Six hundred string quartets for you

[Sydney Grew]

As foreshadowed, I have been making a list of available string quartets, mainly from Youtube. The period chosen is between 1820 and (approximately) 1980. There are currently 223 composers in the collection, and 613 string quartets. This means that for 613 days it will be possible for you to study and enjoy one new quartet daily. Should one devote - as one should - at least three hearings to each quartet, this will pleasantly occupy you for around 1800 days.

https://newartmusic.createaforum.com/notable-string-quartet(te)s

The collection consists only of those works that I find interesting, and has attracted little attention so far. There are plenty more; please add them if you feel inclined.

[Bryn]

What a surprise. No Shostakovich, nor Feldman, come to that.

[Stanfordian]

As foreshadowed, I have been making a list of available string quartets, mainly from Youtube. The period chosen is between 1820 and (approximately) 1980. There are currently 223 composers in the collection, and 613 string quartets. This means that for 613 days it will be possible for you to study and enjoy one new quartet daily. Should one devote - as one should - at least three hearings to each quartet, this will pleasantly occupy you for around 1800 days.

https://newartmusic.createaforum.com/notable-string-quartet(te)s

The collection consists only of those works that I find interesting, and has attracted little attention so far. There are plenty more; please add them if you feel inclined.

But April 1st has gone!

[Pulcinella]

As foreshadowed, I have been making a list of available string quartets, mainly from Youtube. The period chosen is between 1820 and (approximately) 1980. There are currently 223 composers in the collection, and 613 string quartets. This means that for 613 days it will be possible for you to study and enjoy one new quartet daily. Should one devote - as one should - at least three hearings to each quartet, this will pleasantly occupy you for around 1800 days.

https://newartmusic.createaforum.com/notable-string-quartet(te)s

The collection consists only of those works that I find interesting, and has attracted little attention so far. There are plenty more; please add them if you feel inclined.

Rita seems to have been quite active, though.
My retirement plans to listen to my CD opera collection, following the librettos, have come to nought, so I fear that trying to discipline myself to listen to a new SQ every day would similarly fail, but this does seem a terrific resource, and as such it deserves our thanks.

[LeMartinPecheur]

In case you've been worried, Beethoven is there but under V - presumably to keep Bernard van Dieren company!

[Dave2002]

What a surprise. No Shostakovich, nor Feldman, come to that.

Perhaps if you register for the site you could “rectify” that.

[ahinton]

What a surprise. No Shostakovich, nor Feldman, come to that.

The absence of Shostakovich is incredible - but then placing Beethoven under v for van is equally incomprehensible; that said, there are certainly some interesting ones there, not least the all too rarely performed one by Schmitt (if I'm to select just the one).

[LezLee]

Never heard of lots of them and as an ex-librarian I can't cope with the first letter only order! Strictly speaking, 'van Beethoven is correct, though often catalogued as 'Beethoven, Ludwig van (von). Daphne du Maurier, for instance, is shelved and catalogued under 'du'.

[vinteuil]

... Daphne du Maurier, for instance, is shelved and catalogued under 'du'.

... but François de la Rochefoucauld shd be catalogued under 'la'.


.

[LezLee]

... but François de la Rochefoucauld shd be catalogued under 'la'.


.

No! De la is 'of the' All these are words for 'of the' followed by the family name.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Never heard of lots of them and as an ex-librarian I can't cope with the first letter only order! Strictly speaking, 'van Beethoven is correct, though often catalogued as 'Beethoven, Ludwig van (von). Daphne du Maurier, for instance, is shelved and catalogued under 'du'.

I guess it's down to the vagaries of spoken English: Ludwig is Beethoven but Bernard is Van Dieren.

[Bryn]

The absence of Shostakovich is incredible - but then placing Beethoven under v for van is equally incomprehensible; that said, there are certainly some interesting ones there, not least the all too rarely performed one by Schmitt (if I'm to select just the one).

I see nothing "incredible" in such Grewsome exclusion. More like par for the course, as is also the case re. the lack of Feldman. As to the "van", one should bear in mind the Vandemonian connection of the contributor.

[LezLee]

Yes, I'm only going by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules which could well have been superseded since I retired in 1991!

[ahinton]

I see nothing "incredible" in such Grewsome exclusion. More like par for the course, as is also the case re. the lack of Feldman. As to the "van", one should bear in mind the Vandemonian connection of the contributor.

Being par for the course makes it no less incredible, to my mind.

As to the other thing, then

My old man said follow the van
And don't delay Dieren on the way.

Apparently.

[vinteuil]

... but François de la Rochefoucauld shd be catalogued under 'la'.

No! De la is 'of the' All these are words for 'of the' followed by the family name.

Yes, I'm only going by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules which could well have been superseded since I retired in 1991!

... for de la R I was followin' French rules.



.