Is Chronological Order Too Much To Ask For?

[Conchis]

Currently listening to the Emerson Quartets otherwise admirable Bartok survey but am annoyed at the sequencing on the discs - 1,3 and 5 on disc one and 2, 4 and 6 on disc two.

Why?

Surely, it's not too much to sequence the quartets in the order in which they were written?

There are a few other guilty parties in this respect - I think Sawallisch's Schumann cycle has the same problem.

[Bryn]

Currently listening to the Emerson Quartets otherwise admirable Bartok survey but am annoyed at the sequencing on the discs - 1,3 and 5 on disc one and 2, 4 and 6 on disc two.

Why?

Surely, it's not too much to sequence the quartets in the order in which they were written?

There are a few other guilty parties in this respect - I think Sawallisch's Schumann cycle has the same problem.

Check the timings. You are likely to find that either 1, 2, 3 or 4, 5, 6 would not fit easily on a nominally 80 minute CD. That is the usual reason. It is a source of some annoyance that Sony decided to split the 4th Quartet to preserve chrononlogical order for their Juilliard sets.

[Conchis]

Check the timings. You are likely to find that either 1, 2, 3 or 4, 5, 6 would not fit easily on a nominally 80 minute CD. That is the usual reason. It is a source of some annoyance that Sony decided to split the 4th Quartet to preserve chrononlogical order for their Juilliard sets.

The first disc would have been just over seventy minutes and the second would have nudged 80, or just gone over (but not by much). This is the slimline case iteration of the set, so it shouldn't have been a problem at that stage of the reissue game.

I actually think I'd sooner have a side-break than a break in chronological order.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Check the timings. You are likely to find that either 1, 2, 3 or 4, 5, 6 would not fit easily on a nominally 80 minute CD. That is the usual reason. It is a source of some annoyance that Sony decided to split the 4th Quartet to preserve chrononlogical order for their Juilliard sets.

If my sums are correct ( ) an Emerson 1, 2, & 3 would take 69mins 20secs; 4, 5, & 6 78mins 43secs.

(The advantage of Downloads - you can correct such arbitrary marketing decisions. But I don't binge-listen to the Bartok S4tets anyway, so it wouldn't matter to me on this occasion.)

[Richard Tarleton]

Currently listening to the Emerson Quartets otherwise admirable Bartok survey but am annoyed at the sequencing on the discs - 1,3 and 5 on disc one and 2, 4 and 6 on disc two.

FWIW the Takacs do the same

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

i actually think i'd sooner have a side-break than a break in chronological order.

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?????????????????? ??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pulcinella]

The first disc would have been just over seventy minutes and the second would have nudged 80, or just gone over (but not by much). This is the slimline case iteration of the set, so it shouldn't have been a problem at that stage of the reissue game.

I actually think I'd sooner have a side-break than a break in chronological order.

I disagree, having both the Emerson (original, not slim) and Juilliard sets mentioned here: much more important to be able listen to a whole quartet without a break. That Sony set is a pain. (Thinks: I might put it into iTunes as a 2CD set and see what happens; I think it might then 'join up' properly.

PS: Ferney got in first, a little more vehemently!

[gurnemanz]

I think I would most often wish to listen to an individual quarter rather than a chunk of three whatever order that might be in.

[teamsaint]

If my sums are correct ( ) an Emerson 1, 2, & 3 would take 69mins 20secs; 4, 5, & 6 78mins 43secs.

(The advantage of Downloads - you can correct such arbitrary marketing decisions. But I don't binge-listen to the Bartok S4tets anyway, so it wouldn't matter to me on this occasion.)

Poor old marketing, always getting the blame .

( As people will know, the Belcea set splits 2/4/6, 1/3/5, which I assumed was set by somebody in production who likes things done that way )

[Dave2002]

Surely, it's not too much to sequence the quartets in the order in which they were written?

There are a few other guilty parties in this respect - I think Sawallisch's Schumann cycle has the same problem.

Why single out string quartets? Symphonies, piano concertos etc. may all be out of order. Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann perhaps. Numbering is not always the same as chronological order - though it also depends on “chronology of what?”. Date of completion is not often the same as date of publication, or date of first performance, or date of first public performance.

[Conchis]

Poor old marketing, always getting the blame .

( As people will know, the Belcea set splits 2/4/6, 1/3/5, which I assumed was set by somebody in production who likes things done that way )

I've got the Belcea set, too, and find it very annoying (not the performances, which are superb).

Does anyone know of a Bartok Quartet set that is sequenced in CHRONOLOGICAL order?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Does anyone know of a Bartok Quartet set that is sequenced in CHRONOLOGICAL order?

Almost all of them go for "odds & evens" or "1, 2, 4 / 3, 5, 6" - in spite of most of them having performances that would fit chronologically (and comfortably) onto two discs.

But - given your declared proclivity, there is the exception that Bryn referred to in #2:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bartok-String-Quartets-Juilliard-Qrt/dp/B0000260DW

[Pulcinella]

I've got the Belcea set, too, and find it very annoying (not the performances, which are superb).

Does anyone know of a Bartok Quartet set that is sequenced in CHRONOLOGICAL order?

This is such an extraordinary requirement but yes, there is another, and it avoids any splits.
The Fine Arts Quartet, the other complete set I have, but it's on three CDs, the third of which also has a 26’ 41” discussion by the players.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bartók-Quartets-Fine-Arts-Quartet/dp/B00E5D1BUQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541341927&sr=8-1&keywords=bartok+fine+arts

There may well be others: looking at details on the Presto site might give the running orders.

[Bryn]

Almost all of them go for "odds & evens" or "1, 2, 4 / 3, 5, 6" - in spite of most of them having performances that would fit chronologically (and comfortably) onto two discs.

But - given your declared proclivity, there is the exception that Bryn referred to in #2:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bartok-Stri.../dp/B0000260DW

However, beware, that is the 1981 digital survey which is generally regarded as inferior to their earlier recordings of the Bartok string quartets. That said, the CD version of their 1963 set is similarly split after the fourth movement of the 4th Quartet.



Older issues of the Tokyo Quartet's survey were spread over 3 CDs, but not in chronological order:



The Fine Arts Quartet also used 3 discs and included their one surviving soundtrack of a television feature on the 1st Quartet.

[Pulcinella]

I didn't realise that the later Juilliard set was similarly disposed: Sony house style, perhaps.


It looks like iTunes has indeed clagged the fourth quartet together; so at least I can listen on headphones with my iPod (or on my main Mac, for that matter!) without having to get up from my comfy chair and change CDs.