******
- Verified Buyer
Well, yes: if anybody was going to do it, it was Australian Eloquence, who have been so invaluable in tapping the forgotten ores of the Decca, Philips and whichever catalogues that are now owned by the great conglomerate of which they are part, and they should be praised for reissuing on CD the Vienna Philharmonic Quartet's recording of Schubert's valedictory C-major Quintet, hitherto left to LP oblivion.The recording was made in 1965 and the Vienna Philharmonic Quuartet was an ensemble comprised of the first seats of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra around their leader Willy Boskovsky, better known when it played in other lineups as the "Vienna Octet". It got a glowing review in The Gramophone issue of September 1965, available on their online Archive: "This seems to me easily the best recording of the Schubert available in stereo... The Vienna players produce the expected golden tone quality, and the first movement in particular is a joy all through... they manage to prevent the start of the scherzo from sounding muddy, capture the full tragedy of the Trio section, and are superlative in the finale, bringing to the second subject just that Viennese light-music flavour that it needs. None of the other ensembles grip one so deliciously at this point."Given such comments, it was puzzling why Decca, Universal or whichever conglomerate held and now holds the rights to it didn't reissue it before. Why keep it in the cold-chamber, when they have long reissued so many of the Vienna Octet's recordings, including their famous "Trout" with Clifford Curzon (Trout Quintet / Death & The Maiden) ?Well, having heard the Quintet, not in this reissue, but back in 2012, from an online upload direct from the LP, I understand. The best news of the day is that, even in the big conglomerates, the decision-makes have ears and judgement, and must have considered that this one was best left at its eternal sleep of death.Some versions are spacious and lyrical (most typical from the LP era were the circa 1950 Vienna Konzerthaus Quartet on Westminster, the 1958 Endres Quartet on Vox and the 1966 Aeolian Quartet on Saga, product links in the comments section), some are urgent and dramatic (heralded by the 1951 Hollywood Quartet, with the 1970 Weller Quartet and Hungarian Quartet two fine successors), some realize a fine combination of both (and indeed the Hollywood Quartet and Weller Quartet were extremely lyrical as well), but Boskovsky and his Vienna Philharmonic ensemble manage to be neither lyrical nor dramatic, just matter-of-fact and perfunctory. It's not a matter of tempi - Boskovsky's are urgent, even a breath more than those of the Hollywood Quartet. It is a matter of the ensemble's understanding of the composition and how they convey its emotional content. Some versions are large-scale, almost symphonic, some versions are small-scale, retaining the chamber-like nature of the music, but Boskovsky and partners are minuscule-scale, they sound like kids playing on half-sized instruments, or as if they were playing with their mutes on all the time. Is that what they call Viennese "Gemütlichkeit": keep it mellow, soft, hushed, don't disturb our neighbour's digestion? There is no tonal body, no amplitude, no beef - and hence, no vehemence, no impact, no drama. And it is not just that: no accents either, all the opportunities offered by Schubert's sf, fp or accent marks are passed unheeded. And not that the interpretation is very lyrical either, and for the very same reason, no tonal amplitude that would let the phrases sing and blossom, and also because their tempo is so matter-of-fact slick, with hardly any expressive inflextion, just moving along and let's get done with it. And I'll pass on the simple technical glitches, the lapses in ensemble-playing, the finger slips from Boskovsky. I can hardly believe that everybody, performers, producer, would have listened to it and given it an a-OK.In the Adagio, Boskovsky and partners also take a very flowing tempo, and that is not a problem: so did the Pro Arte Quartet in 1935, the Hollywood Quartet, the Stern-Casals group in Prades in 1952. The Adagio "works" and makes its deeply moving effect at about any tempo. But here I hear the notes played, one after the other, but as hard as a try I cannot associate any emotional content to what I'm hearing, as if the players were doing just that: playing notes, one after the other, indifferent to their emotional content, or worse even, as if this music was simply charming. At least there is a touch of vehemence in the middle agitated section. But as soon as that is over, it is over, and it is typical of Boskovsky's indifference and gliding over the emotional content of Schubert's music (and I would have sworn that he would do it... bang on!) the way he shortens, almost by half, the time value of the long silences in the short dirge-like passage just after the agitated section, at 7:12. That's the old stale trick of lousy musicians, afraid that a second of silence will bore their audience to sleep. But the weight, the power, the impact of Schubert's music, here, lies precisely in those long silences, you ass!!! It is not the silence that bores your audience to sleep, Willy, it is your music-making! This is a crime against this great work, and the indifference and unbearable lightness of Viennese musicians kills Franz a second time.This would have been enough for me to stop the musicians and say: "thank you gentlemen, it is fine, you may go now, we'll call you if we're interested". No kidding, this must be THE WORST version of the Quintet I've heard in around 60, one that is so besides the composition's emotional content and depth and indifferent to them that it is enraging. No wonder Boskovsky ended his career making a specialty of conducting the Waltzes of Strauss : that's about the emotional level he seems comfortable with. I've hated Heifetz' mad rush throughout in 1961 (see my review of Quintet in C), but at least you can't deny that there was a strong interpretive personality there. Here, if any personality, it is only meek. But no, I made it a duty to listen to the end.I guess there is something to be said in favor of the Mendelssohnian lightness of their Scherzo, but don't expect to hear the beefy vigor of a rustic dance. But their middle trio just forges along indifferently. The same elegant Mendelssohnian lightness of touch imbues the Finale and here again I suppose it can be welcomed as an alternative view: no drama, elegance, New Year's Ball at the Vienna opera. It strikes me that the Boskovsky group treat the Quintet as if it were in the same mould, mood and atmosphere as Schubert's Ländler and German Dances. Whether it is what you want to hear in Schubert's Quintet... When they are allowed to come out, the counter-melodies are tonally dry, lacking body and bloom and letting Boskovsky chirp along. There is a little bit of vehemence in the fugato passages at 4:45 and 5:07, and Boskovsky and friends are one of the rare ensembles of that era (but the first had been the 1958 Endres Quartet) to play the final chord strongly accented rather than as a diminuendo, an option that has become more customary today, following the pronouncements of modern Schubert musicology, and I'll always be against it.With hindsight the Gramophone reviewer's endorsement is cause for guffaw; maybe it is explainable by the scarcity of competition then available in the UK: the excellent Vox Endres Quartet (reissued in form of download only, Mozart: Clarinet Quintet in A Major - Schubert: String Quintet in C Major) came only in a 3-LP box with the Trout and some string quartets, and apparently the Vox pressings were, as often, inferior, Casals with the Vegh Quartet in Prades, recorded in 1961, was released only circa 1964 by Philips and I don't think it was then circulated in the UK (Quintet in C / Cello Sonata), and as for the 1962 Budapest Quartet (Schubert String Quintet in C Major, Opus 163 - Stereo Vinyl LP Record), I suspect that it is better than the lukewarm Gramophone review of September 1964 lets you believe (their previous recording from 1941 was excellent, Schubert: Piano Quintet, Op. 114, D. 667 ("The Trout"); String Quintet, Op. Post. 163, D. 956 (Recorded 8 May 1950, Washington [Trout] and 16 September 1941, New York [String Quintet])) but it hasn't been reissued on CD and I don't know it. And the rest, interpretively miles above this, was mono. But when the Amadeus Quartet's 1965 stereo version came out (Schubert: String Quintet in C Major, D 956 (Op. post 163) / Mozart: Adagio and Fugue in C Minor, K.546, a recording long considered as the reference, although I have some reserves about that), another Gramophone reviewer still weighed it against the Vienna Philharmonic one, and prefered Boskovsky's. Looking at the details of the review, my jaws drop at the thought of what he might have stuffed in is ears or what illegal substances he might have ingested before listening. He states, for instance, that "both groups adopt a spacious, unhurried allegro for the first movement". Well, sure, I guess, if your yardstick is Heifetz... but, no kidding, Boskovsky plays one of the six all-time fastest allegros in the circa 60 I've heard, in company with, in decreasing order of speed, the premiere recording by the Cobbett Quartet in 1925, Heifetz, the 1990 Archibudelli, the 1989 Kagan group and the 1994 Borodin Quartet (for the three latter I have subtracted the duration of the repeat - and these, of course, would not have been avaialbe to the reviewer, unless he borrowed Doc Brown's DeLorean)!The Vienna Philharmonic Quartet's recording of the Death and the Maiden Quartet isn't a first CD reissue: in fact, it was the companion on CD of the famous Schubert Trout with Curzon, see link above. Here is how I titled my review of that 1990 CD: A "Trout" without much spice and a "Maiden's" Quartet, but where is "Death"? I think it says it all, and what it says is that the same, totally misconceived and betraying "gemütlichkeit" approach is at play here. In "Death and the Maiden", the Vienna Philharmonic Quartet's first movement is metronomic and they are more attuned to the music's charm (the Maiden?) than to it's gripping tension (Death?): they (or the recording) simply do not produce much power. The theme with variations doesn't start well: Boskovsky is so set apart from the others as to sound like a concerto for violin and 3 strings, and the phrasing is earthbound, with none of the otherworldly pianissimos conjured by others - but then the variations unfold with good attention to the details of phrasing and articulation written by Schubert and with a commendable forward motion, very true to the "andante con moto" marking, to which the VPQ stick to the end, with the third variation (5:50) sounding like the lazy canter of a parading horse: there has been more gripping. Their Scherzo is not particularly brisk (Schubert writes "Allegro molto") but what weakens it even more is, again, a lack of power, and the trio section, taken at a slower tempo, exudes the usual mawkishness, with no trace of underlying agitation (the same rhythms as in the outer parts of the scherzo pervade this trio): if this Maiden is surrounded by Death she sure isn't aware of it ! The Finale also suffers the same lack of power. In sum, this is a "Maiden's' quartet, but I don't hear much Death.And to think these guys, Boskovsky and partners, were considered the best musicians of Vienna in their time?! They're the worst Vienna has produced: a thick crust of Gemütlichkeit applied to everything and anything, emotional superficiality raised to the status of an "art de vivre".Contrary to what I wrote at the begining of this review, I don't know if corporate decision-makers really have ears and judgment of their own. More likely, the Quintet's long absence from the CD catalog had to do more with bureaucratic oversight than with any judgment on the performance's value. But with all this said, I would like to praise again Australian Eloquence for bringing it back to let everybody be able to judge, and encourage every reader who's had the patience to follow me to the end of this review, NOT to trust me, buy this set and decide for himself. At the worst, he will get a curio, a freak, an object lesson in how NOT to play Schubert's Quartet and Quintet and how to scandalously betray great masterpieces - and that is informative too, in its own way. Heck, I think I'm going to buy it myself. I have many "best" versions in my collection, I need to add "the worst", yin and yang.
