I ever sponsored No.3.
A word about the recording. As I said earlier, the Mannheim play the music beautifully. But I do think that quartets which are bring back these works need to rethink whether they should take all of the repeats. I understand the rationale for doing so. There are two I can think of, the first being that they want to be true to the composer's intentions. Personally, I think this is weaker of the two rationales. Composers routinely bunged in repeats perhaps without even thinking of the effect and who knows whether or not they were taken in concert. The second rationale can be summarized as, we will not pass this way again any time soon. In other words, this may be the only recording that will ever be made of the work and therefore it should present the music as written. Nonetheless, I am not convinced by this one either.
I have played in quartet concerts for many years, have gone to them for years, and I can assure you that no one is taking all of the repeats in Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Mendelssohn etc. No one could sit through, much less want to listen to concerts of such length. Well, enough said...
I plan to spend some more time on Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and will report back if there is interest. Five is a good work and does need any further revision by me. I am spending th time because I think Reinecke has been unfairly shunted to the side. Fame is fickle and Box Office rules the concert programmer's world.
This is true- they even skip repeats in Schubert and Brahms they _must_ take. Boo.
Still, unless Reinecke was, like Schubert and Brahms (_especially!!_ Brahms), in the habit of introducing important new melodic material (that will be heard again...) in the first ending block (see eg Brahms Op.111 quintet first movement - also maybe? Schubert piano sonata D960 first movement, quartet in G major, some other works)... there's less reason. Though not no reason: repeats can be important for temporal balance (Beethoven sym. 3 first movement eg), too, and at least certain composers' wishes should be strongly thought about before jettisoning them, I think...
On to String Quartet No.1 I pretty much stand by my evaluation of the first movement. The main theme is quite attractive and memorable. Subsequent development is not great, but again the taking of all repeats does not help the music. The second movement is truly outstanding. The theme is first rate and the variations are good, although at one point, he briefly quotes the violin recitativ in Mendelssohn's Op.13. But here, I will use the Brahmsian defense. I forget which piece it was, but when confronted by concertgoers who accused him of plagerism, taking a theme from another composer, Brahms replied, Yes, but look what I have done with it. The third movement, again, much better than I remembered it. It is exciting and full of foreward motion. So what if it is hard to pull off. Here, the repeats do not hurt the overall effect. To his credit, Reinecke does not take Mendelssohn and his scherzos as his own model. Scherzos make their mark by the effect they create and not so much by their melodies. This is a pretty good one. The opening theme to the finale sounds very vaguely like Old McDonald Had a Farm, if not, in any event it does have a folksy barnyard quality to it. The development is decent as is the movement. Some Mendelssohn does creep in here and there, but not at all bad. So I upgrade my overall impression pf the quartet to good but not great. Keep in mind Reinecke was only 22 when he wrote this. I would get my quarteters to play this one with me again from time to time.
String Quartet No.2. As to the first movement, if anything, I was too kind in my initial assessment. Except for a few brief moments, a whisp of an attractive second theme, the movement is entirely forgetable, a bunch of scale passages and wandering about to no purpose. Poor. I wrote that the second movement was the strongest, I am not sure about this. It is better than the first and third movements. Workmanlike but nothing special here. The third movement, ugh, all smiles and empty refrains of have a nice day. However, the finale is better than I wrote. Schmannesque, well yes, you cannot escape this fact. However, it is fairly well done, exciting. It does hold your attention. But by itself, it is certainly not strong enough to rescue this otherwise very mediocre quartet.
String Quartet No.4. I stand by what I wrote about the first two movements. Neither is compelling. They start off a little promising but they do not fulfill any promise. The development in each case ruins them. The third movement is better than I initially wrote. It is not a great movement. The pizzicato in the main section is original and memorable, but a little too cutesy for my taste, although that may be personal. The trio section contrasts nicely but is too short. As to the finale, I take back what I said about the main theme being trite. It is not great, but it is decent as is the rest of the movement. But decent is the best I can say about it. All in all, there is little to recommend this work for concert or home. Just not worth the time.
Okay, I know, I wrote a lot but surely a composer of Reinecke's stature, a composer who did write many first rate works deserves a second look.
Final thoughts. Quartet No.1, a youthful work to be sure, good though not great, is worth your time. If it had been written by a Sung such as Mendelssohn or Schumann, it would have made it into the repertoire. Just maybe the same might be said of No.3. But this could not be said of Nos. 2 and 4. By any standard, they must be judged as very weak efforts.
I think we are all agreed that No.5 outshines the rest by far. It deserves concert performance and will be on the music stands in my music room in the not too distant future.
I still disagree about No.4, but there we are...
Thanks so much for spending all this time analysing them for us.
Lately I've been exploring these quartets. At first I was very enthusiastic, but my excitement vanished too soon. Incredibly, the 1st SQ was the most interesting of the bunch for me. The others seemed too common, with no many arresting ideas. Whilst pleasant listens, this set is not essential by any means.