Haydn, string quartets

Franz Joseph Haydn was a groundbreaking composer. He is often called "the father of the symphony"; sometimes also "the father of the string quartet".

Haydn was older than, but a contemporary of, both Mozart and Beethoven. He established the musical templates which Mozart and Beethoven then perfected.

As far as symphonies go, I prefer Beethoven. But I love Haydn's string quartets, whereas Beethoven's tend to strike me as maudlin. (Beethoven bridged the classical and romantic eras; I suppose the romanticism of Beethoven's string quartets is a little over the top for me.)

I don't have a lot of string quartet recordings in my library, so perhaps I shouldn't spout off on the subject. But I can at least recommend my favourite among the recordings I do possess:  the Alban Berg Quartet (pictured), performing Haydn's String Quartet in G, Op. 77 No. 1; and his String Quartet in F, Op. 77 No. 2.

Admittedly, the disc has one peculiar feature. In between the two beautiful compositions by Haydn, there is a modern piece by Berio:  Notturno (Quartetto III). When I say "modern", I mean the Alban Berg Quartet produces lots of squawks, squeaks, and squeals on their instruments:  unmusical noises. And there are 23 minutes of it.

I find that I can appreciate modern, atonal compositions in a live setting — it's a "happening", as they used to say in the 60s — but I never feel like inviting this sort of performance into my personal living quarters. It may be unenlightened of me to admit it. At least I can say that lots of other folks share my ignorant opinion.

Anyway, the two Haydn compositions consist of four movements each. So the disc has four beautiful, stirring tracks, followed by Berio's evocation of a cat yowling — one might imagine the poor feline desperately warding off a swirly — followed by four more beautiful, stirring tracks courtesy of Haydn. It's a schizophrenic experience, but on balance there's more Haydn than Berio.

I suspect the Alban Berg quartet was making the point that it's all music, and the silly distinctions people like me make between Haydn and Berio are arbitrary.

I remain unpersuaded. I don't find the Berio relaxing and pleasurable, whereas the Haydn compositions are both of those things:  gloriously so.

A good string quartet possesses what I describe as "quiet energy". It's easy to generate energy by grabbing an electric guitar and turning the amp up to "11" (per Spinal Tap), and maybe throwing in a primal scream (e.g., Roger Daltrey of The Who in "Won't Get Fooled Again").

It takes superior musicianship to keep the volume down yet crank the energy up. A string quartet, in the capable hands of talented musicians, has the potential to do just that.

Because it's quiet, a disc with "quiet energy" can be used as background music while you're concentrating on a demanding task. But because of the energy, it is also rewarding to set your task aside and attend exclusively to the music.

Notwithstanding my reservations about track five, I recommend the Alban Berg Quartet recording very highly. As I said above, this is my favourite of the string quartet recordings in my music library.

Songwriting:  ★★★★★
Performance:  ★★★★☆
Sound quality:  ★★★☆☆
In a word:  Exceptional.

Here's the Alban Berg Quartet performing a string quartet by Beethoven.



If you would like to hear Haydn's string quartet in G (the first composition on the Alban Berg disc), you can hear another performance of it here.

Shade of the Cedar Tree

Gettin' To It, by bassist Christian McBride, is one of the first discs I discovered when I began to explore jazz music. If you're on a similar journey of discovery, this disc comes highly recommended.

Here's McBride performing in 1994 (a year before Gettin' To It was recorded) with Joshua Redmond, Brad Mehldau, and Brian Blade:



McBride's jazz music is eminently accessible — but not to be dismissed on that account. Most of the songs on the disc are uptempo and they swing in the best tradition of jazz. There is plenty of fine musicianship here:  not only from McBride himself, but also from the lineup of all-stars who support McBride in his first outing as a leader in the studio. Namely:  Roy Hargrove (trumpet, flugelhorn), Joshua Redman (tenor sax), Steve Turre (trombone) Cyrus Chestnut (piano), and Lewis Nash (drums).

Each of the musicians is given several opportunities to shine, and they come through magnificently. I particularly love Hargrove's sparkling chorus on the opening track, "In A Hurry"; Cyrus Chestnut's imaginative solo on "The Shade of the Cedar Tree"; Steve Turre's nimble turn on "Gettin' To It"; and Joshua Redman's soulful solo on "Black Moon".

McBride is in fine form throughout the disc, but particularly so on "Too Close For Comfort" and the ballad "Stars Fell On Alabama". I'm not crazy about either "Splanky" or "Night Train" — the latter consisting of unaccompanied bass and the former of a bass trio (with Ray Brown and Milt Hinton joining McBride) — just because I prefer music with a broader palate of sounds. But AllMusic.com selects "Splanky" as one of its recommended tracks, so maybe it's just me.

This is straight ahead, unpretentious jazz music. The musicians are having fun; no one is trying to make an artistic statement for the ages. Rather, the emphasis is on producing entertaining tunes for the enjoyment of listeners like you.

The senior musicians must have been fond of McBride (who had already paid his dues performing as a sideman with artists including Wallace Roney, Betty Carter, Freddie Hubbard, Joe Henderson, Joe Lovano, and McCoy Tyner) to support his journeyman effort as band leader. The resulting disc is musical throughout — which isn't true of every jazz album — and features plenty of high points.

Songwriting:  ★★★☆☆
Performance:  ★★★☆☆
Sound quality:  ★★★★☆
In a word:  Good.

Mix Tape: Bruce Cockburn, Speechless

In 2005, Bruce Cockburn released a CD consisting entirely of instrumental tracks. He titled it, Speechless.

Cockburn is a Canadian artist — the best we've ever produced, in my opinion. He refined his guitar technique at the Berklee College of Music. Here's a brief explanation of his extraordinary technique, with some praise from Colin Linden and Jackson Browne:



I am a huge Bruce Cockburn fan. He is in the top five of my favourite songwriters, which puts him in the company of such luminaries as John Lennon and Pete Townshend. (I would probably throw Miles Davis in there, too. Davis often allowed his bandmates (Sonny Rollins, Wayne Shorter) to write the songs, but he was such a profound interpreter that it's tantamount to him being a co-songwriter.)

Unfortunately, I was disappointed in Speechless. Cockburn's greatest weakness as a songwriter is his tendency to spiral into a depressive mood. Cockburn campaigns for human rights around the globe and, clearly, the burden of his empathy for the world's oppressed peoples weights heavily upon him.

World-weariness sometimes is effective for him:  e.g., in "Pacing The Cage":

Sometimes the best map will not guide you
You can't see what's round the bend
Sometimes the road leads through dark places
Sometimes the darkness is your friend
Today these eyes scan bleached-out land
For the coming of the outbound stage
Pacing the cage
Pacing the cage

But on other occasions, Cockburn establishes a mood that is downright oppressive. And so it is with too many of the tracks on Speechless, in my opinion:  in particular because all of the new recordings ("Elegy", "Rise And Fall" "King Kong Goes To Tallahassee", and "The End of All Rivers") are melancholy in mood.

Cockburn compounds the problem by some of his selections from his back catalogue. From Nothing But A Burning Light, Cockburn could have chosen "Actions Speak Louder"; instead, he included "When It's Gone, It's Gone". From Breakfast In New Orleans, Dinner In Timbuktu, Cockburn could have chosen "Down To The Delta"; instead, he included "Deep Lake". From Inner City Front, Cockburn could have included "Radio Shoes", but Speechless doesn't include anything from that album.

In each case, I believe the principle was to go with acoustic rather than electric guitar; but the electric guitar songs are "speechless", too, and they would have added some much-needed variety to the mix.

No matter:  using my NAD C660 CD recorder, I assembled my own (almost-entirely) speechless Bruce Cockburn CD. 18 tracks, 78:30 total playing time:

1. Foxglove (from Night Vision)
2. Water Into Wine (from In The Falling Dark)
3. Rouler Sa Bosse (from Salt, Sun and Time)
4. Salt, Sun and Time (ditto)
5. Deer Dancing 'round A Broken Mirror (from Circles In The Stream)
6. Badlands Flashback (from Dancing In The Dragon's Jaws)
7. Bye Bye Idi (bonus track from Dancing …)
8. Radio Shoes (from Inner City Front)
9. Cala Luna (bonus track from The Trouble With Normal)
10. Mama Just Wants To Barrelhouse All Night Long (from Circles In The Stream)
11. Cader Idris (ditto)
12. Actions Speak Louder (from Nothing But A Burning Light)
13. Sunrise On The Mississippi (from Dart To The Heart)
14. Mistress of Storms (from The Charity of Night)
15. Down To The Delta (from Breakfast In New Orleans, Dinner In Timbuktu)
16. The End of All Rivers (from Speechless)
17. Sunwheel Dance (from Sunwheel Dance)
18. Peace March (from Time Short Call Now)

Eight of those songs are included on Speechless. Mostly, I have arranged the tracks in chronological order, but I haven't hesitated to deviate from strict chronology where I thought it would improve the flow of the tracks.

Two of my choices ("Badlands Flashback" and "Mama Just Wants To Barrelhouse …") have vocals, but both tracks also feature some stellar guitar work. And the vocals add some additional variety to the package, even if they violate the "speechless" rule.

The mix starts out simple and contemplative — five tracks of Cockburn's solo acoustic guitar — and builds to the most explosive track, "Down To The Delta", before being stripped down again ("The End Of All Rivers"). "Peace March" is chronologically the latest track, but it also happens to be an optimistic, mid-tempo number:  I think it concludes the musical journey on just the right note.

Here's a terrific live performance of one of my selections, "Down To The Delta":



Cockburn's instrumental work is suitable background music while you're reading a textbook or sharing a convivial glass of wine with a few friends. On the other hand, these instrumental tracks are sufficiently interesting to warrant your undivided attention when you just want to bask in some tunes.

Bask away:  your day will be greatly enriched for it.

Is it live or is it the NAD C660 CD recorder?

I used to love making my own mix tapes back in the day when it involved recording vinyl LPs onto audio cassettes. I was delighted the first time I saw a CD recorder for sale in an audio shop. But I wasn't able to afford one at the time, at a price of $1,100 or so.

I purchased a NAD C660 from a used audio shop a couple of months ago. Put a CD in the drawer on the left, put a blank disc in the drawer on the right, select "dubbing", push play, and voila! — the C660 burns a digital clone of the original CD.


Maybe you would prefer to copy just a few tracks from each of several CDs. You program the player on the left to play only the tracks you want to copy, then switch to a different CD and repeat the process. Every time you pause to switch to a new CD, the C660 will indicate how many tracks and how many minutes of music you have copied to the disc. It will also indicate when the blank disc is full (around 78 minutes of music).

When the CD is done copying (at 1X, 2X, or 4X the standard playing speed) you select "finalize" then push play to confirm that yes, you do want to finalize the disc. Finalization takes approximately 90 seconds; once it's done, you can't add any more tracks. The finalized disc is playable in any CD player.

The NAD C660 and other brands were available c. 2001. People soon began burning CDs on their personal computers, and this terrific product was discontinued.

Why would anyone want a CD recorder? What's wrong with burning discs on a PC? Either way we're talking about a digital clone, right?

Maybe. If you don't care about sound quality, don't give it another thought. But if you do care about sound quality, here are a couple of considerations to ponder.

First, the blank CDs you buy for your computer are an inferior product. Consider these two images:


Go grab any CD in your library and inspect it for the COMPACT DISC logo. Notice that it says, "DIGITAL AUDIO" underneath — just like the image on the left.

Now grab the kind of blank CD you use in your computer. Find the COMPACT DISC logo and you'll see that it corresponds to the image on the right.

Prerecorded discs are optimized for music. The blank discs you buy for your PC aren't.

Actually, you can purchase blank "DIGITAL AUDIO" discs and use them in your computer — you have that option. But if you want to copy a disc on the NAD C660, only one kind of disc will work. The C660 uses only the "DIGITAL AUDIO" discs.

That's a clue:  there's something going on inside the C660 that your computer doesn't replicate.

Second, ask yourself this question:  What's the first step in reproducing music in your living room at home?

Answer:  It's when your CD player reads the information stored on the CD. A lot of errors creep in during that process. (Due to pinholes in the CD, or scratches or dust on its surface, or jitter.)

A good CD player uses high quality components to minimize errors during the reading of the CD. For example, the Rega Saturn:

• uses a high-stability crystal oscillator in order to minimize jitter;
• optimises playback for each individual CD loaded into the transport compartment; and
• has an exceptionally large memory capacity (20Mb). The Saturn uses that stored information to correct errors while the CD is playing.

Do you suppose that the manufacturer of your computer put such a premium on extracting information from an audio CD? Uh … I think not. PCs are designed to perform many functions; audio reproduction is a low priority.

(That may change now that people are streaming music from their PCs to their stereo systems. But a PC is still a multi-purpose device, whereas a CD player specializes in just playing CDs. That's not about to change.)

It matters because your computer can copy the CD only as accurately as it reads the CD. Uncorrected errors degrade the sound quality.

As far as I can tell, the NAD C660 makes copies that are as good as the original. There is no discernible loss of sound quality.

You can use the C660 as your regular CD player. I intend to use mine only for its copying capabilities, to keep it functioning as long as possible without the need for repairs. It won't be easy to replace in a few years, given that no one manufactures CD recorders anymore.

(Edit: correction. There are a variety of CD recorders still available — I just haven't seen one on the floor of an audio shop for years. Several options are reviewed at About.com. My suspicion is that the C660 would still be a better choice for audiophiles because (a) NAD manufactures audiophile-calibre CD players and (b) the new CD recorders seem to incorporate computer technology. The use of computer technology may be a feature rather a bug, of course — it's a matter of personal preference.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Readers who remember the 70s will get the reference in the title:  "Is it live or is it Memorex?" was a tag-line in commercials for Memorex blank audio cassette tapes.)

The moral law within us; the starry heavens above us

I'm not really qualified to guide anyone through Beethoven's nine symphonies, or the buhzillion recordings of them. I'll keep this post brief, but I think it's worth picking up a thread begun by Paul Wells in October 2008. Wells offered his recommendations on the finest recordings of the complete cycle (i.e., all nine Beethoven symphonies recorded by a single conductor and orchestra — no small undertaking).

I enthusiastically endorse Wells's second pick:  Paavo Jarvi conducting the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie Bremen. Jarvi conducts at lickety-split tempos — as Wells says, these are "tremendously exciting performances" — and yet they remain both precise and nuanced.

There's one recording of the cycle that I heartily recommend, but which Wells doesn't mention. That's why I say I'll be picking up the thread where Wells left off.



Claudio Abbado has recorded the cycle three times, twice with the Berlin Philharmonic orchestra. The original recording with the Berlin Philharmonic was made in 2000. The second was recorded only a year later, although it was not released on CD until 2009. Abbado felt that their interpretation of the music had matured after numerous performances, even though only a year had passed.

Since I don't claim to be an expert, I'll merely pass along a quote from classicalcdreview:

The conductor elected to use fewer strings, reducing the bass group in symphonies 1, 2, 4 and 8 to only three double basses and four cellos. He also uses only two horns in symphony 5, three in symphony 3. The result is an uncommonly transparent listening experience.

"Transparent" is an important compliment in this context. Symphonies, because of their enormous size, are difficult to record well; and it's difficult for a stereo system to reproduce the music satisfactorily. To describe the Abbado recordings as "uncommonly transparent" is to praise these recordings for the clarity of the sound.

Even so, I found that these recordings were too much for my previous CD player (a Cambridge Audio Azur 640C) to handle. The presentation is much better on my Rega Saturn.

(I should hope it would be, given that the Saturn is approximately four times as expensive as the Azur 640C. Cambridge Audio is universally praised for giving you good value for your money. Even so — if you pay significantly more, you ought to notice a significant improvement!)

In the final analysis, even a very good CD player can't improve on the quality of the recording — it can only reveal the quality (whether good or poor) of the sound encoded on the CD. My Saturn reveals that the Abbado cycle is impressively well recorded, bearing in mind the unwieldiness of a symphony orchestra.

Songwriting:  ★★★★★ (It goes without saying;
but I'm following my standard format here.)
Performance:  ★★★★★
Sound quality:  ★★★☆☆
In a word:  Sublime.

Footprints

Miles Davis, The Columbia Years: 1955-1985 (four CDs).

Let's suppose you are a jazz neophyte. You would like to become familiar with this music, but you hardly know where to begin. Perhaps you recognize the names of a few of the acknowledged masters — among them, Miles Davis.



Performers:  Miles Davis, trumpet; John Coltrane, tenor saxophone; Wynton Kelly, piano; Paul Chambers, bass; and Jimmy Cobb, drums. The song is a shortened version of "So What", originally released in 1959 on Kind of Blue. There's another fine, live performance of "So What" on The Columbia Years: 1955-1985.

So far, so good. Miles Davis is absolutely a good choice if you want to explore jazz. But be forewarned:

• The Miles Davis catalogue is vast.
• Davis's style ranged tremendously, from early explorations of bebop with Charlie Parker, through The Birth of the Cool, through further bop innovations of the famous quintet with John Coltrane, through the orchestral settings arranged by Gil Evans, through the more abstract, sparer sound of the quintet with Wayne Shorter, into jazz/rock fusion, and beyond.
• Let me emphasize the point:  the music from one era in Davis's career is liable to be wildly different than the music from another era in Davis's career.
• Further complications arise because Davis's recordings have been repackaged so many times. Caveat emptor:  some of the compilations are dreck, not worth $5 from a bargain bin.

The point is, it isn't such a straightforward proposition for a jazz neophyte to pick out a Miles Davis CD. I once told a friend, "I love Miles Davis's music, except I loathe Bitches Brew, and I have very little interest in anything that followed it."

"Oh," he responded: "I always hated Miles Davis, but then Bitches Brew was the only disc we owned at our house."

(Your mileage may vary:  lots of people think Bitches Brew is downright awesome.)

Which brings us to The Columbia Years: 1955-1985. Because this four-CD package covers a thirty-year span, it provides a taster for the disparate dishes Davis cooked up while he was under contract with Columbia.

OK, the early explorations with Charlie Parker aren't represented here — if you want those, you'll need to buy a Charlie Parker disc. And The Birth of The Cool isn't represented here, aside from a later live recording of "Budo" — that highly influential set was recorded in 1949.

But the Columbia compilation covers the peak of Davis's career, in the company of his many outstanding collaborators:  John Coltrane, "Cannonball" Adderley, Red Garland, Paul Chambers and Philly Joe Jones; Hank Mobley, George Coleman, Bill Evans, Wynton Kelly, Jimmy Cobb; Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter, and Tony Williams; Chick Corea, Keith Jarret, John McLaughlin, and Jack DeJohnette. All of those musicians were renowned in their own right; many of them first came to public notice performing with Davis. And they are all represented in one or more tracks on The Columbia Years.

Sounds great, right? But I must admit, the compilation doesn't delight me.

The problem is twofold. First, I own approximately ten other Miles Davis CDs. Inevitably, some of the best tracks on this compilation ("All Blues", "Footprints", "My Funny Valentine") are songs I already own. You'll have to consider whether you're in the same position. (There's only one previously unreleased track on the compilation, and several alternate takes which you may or may not have.)

Second, as I've already indicated, the later stages of Davis's career leave me cold. I think his best work occurred when he was playing bop music:  not only during the Coltrane era, but also earlier (e.g., with Sonny Rollins and Horace Silver).

Davis's work with Wayne Shorter has some high points, but it's more abstract, emotionally remote, and therefore harder to relate to. After that, we're into the Bitches Brew era which, to my ears, is utterly cacophonous. Maybe Bitches Brew is a great artistic statement, but the bottom line is, I find it unpleasant to listen to.

Why then did I purchase The Columbia Years? I thought I should give those later recordings another chance to see whether I could warm up to them. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.

My other reason for purchasing the compilation is that The Columbia Years includes tracks from some CDs that I don't intend to buy:  e.g., Ascenseur Pour L'Échafaud and Circle In The Round.

All of the fusion tracks are grouped together on disc four. And who knows? — you might love Davis's fusion period, and decide that my inability to appreciate it outs me as a musical neanderthal.

Turning now to the sound quality:  It isn't entirely consistent, since the songs were recorded over a thirty-year span. But I'd say it's generally good and occasionally exceptional ("All Blues", "Miles").

Jazz recordings often impress me — even stuff dating from the late 50s. In part, I think it's because the instrumentation is relatively sparse:  often just one "soloist" playing over a rhythm section, with the (acoustic) bass much quieter than it is in the case of rock music. I think it must be easier to record a relatively simple arrangement, with just a few instruments. Ultimately, the recording is easier for your stereo to reproduce.

Yes, it's a sonic pleasure to fire up the these CDs on my stereo system.

Given the wide range of styles on The Columbia Years, it's hard for me to give the compilation an overall rating. For this purpose, I'll assume the fusion tracks are worth having:  i.e., that the problem is with my taste, rather than Davis's musical decisions.

Songwriting:  ★★★★☆
Performance:  ★★★★★
Sound quality:   ★★★½ ☆½
This compilation:  ★★★★☆
In a word: Exceptional.

Slip us a rope and sail on 'round the bend

I bought my first record when I was thirteen years old. The year was 1975; naturally, the LP was Captain Fantastic And The Brown Dirt Cowboy, by Elton John.

For my first review at Thirsty Ears, it seems fitting that I should choose another Elton John disc:  Tumbleweed Connection.

Elton John is a singles artist but Tumbleweed Connection doesn't have a hit single on it. The best known track is "Burn Down The Mission". Here's a recent performance:



Don't spurn this disc because of the lack of a hit single. It's a concept album; maybe the only one that Elton ever pulled off.

The cover art signals that we're being transported to the Wild West. The concept probably succeeds because Bernie Taupin (Elton's lyricist) always fantasized about the USA in general and the Wild West in particular. It's a topic that gets Taupin's creative juices flowing, so he was able to write an album full of tracks on the theme. (OK, with a couple of love songs thrown in. What's a pop album without love songs?)

Elton's writing became formulaic as the years passed, but at this stage of his career (1970) he hadn't discovered the formula yet! Hence the lack of a hit single — but ultimately it isn't a weakness. This album is distinctive, not to be mistaken for anything else in Elton's recording career. It sets a mood with the first track and sustains it throughout the disc.

That's not to say that every song sounds the same — not at all. There are ballads ("Come Down In Time", "Love Song"), a country-inflected tune ("Country Comfort"), and a stand-out track consisting of solo piano with a powerful vocal ("Talking Old Soldiers"). The up-tempo tracks ("Ballad of a Well-known Gun", "Son Of Your Father", "Burn Down The Mission") might be described as roots music, with one foot firmly planted in the blues tradition. There's even a bit of jazz to be found in the 30 second intro to "My Father's Gun".

In sum:  it's a highly original disc featuring plenty of variety, yet the album hangs together very well.

And the sound? I am deeply impressed by how well Elton John's discs were recorded. Look for the discs which say "The Classic Years" to the left of the artwork — those ones have been remastered. I have plenty of discs from the 70s which sound muddy — downright crappy, even — but the sound quality of the Elton John discs is consistently fine.

I'd go so far as to say that the beginning of "Amoreena" is a good track to test the quality of your stereo system. First, a tasty bit of solo piano; then (bam!) in come the drums, bass, organ, and guitar. Each instrument is distinct in the mix; each has real punch. Listen to the overall effect, listen again to whichever instrument happens to grab your attention. It all sounds good.

Songwriting:  ★★★★☆
Performance:  ★★★★☆
Sound quality:  ★★★★☆
In a word:  Exceptional.