Gramophone – September 2019

120 GRAMOPHONE SEPTEMBER 2019 gramophone.co.uk

lassics RECONSIDERED

Rob Cowan There are two key issues here.

Firstly, Heinrich Schiff also recorded the

Quintet with the more keenly inflected

Hagen Quartet, which alludes to the second

issue: the lack, on the current recording, of

the first movement’s long exposition repeat.

‘Heavenly’ Schubertian expositions have

become something of a tradition of late and

here, as with the late B flat Piano Sonata

and Great C major Symphony, once you

acclimatise yourself to experiencing those

elevated four to five minutes for a second

time – setting you up for an eventful

development section – it’s difficult to pass

on the option, even with older recordings

that have stolen your heart (although this

one hasn’t – good though it is). So let me

put my cards on the table with the view that

in this work a sense of scale is as important

as eloquence and intimacy.

Charlotte Gardner Yes. In fact, as much as

this was a vaguely acceptable omission at

the time, I can’t help but feel that even

someone entirely new to the work would

spot that they’d just had their half-finished

dinner whisked from under their noses; and

while that’s the most glaring unobserved

repeat, the Scherzo’s unobserved second

one serves up a similar ‘Whoa, wait, come

back!’ reaction – so I chuckled to read that

RF was ‘quite relieved’ at this, as well as

surprised! The first of my own niggles,

meanwhile, is also proportions-based –

namely, the balance of parts, and I’ll be

fascinated to know whether we remain on

the same page here as this is more about

personal taste. So here goes: in my view,

while the quintet should never feel like a

bottom-heavy quartet plus outsider, there’s

still a choice to be made over whether that

extra cello creates the effect of a real bass

engine room underpinning things, or

simply allows for more elaborate textures.

I’m in the former camp, so while I can

admire Schiff’s elegance and subtlety, it’s

too ‘bass-lite’ for me.

RC I get your drift here which is maybe a

good cue to mention two other significant

comparisons, both involving Mstislav

Rostropovich, one with the Taneyev

Quartet, the other with the Emerson

Quartet. The Taneyev version offers

tonal richness though there’s no excessive

weight – whereas the Emerson option,

although admirably transparent, doesn’t glow

in quite the same way. The other interesting

point that this particular comparison unveils

relates to tempo. In the first movement the

more generalised Schiff and ABQ option,

without the repeat, dispatch Schubert’s taut

arguments in 12'59". Schiff with the Hagen,

and with that crucial repeat added in,

stretch to 19'45", whereas Rostropovich and

the Taneyev weigh in midway at 17'32".

But more significant by far is the slow

movement where the Taneyev recording

stretches to a positively Brucknerian 17'19".

As a listener, I took some time to adapt but

I did in the end. And the most consistently

intense? The Heifetz-Piatigorsky version, a

heavenly sprint at 10'27". They just won’t

let you off the emotional hook.

CG The Taneyev slow movement is

heavenly. I’m in awe of the way they

manage to sustain that tautness over such

time-suspended slowness, and for me this

actually makes for a more consistently

intense ride than the Heifetz-Piatigorsky

Charlotte Gardner and

Rob Cowan revisit the

Alban Berg Quartet’s 1983

recording of Schubert’s

String Quintet for which

they were joined by cellist

Heinrich Schi

Schubert

String Quintet

Alban Berg Quartet; Heinrich Schi vc

Warner Classics

New recordings of Schubert’s quintet are

almost a commonplace these days which,

considering the extraordinary individuality

and beauty of the music, is not surprising.

Writing about the Fitzwilliam/Decca

version I said that, good though it was, I

was still inclined to put the Amadeus/DG

version at the top. I doubt if I would do so

still; the playing on this new recording is as

fine, and the quality of the sound, in spite

of qualifications mentioned below, is just

about the best I can remember. Its

remarkable immediacy coupled with

unusually vigorous playing give the main

section of the Scherzo an almost

overpowering effect, and I was quite

relieved (as well as a little surprised) that

the second repeat was not made. The

repeat in the first movement is not made

either, but I would not dream of

complaining about this; there is no other

satisfactory way of getting the first two

movements on to one side. The long

opening one is beautifully done and I liked,

if only for a change, to hear the famous

tune for the two cellos played rather coolly,

without sentimentality; as also to hear the

second movement without the usual

extreme changes of tempo between the

three sections. The music floats effortlessly

in the outside sections, and the effect is

mesmeric. In the finale the players find just

the right combination of understatement

and swagger. The second cellist’s occasional

triplet quavers in this movement are not

always quite clear, and all through there

sometimes seemed just a shade too much of

him in the balance. Nevertheless, the sound

as a whole is excitingly real; this is a record

I can safely recommend.

Roger Fiske (10/83)