The Brentano Quartet – Mark Steinberg, violin; Serena Canin, violin; Misha Amory, viola; Nina Maria Lee, cello. 10/18/2005.

Richardson Auditorium in Alexander Hall, Princeton University. Row 3, Center Left.

Program

String Quartet in B-flat Major, Op. 64, no. 3 by Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809).
String Quartet No. 15 in E-flat Minor, Op. 144 by Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975).
String Quartet in G Minor, Op. 10 by Claude Debussy (1862-1918).

We were made aware of this concert by a couple we’ve known since my college days. We have only seen them a few times in the intervening 25 or so years, but I did run into Vivian on my trip to Hong Kong last month. Dave and Vivian, my wife Anne and I had dinner at Alchemist and Barrister before the concert.

I am not a great fan of string quartets; I don’t really understand why I feel that way, probably most of the time quartets sound like a solo violin with three accompanists. The last one I saw was the Tokyo Quartet in Sydney a few years back, and I remember that as a rather pleasant concert.

Tonight’s program was quite interesting, with pieces dating from each of the last three centuries. The program notes were also very illuminating, although the annotators (especially Steinberg) seemed to favor complex words over simple ones. Why say “twilight” if you can say “crepuscular”? The notes were especially useful in the case of Shostakovich. I might still have enjoyed the piece, but I probably would have felt terribly lost.

The quartet members all appear to be quite young (in their 30s?). One realizes quickly that they must play together a lot (indeed, the quartet was formed in 1992) and they enjoy making music together. I find it quite strange that they didn’t have to tune their instruments at the beginning, nor in between movements despite the heavy pounding on the strings during some movements. I was facing the cellist, so I couldn’t but help noticing that she played with a severe frown on her face, and I only caught her smiling a couple of times, at her partners. They could also sit a little further apart, the current arrangement has the first violin and viola blocking in the second violin and the cello. Every now and then there were some intonation problems and sloppiness, though.

The Haydn piece highlighted many of the strengths of the quartet. The sound was good, the coordination was good, and the interpretation was good. However, it reinforced my feeling that the first violin is the primary instrument, and the second violin often gets short shrift. I particularly enjoyed the viola though. The Minuet & Trio was a little long: must one do all the repeats? In any case, the piece set the program on a sound foundation (pun intended).

This was my first encounter with the Shostakovich piece, and I like it very much. The quartet was unusual (at least for me) in that it only had slow movements (six of them, Adagio and Adagio molto) and they were played through without interruption. It was also relatively long at about 35 minutes, although it didn’t feel long at all. All the movements were in E flat which inhibited the natural resonance of the string instruments. Many of the movements were played without much vibrato, creating a simple yet disturbing sound. The construction of the movements was also very interesting (helped along by the description in the program notes). The overall effect was sadness, chaos, sense of loss, and hopelessness. Two of the movements were titled “Elegy” and “Funeral March”. The program notes compare the heavy accented screams in the “Serenade” to the broken body parts in Picasso’s Guernica; they simply reminded me of Munch’s famous painting “Scream”. This quartet was written after the death of Stalin, so the political influence, which was often reflected in Shostakovich’s music, should have diminished considerably. Perhaps, to Shostakovich’s dismay, Russia after Stalin remained gray and dismal? It was also written a year before Shostakovich’s death and might well have been his personal requiem. If you are looking for uplifting music, avoid this one. The lady sitting next to us certainly made her displeasure known. If you are looking to extend your musical horizons, this is highly recommended.

If I were designing the program, I would have placed Debussy’s Quartet (he wrote only one) in the middle, both for chronological reasons and to balance the length of the two halves of the concert. This was also a good piece, although it didn’t speak as directly to the listener as Shostakovich’s. The first movement was spirited, and was well played. The notes say it contains the generative material for the entire quartet: I frankly couldn’t trace most of the similarities. The second movement (Scherzo) had each instrument in turn playing with the bow (arco) and the rest plugging away (pizzicato). It was texturally rich. The third movement was slow and played often with mutes. It was supposed to remind the listener of Franck, but I failed to grasp the similarity. The last movement had an interesting fugue-like passage. Amazingly the discordant passage sounded quite harmonious, perhaps Shostakovich was still influencing my perception. The first violin double stops were played with a virtuosic flare. As in the Shostakovich piece, here the different instruments seemed to be playing equally important roles.

It was an evening well spent. A very nice fall evening, meeting up with old friends, pleasant conversations, enjoyable meal, comfortable auditorium, and great music. What’s there not to like? All that, and the concert was free.