Is Chronological Order Too Much To Ask For?

[Bryn]

See also, https://www.pristineclassical.com/products/pacm089 . I have the earlier Westhill set mentioned in this review. I am slightly tempted to consider the Pristine set, however.

[Sir Velo]

Are we all still living in the last century?

Rip them, download them or stream them and then you don't have the issue.

[Conchis]

Are we all still living in the last century?

Rip them, download them or stream them and then you don't have the issue.

I am downloadaphobic.

[Dave2002]

I am downloadaphobic.

But are you ripaphobic?

You can rip the CDs you have, and make new CD ROM versions with the tracks in any order you want. Shouldn't take long, nor cost very much.

Ah - I'm assuming you have a computer.

1. You probably have, otherwise you wouldn't be posting.

I'm assuming you also have a computer with a CD/DVD drive and writer/rewriter.

2. Not all computers have these nowadays - so sorry if my assumptions don't fit your circumstances.

[Serial_Apologist]

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.

In the case of the Bartoks, years of composition are, respectively:

1908
1917
1927
1928
1934
1939

[Dave2002]

In the case of the Bartoks, years of composition are, respectively:

1908
1917
1927
1928
1934
1939

I'm not suggesting that all numberings are in an "incorrect" chronological order, but some are.
Schumann - Symphony 1 (1841), Symphony 2 (1846), Symphony 3 (1850), Symphony 4 (1841)

Symphony 4 was revised in 1851 though - which might justify its numbering. I don't know which of symphonies 1 and 4 was actually written (started?) first.

Mendelssohn - Symphony 1 (1824), Symphony 2 (1840 - first performance), Symphony 3 (1829-??), Symphony 4(1833-??), Symphony 5(1829-30)

Mendelssohn's mature symphonies are numbered approximately in the order of publication, rather than the order in which they were composed. The order of composition is: 1, 5, 4, 2, 3 - but he worked on some - in particular "number 3" over a very extended period.

There are almost certainly some string quartets by one or more well known composers which have anomalous numberings.

[Dave2002]

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

Is that the Fine Arts set which I had/have on LPs from Saga? I didn't know about any extra material - perhaps that's been found and included with the CDs.

[Bryn]

Is that the Fine Arts set which I had/have on LPs from Saga? I didn't know about any extra material - perhaps that's been found and included with the CDs.

The very same. The discussion is, as mentioned in #14, the surviving soundtrack of a television programme on the subject of the 1st Quartet.

[jayne lee wilson]

I'm not suggesting that all numberings are in an "incorrect" chronological order, but some are.
Schumann - Symphony 1 (1841), Symphony 2 (1846), Symphony 3 (1850), Symphony 4 (1841)

Symphony 4 was revised in 1851 though - which might justify its numbering. I don't know which of symphonies 1 and 4 was actually written (started?) first.

Mendelssohn - Symphony 1 (1824), Symphony 2 (1840 - first performance), Symphony 3 (1829-??), Symphony 4(1833-??), Symphony 5(1829-30)

Mendelssohn's mature symphonies are numbered approximately in the order of publication, rather than the order in which they were composed. The order of composition is: 1, 5, 4, 2, 3 - but he worked on some - in particular "number 3" over a very extended period.

There are almost certainly some string quartets by one or more well known composers which have anomalous numberings.

Schumann's first symphonic attempt was the G Minor "Zwickau" of 1832-33, left incomplete but still a rewarding listen. In 1841 he wrote with astonishing speed: No.1; Overture Scherzo and Finale (called "Sinfonietta" at one point); Symphony in D Minor (Original version of No.4, but numbered "2" at its negatively-received première). He even fitted in the one-movement Fantasy for Piano/Orchestra that was later expanded into the Piano Concerto.

The only release that really bothered me about its chronology was the Quatuor Daniel's set of the DSCH Quartets - 2/7/5, 6/3/13, 14/8/12, 4/11/9....
The last disc has: 1,10,15.
You can see their rationale, but it soon wears thin; an approach perhaps better suited to live concerts, since it offers an individual interpretative choice...
Luckily my favourite, the Taneyevs, is chronological. As are all of the Beethoven Quartet intégrales on my shelves.

[cloughie]

Do you really want to listen to all 6 at one throw?

As for the Sawallisch Schumann this was originally a 3LP set with Syms 1-4, OS &F and Manfred Ov. The last of these was sacrificed to put on 2CD set and chronology sacrificed for the inclusion of OS&F! Of course with the excercise of side turning of LPs you could do your own chronology. The annoying thing I find about CDs is not so much chronology as logic. Why are overtures and other fillers so often placed after a symphony rather than as a starter?
Elgar symphonies for example should never be followed by any other work but many of his orchestral works are ideal as precedents!

[richardfinegold]

As I think someone upstream noted, the original Emerson set was issued (on DG, btw, so whoever said this was the ‘Sony House Style’ was being nonsensical) as 1/3/5. & 2/4/6. I suspect that new packaging reflects a laziness in that the reissues couldn’t be bothered to change it

[Dave2002]

The very same. The discussion is, as mentioned in #14, the surviving soundtrack of a television programme on the subject of the 1st Quartet.

It seems that there were several TV programmes about the quartets (or one programme which covered all the quartets?) - perhaps only one recording of those survived.

I didn't realise until just now that the FAQ are still in existence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Arts_Quartet Many quartets fade away when their performers no longer play together, but some are like orchestras in that they continue in name and perhaps tradition long after their founders have moved on. I can only think of one other quartet like this - the Borodin Quartet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borodin_Quartet

[Pulcinella]

As I think someone upstream noted, the original Emerson set was issued (on DG, btw, so whoever said this was the ‘Sony House Style’ was being nonsensical) as 1/3/5. & 2/4/6. I suspect that new packaging reflects a laziness in that the reissues couldn’t be bothered to change it

Richard: My (tongue-in-cheek) comment about Sony house style referred to the two Juilliard sets, which are chronological, but with the fourth quartet split across two CDs.

[mikealdren]

I've ripped all my CDs to computer so I no longer have these issues. Even multi-disk operas play from start to finish without interruption. From 5 mins on 78s to 30 on LP sides and then 80 mins on CD, there is no longer a limit to play lengths, bliss. And, of course, I can play things in any order I want - change the movement order of Mahler 6, easy.

Having said that, do I really care which order Schumann symphonies are presented in; I have never listened to them all in sequence and doubt whether I ever will?

[Lion-of-Vienna]

Anyone who is concerned about chronological order must really worry about playing the Haydn symphonies. Even the London symphonies are not numbered chronologically.