Carter versus Busoni -- Carter loses

[William Sommerwerck]

Yesterday I located the quad LP of Elliott Carter's 2nd and 3rd string
quartets. It's been over 35 years since I last heard it, and little has
changed. It is only slightly less opaque than I remembered.

If I had a thorough education in music, and had the scores in front of me,
perhaps I would understand, and even appreciate these works. But I don't,
and I don't. The chart showing how the various sections of the 3rd are
played in retrograde sequence, in opposition to each other is interesting,
but I don't hear that. * Am I supposed to listen to one pair of instruments
in isolation (which the quad recording makes possible, in principle), learn
what's going on, then repeat the process for the other group, finally (after
multiple listenings) playing them together?

I find myself in a position of hypocritical conflict. I don't object to
music that requires two or three hearings before we grasp it. (That's one of
the pleasures of listening to "serious" music.) But how far is this process
supposed to go? "Life is short." How much time am I supposed to spend in
order to grasp two Pulitzer-Prize-winning works? **

This is in contrast to the Three As, whose music I've gradually come to
enjoy (if that's the word), particularly in performances that reveal its
connections with earlier music. (I have no quarrel with the Juilliard
quartet's performances of the Carter works. They seem to be committed and
comprehending.)

Listening to Busoni's "Doktor Faust" later was a breath of fresh air. I
don't remember having heard it before, but it was immediately appealing.
It's hardly more "difficult" than Wagner. I'm surprised it's not a
repertoire work. As for DFD in the title role... He voice didn't strike me
as being unduly lightweight. (I had to double-check the box to confirm it
was he.)


* My SQ decoder appears to have failed, and I'm not getting the correct
directional effects. "It was working just fine a few years ago." Some
research is needed.

** It's tempting to theorize the Pulitzer judges award prizes to works
//they// don't understand, on the assumption such music must be Highly
Elevated Art (qv, "Patience"). If I wanted to be really mean, I'd follow
Gilbert's lead and call such works "laxative music".

[Mark S]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Yesterday I located the quad LP of Elliott Carter's 2nd and 3rd string
quartets. It's been over 35 years since I last heard it, and little has
changed. It is only slightly less opaque than I remembered.
If I had a thorough education in music, and had the scores in front of me,
perhaps I would understand, and even appreciate these works. But I don't,
and I don't. The chart showing how the various sections of the 3rd are
played in retrograde sequence, in opposition to each other is interesting,
but I don't hear that. * Am I supposed to listen to one pair of instruments
in isolation (which the quad recording makes possible, in principle), learn
what's going on, then repeat the process for the other group, finally (after
multiple listenings) playing them together?
I find myself in a position of hypocritical conflict. I don't object to
music that requires two or three hearings before we grasp it. (That's one of
the pleasures of listening to "serious" music.) But how far is this process
supposed to go? "Life is short." How much time am I supposed to spend in
order to grasp two Pulitzer-Prize-winning works? **

Nobody would say that Carter's music is easy to get into, but it is
accessible if one is willing to spend the time.

As far as the compositional techniques he uses, I don't know that
being able to actually hear if a theme is in retrograde makes any
difference. It comes down to what the music sounds like. People don't
sit around appreciating a sonata because the composer employed an
Alberti bass, after all. It's only the means to the end.

BTW - I once attended master classes given by Elliot Carter at Oberlin
College in Ohio. He was an engaging guy who was in his late 60s or
early 70s and who looked like he wasn't long for this world even then
(fooled me!).

The highlight of the class was when one of the composition students at
Oberlin asked him why he continued to write his music using the
tradition staves and clefs of western music; why he didn't take
advantage of newer forms of notation and write his music on graph
paper or something else?

Carter's answer was a short as it was sweet: "because I want musicians
to PLAY my music." Perhaps that answer sheds some light on whether
Carter expected a listener like yourself to spend their time looking
at how his music was notated, rather than just listening to it as
music.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Mark S

Post by William Sommerwerck
Yesterday I located the quad LP of Elliott Carter's 2nd and 3rd string
quartets. It's been over 35 years since I last heard it, and little has
changed. It is only slightly less opaque than I remembered.
If I had a thorough education in music, and had the scores in front of me,
perhaps I would understand, and even appreciate these works. But I don't,
and I don't. The chart showing how the various sections of the 3rd are
played in retrograde sequence, in opposition to each other is interesting,
but I don't hear that. * Am I supposed to listen to one pair of instruments
in isolation (which the quad recording makes possible, in principle), learn
what's going on, then repeat the process for the other group, finally (after
multiple listenings) playing them together?
I find myself in a position of hypocritical conflict. I don't object to
music that requires two or three hearings before we grasp it. (That's one of
the pleasures of listening to "serious" music.) But how far is this process
supposed to go? "Life is short." How much time am I supposed to spend in
order to grasp two Pulitzer-Prize-winning works? **

Nobody would say that Carter's music is easy to get into, but it is
accessible if one is willing to spend the time.
As far as the compositional techniques he uses, I don't know that
being able to actually hear if a theme is in retrograde makes any
difference. It comes down to what the music sounds like. People don't
sit around appreciating a sonata because the composer employed an
Alberti bass, after all. It's only the means to the end.
BTW - I once attended master classes given by Elliot Carter at Oberlin
College in Ohio. He was an engaging guy who was in his late 60s or
early 70s and who looked like he wasn't long for this world even then
(fooled me!).
The highlight of the class was when one of the composition students at
Oberlin asked him why he continued to write his music using the
tradition staves and clefs of western music; why he didn't take
advantage of newer forms of notation and write his music on graph
paper or something else?
Carter's answer was a short as it was sweet: "because I want musicians
to PLAY my music." Perhaps that answer sheds some light on whether
Carter expected a listener like yourself to spend their time looking
at how his music was notated, rather than just listening to it as
music.

I suppose this could be considered the dreaded thread drift, but last
night I heard the Oregon Symphony play John Adams's new piece 'City
Noir'. I'm not sure whether it's good or not--that will take a number of
re-hearings--but the orchestra also played Le Sacre to close the concert
(and the season), and by comparison it struck one as being of positively
Mozartian clarity compared with the Adams. It was the first time I've
ever heard Le Sacre live. I hope it won't be the last!

Bob Harper

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Bob Harper
I suppose this could be considered the dreaded thread drift, but last
night I heard the Oregon Symphony play John Adams's new piece 'City
Noir'. I'm not sure whether it's good or not--that will take a number of
re-hearings--but the orchestra also played Le Sacre to close the concert
(and the season), and by comparison it struck one as being of positively
Mozartian clarity compared with the Adams. It was the first time I've
ever heard Le Sacre live. I hope it won't be the last!

You said "by comparison". Was "Le Sacre" ever problematic for you? I liked
it the first time I heard it (yes, in Stokowski's romanticized
interpretation), and at the age of 10, it made perfect sense to me.

[Bob Harper]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Bob Harper
I suppose this could be considered the dreaded thread drift, but last
night I heard the Oregon Symphony play John Adams's new piece 'City
Noir'. I'm not sure whether it's good or not--that will take a number of
re-hearings--but the orchestra also played Le Sacre to close the concert
(and the season), and by comparison it struck one as being of positively
Mozartian clarity compared with the Adams. It was the first time I've
ever heard Le Sacre live. I hope it won't be the last!

You said "by comparison". Was "Le Sacre" ever problematic for you? I liked
it the first time I heard it (yes, in Stokowski's romanticized
interpretation), and at the age of 10, it made perfect sense to me.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. No, like you I loved Le Sacre from the first
time I heard it. I had more problems with Bruckner :) I only meant
that the complexity of the Adams piece far exceeded that of Le Sacre--
or at least the busyness did.

Bob Harper

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Mark S
Nobody would say that Carter's music is easy to get into,
but it is accessible if one is willing to spend the time.

The issue for me is... How much time are listeners without musical
educations supposed to expend? There are so many other "unfamiliar"
composers with more-accessible music...

[Tassilo]

On May 21, 12:34 pm, "William Sommerwerck"

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Mark S
Nobody would say that Carter's music is easy to get into,
but it is accessible if one is willing to spend the time.

The issue for me is... How much time are listeners without musical
educations supposed to expend? There are so many other "unfamiliar"
composers with more-accessible music...

There are no such things as "listeners without musical educations"
except among fairly young infants. Your musical education began when
you heard "Three Bind Mice" or some such thing as a child and learned
to perceive it as made up of musical shapes. The kind of education
required to listen to Carter is the kind of education required to
listen to Beethoven or Rachmaninov. You learn to grasp these
composers’ idioms by listening to (or playing) their music. No
graduate level theory course will ever help you to hear Carter's
quartets. Only listening can help you. (You have to learn to speak
your native tongue before you can ever study the grammar of any
language. There's learning and there's learning.)

I’m not denying the special problems posed by music as dense as
Carter’s (and, together with the Concerto for Orchestra, the 3rd
Quartet represents an extreme point in Carter’s evolution). But
learning to hear Carter differs in degree, not in kind, from learning
to hear the music you already like to listen to.

I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that it’s easier to learn
to hear Carter’s 2nd Quartet from the Nonesuch recording with the
Composers Quartet than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

-david gable

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Tassilo
I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that
it’s easier to learn to hear Carter’s 2nd Quartet from
the Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet
than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

[herman]

Post by William Sommerwerck
After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

I have their Carter 5, which is a great work

[John Hood]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Tassilo
I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that
it's easier to learn to hear Carter's 2nd Quartet from
the Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet
than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

I always listen to music with my eyes closed. It helps me hear better.
Sometimes I 'take a peek' at concerts.

JH

[operafan]

I can't connect with any of Carter's music except for the Piano
Sonata, which is atypical of what we think of as Carter's style, and
the Cello Sonata (still a relatively easy listen).

[jrsnfld]

Post by John Hood

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Tassilo
I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that
it's easier to learn to hear Carter's 2nd Quartet from
the  Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet
than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

I always listen to music with my eyes closed. It helps me hear better.
Sometimes I 'take a peek' at concerts.
JH

Same here. In addition (re: a comment made about listening to Carter
in Quad), while stereo is nice and perhaps surround sound or quad is
better (I've never heard these), none of these is an important factor
to listening to a string quartet. You track instruments by their
sound, not by their spatial position.

--Jeff

[Steve Emerson]

In article

Post by jrsnfld

Post by John Hood

Post by William Sommerwerck
After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet
set. It's not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if
the DVD has any of the performances, perhaps "seeing" the music
will help my understanding.

I always listen to music with my eyes closed. It helps me hear better.
Sometimes I 'take a peek' at concerts.
JH

Same here.

Variously open and shut, here. Getting the glasses off can improve the
sound in your ears, though -- especially at home, where there's a back
wall more obviously in play.

Post by jrsnfld
In addition (re: a comment made about listening to Carter
in Quad), while stereo is nice and perhaps surround sound or quad is
better (I've never heard these), none of these is an important factor
to listening to a string quartet. You track instruments by their
sound, not by their spatial position.

Myself, I love nicely recorded stereo for a string quartet (nothing
about quad one way or the other). An exact feeling for where each
instrument is makes the whole thing more vivid.

Not to disagree as to whether it's utterly important. I have multitudes
of mono quartet recordings and they get lots of play.

SE.

[Al Eisner]

Post by jrsnfld

Post by John Hood

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Tassilo
I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that
it's easier to learn to hear Carter's 2nd Quartet from
the  Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet
than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

I always listen to music with my eyes closed. It helps me hear better.
Sometimes I 'take a peek' at concerts.
JH

Same here. In addition (re: a comment made about listening to Carter
in Quad), while stereo is nice and perhaps surround sound or quad is
better (I've never heard these), none of these is an important factor
to listening to a string quartet. You track instruments by their
sound, not by their spatial position.

You don't think the Carter 3rd might be an (possibly the only?)
exception to the latter statement? At least for initial listening?

[Tassilo]

Post by Al Eisner

Post by jrsnfld
You track instruments by their
sound, not by their spatial position.

You don't think the Carter 3rd might be an (possibly the only?)
exception to the latter statement? At least for initial listening?
--Al Eisner

Well, there's always Stockhausen's Gruppen (for three orchestras),
various choruses in the St. Matthew Passion, and the finale to Act I
of Don Giovanni where three different spatially separated "dance
bands" onstage play different music in different meters
simultaneously. One of the little orchestras plays a peasant dance,
one a bourgeois dance, and one an aristocratic minuet. (Alan Gilbert
has programmed the Don Giovanni finale on an NYP program with Gruppen
at the end of June.) The four groups required for Stockhausen’s Carré
should ideally surround the audience, and, in Boulez’s Répons, the
audience surrounds the chamber orchestra at the center of the hall
while the soloists are at the perimeter of the hall, where the sounds
they produce go swirling around the audience thanks to the digital
transformations they undergo.

By the way -- and I would kill to hear this myself -- Carter has
actually said privately that he’d like to hear the Concerto for
Orchestra performed with the separate instrumental groups playing it
distributed around the hall some day, not that he ever will. I’d
really love to hear the winds sweeping across the North American
continent in that piece under those circumstances.

-dg

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Tassilo
By the way -- and I would kill to hear this myself -- Carter
has actually said privately that he’d like to hear the
Concerto for Orchestra performed with the separate
instrumental groups playing it distributed around the hall
some day, not that he ever will. I’d really love to hear the
winds sweeping across the North American continent in
that piece under those circumstances.

Where is Andrew Kazdin when we need him?

Sounds like an appropriate Naxos project. Anyone out there listening?

[Al Eisner]

Post by Tassilo

Post by Al Eisner

Post by jrsnfld
You track instruments by their
sound, not by their spatial position.

You don't think the Carter 3rd might be an (possibly the only?)
exception to the latter statement? At least for initial listening?
--Al Eisner

Thanks for the neat list (below)! Just to clarify, the comment I was
responding to (Jeff's?) was specifically about string quartets, at least
that was how I interpreted it in my resposne. But it's nice to see
your examples anyway.

Post by Tassilo
Well, there's always Stockhausen's Gruppen (for three orchestras),
various choruses in the St. Matthew Passion, and the finale to Act I
of Don Giovanni where three different spatially separated "dance
bands" onstage play different music in different meters
simultaneously. One of the little orchestras plays a peasant dance,
one a bourgeois dance, and one an aristocratic minuet. (Alan Gilbert
has programmed the Don Giovanni finale on an NYP program with Gruppen
at the end of June.) The four groups required for Stockhausen?s Carré
should ideally surround the audience, and, in Boulez?s Répons, the
audience surrounds the chamber orchestra at the center of the hall
while the soloists are at the perimeter of the hall, where the sounds
they produce go swirling around the audience thanks to the digital
transformations they undergo.
By the way -- and I would kill to hear this myself -- Carter has
actually said privately that he?d like to hear the Concerto for
Orchestra performed with the separate instrumental groups playing it
distributed around the hall some day, not that he ever will. I?d
really love to hear the winds sweeping across the North American
continent in that piece under those circumstances.
-dg

[Steve Emerson]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Tassilo
I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that
it’s easier to learn to hear Carter’s 2nd Quartet from
the Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet
than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

I saw them perform the cycle, and although I haven't heard the discs,
I'm sure you can't go wrong -- their playing is utterly superlative, and
it is never dry. They're not going to supersede the Composers Quartet,
especially as an introduction (although my comment was actually somewhat
different from what appears above).

The Carter piano sonata and cello sonata, both early works, might be an
even better introduction to the works, or at least the equal of the
first quartet in that way. I'd be really surprised if William didn't
find them compelling and readily accessible. The playing on the old
Phoenix CD (still available) featuring Webster, Greenhouse and others is
propulsive and clear as a bell.

SE.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Steve Emerson
The Carter piano sonata and cello sonata, both early works, might be an
even better introduction to the works, or at least the equal of the
first quartet in that way. I'd be really surprised if William didn't
find them compelling and readily accessible. The playing on the old
Phoenix CD (still available) featuring Webster, Greenhouse and others is
propulsive and clear as a bell.

More disks to buy... <grin>

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Steve Emerson
The Carter piano sonata and cello sonata, both early
works, might be an even better introduction to the works,
or at least the equal of the first quartet in that way. I'd be
really surprised if William didn't find them compelling and
readily accessible. The playing on the old Phoenix CD
(still available) featuring Webster, Greenhouse and others
is propulsive and clear as a bell.

I just ordered it. Thanks.

One tends to assume that Arkiv "has everything", but it doesn't. I had to
search Amazon to find it.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck
One tends to assume that Arkiv "has everything", but it doesn't. I had to
search Amazon to find it.

Another reason I miss Tower Records.

[herman]

Post by Steve Emerson
The Carter piano sonata and cello sonata, both early works, might be an
even better introduction to the works, or at least the equal of the
first quartet in that way.

I heard the Juilliard SQ perform a 1 - 4 integrale just before the 5th
SQ was done. In general Carter's late works, from the 90s onwards, are
a terrific experience, and I would recommend anyone starting from
there.

[Alan Cooper]

Post by Steve Emerson

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Tassilo
I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that
it’s easier to learn to hear Carter’s 2nd Quartet from
the Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet
than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica
Quartet set. It's not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews,
and if the DVD has any of the performances, perhaps "seeing"
the music will help my understanding.

I saw them perform the cycle, and although I haven't heard the
discs, I'm sure you can't go wrong -- their playing is utterly
superlative, and it is never dry. They're not going to supersede
the Composers Quartet, especially as an introduction (although
my comment was actually somewhat different from what appears
above).
The Carter piano sonata and cello sonata, both early works,
might be an even better introduction to the works, or at least
the equal of the first quartet in that way. I'd be really
surprised if William didn't find them compelling and readily
accessible. The playing on the old Phoenix CD (still available)
featuring Webster, Greenhouse and others is propulsive and clear
as a bell.

And for more delightful "easy" Carter, try 8 Etudes and a Fantasy. Classic
recording here (complete): http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/piece.pl?pid=133
CD copies are getting expensive, it seems: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000001UOG

AC

[Tassilo]

I saw [the Pacifica] perform the cycle, and although I haven't heard the discs,
I'm sure you can't go wrong -- their playing is utterly superlative, and
it is never dry.

I heard the Pacifica perform the entire cycle in a different year and
a different city, and I agree with Steve. Sadly, their wonderful
Naxos recordings lack some of the urgency and excitement of the live
performances I heard.

They're not going to supersede the Composers Quartet,
especially as an introduction

I don’t think they supersede that great Composers Quartet recording of
the first two quartets, period.

-dg

[Tassilo]

Post by William Sommerwerck
After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

The performers on the various Pacifica, Juilliard, Composers, and
Arditti Quartet recordings of the Carter quartets all exhibit
terrifying levels of musical skill, but I would opt for the Composers'
Nonesuch recording of 1 & 2 and the JSQ's Columbia recording of 2 & 3
over just about any of the other studio recordings of any of the
quartets.

-dg

[Al Eisner]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Tassilo
I disagree with my good friend Steve Emerson that
it?s easier to learn to hear Carter?s 2nd Quartet from
the Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet
than from the Columbia recording with the Juilliard
Quartet. Or vice versa.

After a bit of research, I decided to order the Pacifica Quartet set. It's
not expensive, it's gotten favorable reviews, and if the DVD has any of the
performances, perhaps "seeing" the music will help my understanding.

I was introduced to the third quartet as part of a Pacifica performance of
the set (possibly the same one Steve Emerson attended). For just that
quartet, they substantially increased the physical spacing between the two
duos. This in itself, along with the visuals (and the "chart" you've
mentioned) was very helpful.

But while you may get that audio effect from the above set, so far as
I can tell the DVD is linked not to the Pacifica quartets, but to the
third CD in the set. Apparently, that CD, when issued on its own,
already came packaged with the DVD. I don't have this, but there is
a detailed informative review on musicweb:
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/June09/Carter_8559614.htm

[maready]

On May 21, 12:34 pm, "William Sommerwerck"

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Mark S
Nobody would say that Carter's music is easy to get into,
but it is accessible if one is willing to spend the time.

The issue for me is... How much time are listeners without musical
educations supposed to expend? There are so many other "unfamiliar"
composers with more-accessible music...

How much time does a listener WANT to spend? If you feel you are
wasting your time, there's no reason to continue banging your head
against the wall. I've spent a lifetime of observing myself with
curiosity, wondering why certain composers were immediate 'hits' with
me and others have taken a lifetime .... I decided when I was in my
early 20s that my difficulty with the music of JS Bach, Bruckner and
Carter (among others) was obviously just that --- my own problem ---
given that others got so much out of them. It's an individual's choice
to make the committment, sometimes over decades. Bruckner finally hit
me in my early 40s, Carter began to get through to me in my mid-40s,
Bach is still giving me difficulty in my 50s. To put myself in
context, I am a 'trained' musician, and possess all the teachable
tools that should have enabled me to make sense of these composers.
With Brahms, Webern and Rameau, it was 'love at first listen' --- who
knows why?

My answer to the question 'Why spend a lot of time with Carter's music
when there are so many composers with more-accessible music?' is that
there is more than enough music (not to mention all the other arts) to
make complete mastery or understanding of the entirety impossible for
a single human lifespan. While it is true that sticking to immediately-
comprehensible composers would allow one to devour music at a rapid
pace, it's always possible that a long and protracted struggle with a
shorter list of composers that don't reveal their secrets easily may
provide deeper enjoyment and stimulation in the long run. My time
could have been just as profitably spent trying to get a handle on the
R&B/soul/dance music continuum from Stax to Detroit techo to Deep
House to Grime (and in fact, much of it has been!) There is more than
enough out there to keep me busy --- for me, anyhow, my long struggle
with Carter has been a rewarding experience.

A short list of the Carter that first came into focus for me:

Variations for Orchestra, Piano Concerto, Duo for violin and piano,
Oboe Concerto, Double Concerto. It always felt that it would make
sense to concentrate on the five String Quartets, but I found the
works for orchestra had more surface attractions to tide me over while
I was getting used to Carter's idiom. Later on, I did take the plunge
into the quartets, but must admit that it was with score in hand and
that I still rely on the printed music to a certain extent some 12
years on ....

[Steve Emerson]

In article
<dcff337e-f2de-4ac8-ada3-***@x10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
maready <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

(deletions)

Post by maready
Variations for Orchestra, Piano Concerto, Duo for violin and piano,
Oboe Concerto, Double Concerto. It always felt that it would make
sense to concentrate on the five String Quartets, but I found the
works for orchestra had more surface attractions to tide me over while
I was getting used to Carter's idiom. Later on, I did take the plunge
into the quartets, but must admit that it was with score in hand and
that I still rely on the printed music to a certain extent some 12
years on ....

I'm glad to see somebody mention the Variations for Orchestra and
violin/piano duo, both of which I too liked immediately.

SE.

[Steve Emerson]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Yesterday I located the quad LP of Elliott Carter's 2nd and 3rd string
quartets. It's been over 35 years since I last heard it, and little has
changed. It is only slightly less opaque than I remembered.

For the record -- whose recording? If 2-3, maybe Juilliard? But is that
quad?

The Composers Quartet recording of quartets 1 and 2 makes both pretty
accessible, I think. They highlight continuities and interrelationships
of phrase, and their slightly old-fashioned approach to timbre makes the
works attractive to the ear.

Quartet #3, where Carter breaks the ensemble into two opposing duos (a
technique he also employs in a few other works), and where you have
something approaching two freestanding compositions that must be heard
simultaneously and correlated, is a very different beast. But even
there, I think it is a matter of training yourself in how to hear it --
I don't think you have to bone up on theory.

SE.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Steve Emerson

Post by William Sommerwerck
Yesterday I located the quad LP of Elliott Carter's 2nd
and 3rd string quartets. It's been over 35 years since
I last heard it, and little has changed. It is only slightly
less opaque than I remembered.

For the record -- whose recording? If 2-3, maybe Juilliard?
But is that quad?

Yes, there were stereo and SQ (ar, ar) recordings. 1974, I think. I mention
the Juilliard later in my comments.

Post by Steve Emerson
The Composers Quartet recording of quartets 1 and 2 makes
both pretty accessible, I think. They highlight continuities and
interrelationships of phrase, and their slightly old-fashioned
approach to timbre makes the works attractive to the ear.

Then I will put it on my Want list. Thank you.

Post by Steve Emerson
Quartet #3, where Carter breaks the ensemble into two opposing
duos (a technique he also employs in a few other works), and
where you have something approaching two freestanding
compositions that must be heard simultaneously and correlated,
is a very different beast.

Counterpoint has never bothered me. (Yes, I know this isn't conventional
counterpoint.)

Post by Steve Emerson
But even there, I think it is a matter of training yourself in how to
hear it -- I don't think you have to bone up on theory.

Well, let's see. I'll report back after I've heard the CQ (another
electronics joke!) performance.

[herman]

The whole idea of listening to music to see who "loses" is, obviously,
so mindbogglingly philistine it's pretty clear who is the loser here.

And it isn't any of the composers.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by herman
The whole idea of listening to music to see who "loses"
is, obviously, so mindbogglingly philistine it's pretty clear
who is the loser here.
And it isn't any of the composers.

If I'm a Philistine, it's because I sort by albums by label, then catalog
number.

You rather miss the point... If I'd liked both, both would have been
winners. If I'd liked neither, both would have been losers. I would prefer
to like -- enjoy -- everything I listen to. Unfortunately, that's not always
the case.

[Tassilo]

Post by herman
The whole idea of listening to music to see who "loses" is, obviously,
so mindbogglingly philistine it's pretty clear who is the loser here.

(1) You're taking the title of this thread too seriously. (2) I
seriously doubt that Mr. Sommerwerck ever listened to the music of
Carter, Busoni, or anybody else in order to learn which composer would
"win." No need to attack this particular use of figurative language.

-Tassilos

[herman]

Post by herman
The whole idea of listening to music to see who "loses" is, obviously,
so mindbogglingly philistine it's pretty clear who is the loser here.

(1) You're taking the title of this thread too seriously.  (2) I
seriously doubt that Mr. Sommerwerck ever listened to the music of
Carter, Busoni, or anybody else in order to learn which composer would
"win."  No need to attack this particular use of figurative language.
-Tassilos

Well, in that case, words having no particular meaning, there's no
need to to question my comments either.

Perhaps I meant something else entirely, who can tell?

[herman]

I think the best approach is just to go to a concert featuring Carter
music.

Especially his orchestral music is so richly textured, you just have
to be there.

That way you'll also find it is not so much an object of study as a
exquisitely enjoyable expereince.

[herman]

Post by herman
I think the best approach is just to go to a concert featuring Carter
music.
Especially his orchestral music is so richly textured, you just have
to be there.
That way you'll also find it is not so much an object of study as a
exquisitely enjoyable expereince.

And I'd recommend getting a recording of the Night Fantasies for piano
solo, either by Aimard or Rosen, a 23 minute piece.

[Mark S]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Yesterday I located the quad LP of Elliott Carter's 2nd and 3rd string
quartets.
Listening to Busoni's "Doktor Faust" later

I must say that that is quite a day of "heavy classics" listening! I
don't know that I'd be up for such a day's listening. One piece or the
other, but not both, followed by the New World or a few hours in front
of the TV machine.

You're a better man than I.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Mark S

Post by William Sommerwerck
Yesterday I located the quad LP of Elliott Carter's
2nd and 3rd string quartets.
Listening to Busoni's "Doktor Faust" later...

I must say that that is quite a day of "heavy classics" listening!
I don't know that I'd be up for such a day's listening. One piece
or the other, but not both, followed by the New World or a few
hours in front of the TV machine.
You're a better man than I...

...am, Gunga Din.

No, I'm not. Everybody's reactions are different. "Doktor Faust" is a not a
particularly challenging work for me. Other people might react differently.

I did separate the two with something light 'n fluffy, but I don't remember
what it was.

[Tassilo]

Just for fun, here’s a discography of all the recordings of Elliott
Carter’s string quartets known to me updated since the last time I
posted it here. It includes all of the studio recordings including
some issued on now elusive LP’s and several recordings of live
broadcasts.

I. Complete Studio Recordings

The Juilliard and Arditti String Quartets recorded complete cycles
before Carter composed the fifth quartet. The Pacifica made an
integral recording of all five quartets.

String Quartets 1 & 4
String Quartets 2 & 3
Arditti Quartet
Irvine Arditti & David Alberman, violins;
Levine Andrade, viola; Rohan de Saram, cello
Recorded June 1988
String Quartets 1 & 4, Et Cetera KTC 1065
String Quartets 2 & 3, Et Cetera KTC 1066

String Quartets 1-4
Juilliard Quartet
Robert Mann & Joel Smirnoff, violins;
Samuel Rhodes, viola; Joel Krosnick, cello
Recorded May 28-June 15, 1991
Sony S2K 47229

String Quartet no. 1 (1951)
String Quartet no. 5 (1995)
Pacifica Quartet
Simin Ganatra & Sibbi Bernhardsson, violins;
Masumi Per Rostad, viola; Brandon Vamos, cello
Recorded March 16-18, 2007 (no. 1); June 3-4, 2007
Naxos 8.559362, (P) 2008

String Quartet no. 2 (1959)
String Quartet no. 3 (1971)
String Quartet no. 4 (1985-86)
Pacifica Quartet
Simin Ganatra & Sibbi Bernhardsson, violins;
Masumi Per Rostad, viola; Brandon Vamos, cello
Recorded July 5-6, 2008 (no. 2); September 11-13, 2008 (no. 3);
September 24-25, 2008 (no. 4)
Naxos 8.559363, (P) 2009

II. Recordings of String Quartet no. 1

String Quartet no. 1 (1951)
Walden Quartet
Homer Schmitt & Bernard Goodman, violins;
John Garvey, viola; Robert Swenson, cello
Recorded February 2, 1955
Columbia ML 5104 (LP), (P) 1956

String Quartet no. 1 (1951)
[coupled with String Quartet no. 2]
Composers Quartet
Matthew Raimondi & Anahid Ajemian, violins;
Jean Dupouy, viola; Michael Rudiakov, cello
Recorded 21-23 April, 1970
Nonesuch H 71249 (LP), (P) 1970
CD reissues: Nonesuch 9 71249-2; Nonesuch 510893-2

III. Recordings of String Quartet no. 2

String Quartet no. 2 (1959)
Juilliard Quartet
Robert Mann & Isidore Cohen, violins;
Raphael Hillyer, viola; Claus Adam, cello
Recorded October 27 & 31, 1960
RCA LM 2481 (monaural LP) & LSC 2481 (stereo LP)
CD reissue: Testament SBT 1374

String Quartet no. 2 (1959)
[coupled with String Quartet no. 3]
The Juilliard String Quartet
Robert Mann & Earl Carlyss, violins;
Raphael Hillyer, viola; Claus Adam, cello
Recorded February 19, 1969
Columbia M 32738 (LP), (P) 1974

String Quartet no. 2 (1959)
[coupled with String Quartet no. 1]
Composers Quartet
Matthew Raimondi & Anahid Ajemian, violins;
Jean Dupouy, viola; Michael Rudiakov, cello
Recorded 21-23 April, 1970
Nonesuch H 71249 (LP), (P) 1970
CD reissues: Nonesuch 9 71249-2; Nonesuch 510893-2

String Quartet no. 2 (1959)
Quatuor Debussy
Christophe Collette & Dominique Lonca, violins
Vincent Deprecq, viola
Yannick Callier, ’cello
Live performance, Paris, February, 1994

String Quartet no. 2 (1959)
The Juilliard String Quartet
Joel Smirnoff & Ronald Copes, violins
Samuel Rhodes, viola
Joel Krosnick, ’cello
Live performance, Paris, Cité de la Musique, January 22, 2008
Troisième Biennale de Quatuors à cordes

IV. Recordings of String Quartet no. 3

String Quartet no. 3 (1971)
[coupled with String Quartet no. 2]
The Juilliard String Quartet
Duo I: Earl Carlyss, violin; Claus Adam, cello
Duo II : Robert Mann, violin; Samuel Rhodes, viola
Recorded November 19-21, 1973
Columbia M 32738 (LP), (P) 1974

String Quartet no. 3 (1971)
Arditti Quartet
Irvine Arditti & Levine Andrade, violins;
Lennnox MacKenzie, viola
Rohan de Saram, cello
Recorded February 1982
[British] RCA Red Seal RS 9006 (LP)

String Quartet no. 3 (1971)
Composers Quartet
Matthew Raimondi & Anahid Ajemian, violins;
Jean Dane, viola; Mark Shuman, cello
Musical Heritage Society MHS 4876 (LP), (P) 1983

String Quartet no. 3 (1971)
Arditti Quartet
Irvine Arditti & David Alberman, violins;
Garth Knox, viola
Rohan de Saram, cello
Live performance, Wien Modern, 4 November 1990
Schubert-Saal, Wiener Konzerthaus

String Quartet no. 3 (1971)
Arditti String Quartet
Irvine Arditti & Ashot Sarkissjan, violins
Ralf Ehlers, viola
Lukas Fels, cello
Live performance, Paris, Cité de la Musique, January 25, 2008
Troisième Biennale de Quatuors à cordes

V. Recordings of String Quartet no. 4

Elliott Carter: String Quartet no. 4 (1985-1986), New York première
Composers Quartet
Matthew Raimondi & Anahid Ajemian, violinists
Jean Dane, violist
Mark Shuman, ’cellist
December 12, 1986
Merkin Concert Hall

String Quartet no. 4 (1985-86)
Composers Quartet
Matthew Raimondi & Anahid Ajemian, violins;
Maureen Gallagher, viola; Mark Shuman, cello
Recorded 1988
Music & Arts CD-606, (P) 1990

String Quartet no. 4 (1985-86)
Arditti String Quartet
Live performance, Paris, Cité de la Musique, January 26, 2008
Troisième Biennale de Quatuors à cordes

VI. Recordings of String Quartet no. 5

String Quartet no. 5 (1995)
Arditti Quartet
Irvine Arditti & Graeme Jennings, violins;
Garth Knox, viola; Rohan de Saram, cello
Recorded 15-19 July 1996
Disques Montaigne CD

String Quartet no. 5 (1995)
Arditti String Quartet
Live performance, Amsterdam, June 9, 1996

String Quartet no. 5 (1995)
Amati Quartet
Sebastian Hamann et Katarzyna Nawrotek, violons
Nicolas Corti, alto Claudius Hermann, violoncelle
Live performance, Paris, Cité de la Musique, January 27, 2008
Troisième Biennale de Quatuors à cordes

-dg

[Tassilo]

The Composers Quartet recording of Carter’s 1st & 2nd quartets has
been released both on a single CD and as part of a 4-CD compilation.
You should be able to find cheap copies of the compilation, which
includes all of the recordings of Carter’s music that Nonesuch made
over the years except for the recording of Carter’s Duo made shortly
after the premiere by Paul Zukofsky and Gilbert Kalish. Included in
its place is a DG recording of the Variations for Orchestra with James
Levine. Here are the URL’s:

http://www.amazon.com/Elliott-Carter-String-Quartets-Nos/dp/B000005IVL/ref=sr_1_15?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1337740316&sr=1-15

http://www.amazon.com/Elliott-Carter-A-Nonesuch-Retrospective/dp/B001FZCZFW/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1337740128&sr=1-4

-dg

[Josquin]

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, and especially to Mr dg
for taking the time to document the quartet versions. I always
appreciate his input and glad to see him posting more frequently.

What would be very valuable for me, as well as probably many others,
is a recommendation for a single Carter work and version to start
with. Although I have (on LP!) the Nonesuch versions of quartets 1 and
2, as well as the Lateiner version of the Piano Concerto, I have in
the 40 years or so I've possessed these never listened to them!
Inexcusable, I know, but it is never too late to start enjoying
Carter's work.

But very helpful would be for folks to just suggest one work and
(available) version of it which they particularly enjoy. Not Carter's
"greatest" work - or the most "popular" - or the most accessible, but
just something characteristic that they like...

Thanks!!

[Tassilo]

Josquin wrote, “What would be very valuable for me, as well as
probably many others, is a recommendation for a single Carter work and
version to start with.” Unfortunately, I may have gone a bit
overboard in responding.

The Cello Sonata (1948)

As somebody has already suggested, one good point of entry into
Carter’s music may well be the Cello Sonata. Taking a cue from
Stravinsky’s discussion of musical time in The Poetics of Music, the
first movement of the Cello Sonata demonstrates in a very clear way
the origin and nature of Carter’s thinking.

Carter had studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris, and Boulanger was a
great apostle of Stravinsky’s music. As a Boulanger student, Carter
would have been familiar with the discussions of musical time that
unfolded in Stravinsky’s Parisian milieu, and he would have been
familiar with The Poetics of Music, which was essentially a manifesto
of Stravinsky’s neoclassicism. In the Poetics, Stravinsky had claimed
that late Romantic composers had fallen into the error of writing
music in “psychological time,” music characterized by its reliance on
a continuous and finicky rubato and by a corresponding lack of
objectivity and backbone. Ticking along with an elegant precision,
Stravinsky’s own music of the period, the composer claimed, was
written in “ontological time,” which he defined as “objective” time or
time as measured by the clock: Stravinsky believed that his
neoclassical music had restored an objectivity characteristic of 18th
century music that had gradually been lost in the 19th century, the
age of subjectivity. Far from administering a coup de grace to
“psychological” time, however, by the law of unintended consequences
Stravinsky’s discussion inspired the notion among many younger
composers that there were many different kinds of musical time.

In the first movement of Carter’s cello sonata, the cello and piano
inhabit different time worlds that seem to arise from the specific
qualities characteristic of the sounds produced by the two
instruments, an approach that has remained fundamental to Carter to
this day. While the cello is notable for its ability to project warm
melodic writing in a sostenuto style, the piano is a percussion
instrument, and, in the first movement of Carter’s sonata, the piano
ticks along like a neoclassical piece by Stravinsky projecting its own
precisely elegant music, while the cello goes its own way, completely
ignoring the steady ticking in the piano part as it projects a warm
rubato melody. To borrow Stravinsky’s categories, the cello part is
written in “psychological” time, the piano part in “ontological” or
clock time.

String Quartet no. 1 (1951)

Another good point of entry into Carter’s world might well be the
first string quartet, which is really the piece in which Carter turned
into Carter, as has often been said. One of the advantages of the
first quartet for the listener new to Carter is the fact that it is
already fully characteristic of the mature Carter but much less
fiercely concentrated than the later quartets.

Recalling the composition of the first quartet in the liner notes for
the Nonesuch recording with the Composers Quartet, Carter quoted
Joseph Wood Krutch to express his own feelings about the piece,
claiming that the quartet was written “largely for my own
satisfaction and grew out of an effort to understand myself.” The
quartet recalls the advanced American music of the period between the
wars and perhaps especially the 2nd String Quartet of Charles Ives and
Ruth Crawford Seeger’s string quartet. In Carter’s quartet, the parts
for each of the four instruments are independent and highly
individuated: unlike the successive entries in a Bach fugue, each of
which unfolds the same theme, the entries of each instrument in
Carter’s first quartet unfold different material. As for the forms
unfolded in the quartet, they are forms in continuous if gradual
evolution rather than forms depending on exact recurrences of
previously stated material.

String Quartet no. 2 (1959)
Double Concerto (1961)
Piano Concerto (1965)
Concerto for Orchestra (1969)
String Quartet no. 3 (1971)

At least in my opinion, nothing that Carter wrote between the first
and second string quartets is really on the level of those two
quartets. In any case, the 2nd quartet is the work in which finally
Carter arrived at the fierce concentration and exhilarating complexity
that would characterize his music for more than three decades. With
the arguable exception of the Double Concerto, the works written
between 1959 and 1971, the years in which he completed the 2nd and 3rd
quartets, may be the most difficult pieces Carter ever wrote for both
the performer and the listener.

Carter’s style is ultimately rooted in the developmental processes
characteristic of Western music from Haydn to Berg, but-- music in a
continuous state of flux -- Carter’s music is “developmental” and
processive in the extreme. It no longer depends on the recurrent
themes or motives that are developed throughout in a movement from a
Beethoven symphony or intermittently in a Wagner opera: fragmentary
new motives are constantly generated in the ever changing flux and as
quickly discarded. Furthermore, Carter absorbed the lessons that the
textures in the orchestral music of Debussy and Ives had to teach him,
and texture as such assumes an unprecedented importance in his
music.

Near then end of the dozen years spanning from the 2nd to the 3rd
quartet, Carter reached an extreme point in his development with the
Concerto for Orchestra and the 3rd quartet. These works feature the
most teeming and kaleidoscopic textures that Carter ever created, the
most mercurial forms, the most extreme individuation of the
simultaneously unfolding layers of texture: the Concerto for Orchestra
is a programmatic depiction of the winds sweeping across the North
American continent.

Several people have told me that they’ve found it easier to get a
handle on the Concerto for Orchestra than the 3rd quartet, and I seem
to recall that that was true of me as well, perhaps because of the
greater differentiation that the colors of an orchestra permit. In
any case, the Concerto for Orchestra is the piece from these dozen
years that I would recommend to a listener new to Carter. It’s
certainly one of the most exhilarating pieces ever written by Carter
or anyone else.

Brass Quintet (1974)
A Mirror on Which to Dwell (1975)
Symphony of Three Orchestras (1976)
Oboe Concerto (1987)
String Quartet no. 4 (1985)
Violin Concerto (1990)

(This is not a complete list of the works of this period.) Having
written the Concerto for Orchestra and the 3rd Quartet, there is a
sense in which Carter no longer had anything more to prove to himself,
and he became a more relaxed and fluent composer. From the mid-70’s
on, it has taken Carter less time to write each work, and the rate of
Carter’s production has steadily increased. (In the 50’s and 60’s
Carter was determined to avoid the awkward mechanical quality
characteristic of all too much of the “advanced” European music of the
1950’s, and there are pages and pages of sketches for such works as
the Concerto for Orchestra: sketching enabled Carter to become fluent
in the language of the piece before he composed it.) A comparative
relaxation in style is already apparent from the Brass Quintet and the
song cycle “A Mirror on Which to Dwell.” On the other hand, the
Symphony of Three Orchestras and the String Quartet no. 4 are as
ambitious, substantial, and finely wrought as anything Carter has ever
composed. (Carter’s less ambitious works are only less ambitious
relative to Carter’s more ambitious works.)

Among the pieces written in the two decades after the 3rd Quartet, the
oboe and violin concertos are among the more readily approachable
works. The Brass Quintet and Symphony of Three Orchestras are great
favorites of mine.

ASKO Concerto (2000)
Boston Concerto (2002)
Dialogues for Piano & Orchestra (2003)
Flute Concerto (2008)

I’m not exactly what marked the beginning of Carter’s late period.
His 90th birthday? In any case the works Carter has written in this
millennium are shorter, less complex, and rather more approachable
than the music of the 60’s and 70’s in particular. The first three
of these pieces are conveniently included on a single Bridge CD. You
can hear a snippet from the flute concerto with Emmanuel Pahud, the
Berlin Philharmonic, and Daniel Barenboim here:

-david gable

[Tassilo]

Here are recordings of pieces that I mentioned in my little essay on
Carter. -dg

Cello Sonata
Bernard Greenhouse, Beveridge Webster
Phoenix

This wonderfully characterful recording would probably be my first
choice, but I hope the recording with Fred Sherry & Charles Wuorinen
is as good as the names Sherry & Wuorinen suggest it should be. I’ve
got the CD, but I’m not sure I’ve ever listened to the recording of
this piece: “Elliott Carter: Eight Compositions,” Bridge Records

String Quartet no. 1
Composers Quartet
Nonesuch

Concerto for Orchestra
SWR Sinfonieorchester, Michael Gielen
Arte Nova

I like all four recordings of the rip roaring Concerto for Orchestra
including NYP/Bernstein (Sony); NYP/Boulez (live in a NYP American
music box), and London Sinfonietta/Knussen (Virgin or EMI), but
Bernstein, wonderfully wild though it may be, is a bit rough and ready
around the edges. (It was decided at the last minute to record the
Concerto with Bernstein right after the premiere, and playing Carter
was a brand new experience for the NYP.) Boulez and Knussen probably
preside over the most secure ensembles, but -- recorded live -- Gielen
is pretty damned secure and more unbridled.

Brass Quintet
Wallace Collection
On the defunct Collins Classics label

My favorite recording of this is actually the first recording with the
American Brass Quintet (Columbia Records LP), but the Wallace
Collection’s performance is just as spirited and comprehending. A
more recent recording by a later incarnation of the American Brass
Quintet is disappointingly smooth and laid back.

Symphony of Three Orchestras
NYP, Boulez
Sony

The only recording of this piece is an exhilarating account made right
after the premiere by the conductor and orchestra that gave the
premiere.

Oboe Concerto
Heinz Holliger, Ensemble InterContemporain, Boulez
Warner Apex (budget reissue)

Violin Concerto
Rolf Schulte, violinist
Odense Symphony Orchestra
Justin Brown
“The Music of Elliott Carter, volume 6”
Bridge Records

Don’t let the unfamiliar names fool you: Schulte is a remarkable
violinist and close friend of the composer, and the orchestra and
conductor are absolutely first rate.

ASKO Concerto/Boston Concerto/Dialogues
Nicholas Hodges, piano; London Sinfonietta; Oliver Knussen (Dialogues)
BBC SO, Knussen (concertos)
“The Music of Elliott Carter, volume 7”
Bridge Records

-dg

[Steve Emerson]

In article

Post by operafan
Cello Sonata
Bernard Greenhouse, Beveridge Webster
Phoenix

The pianist in the cello sonata is Anthony Makas. Webster plays the
piano sonata (he recorded it twice).

--Dept. of Minutiae

Post by operafan
This wonderfully characterful recording would probably be my first
choice, but I hope the recording with Fred Sherry & Charles Wuorinen
is as good as the names Sherry & Wuorinen suggest it should be. I¹ve
got the CD, but I¹m not sure I¹ve ever listened to the recording of
this piece: ³Elliott Carter: Eight Compositions,² Bridge Records

[Tassilo]

Post by Steve Emerson
The pianist in the cello sonata is Anthony Makas. Webster plays the
piano sonata (he recorded it twice).
--Dept. of Minutiae

Woops! Thanks.

-dg

[whiskynsplash]

Post by Josquin
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, and especially to Mr dg
for taking the time to document the quartet versions.  I always
appreciate his input and glad to see him posting more frequently.
What would be very valuable for me, as well as probably many others,
is a recommendation for a single Carter work and version to start
with. Although I have (on LP!) the Nonesuch versions of quartets 1 and
2, as well as the Lateiner version of the Piano Concerto, I have in
the 40 years or so I've possessed these never listened to them!
Inexcusable, I know, but it is never too late to start enjoying
Carter's work.
But very helpful would be for folks to just suggest one work and
(available) version of it which they particularly enjoy. Not Carter's
"greatest" work - or the most "popular" - or the most accessible, but
just something characteristic that they like...
Thanks!!

I'd suggest the Oboe concerto with Holliger/Boulez together with
Esprit Rude, Mirror On Which To Dwell, Penthode.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000E8ST
http://www.amazon.com/Carter-Oboe-Cto-Espirit-Rude/dp/B00005MO9P

For some very early Carter try the Holiday Overture, Symphony No. 1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00019P6PO

And I'm very pleased with the Pacifica Quartet's recordings of all 5
quartets. I've also got the Arditti Quartet's recordings but they only
cover the first four quartets.

CARTER, E.: String Quartets (Complete) / 100th Anniversary Release (3CD
+1DVD Box Set Release)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002YOJC7W

The Guardian's guide to Elliott Carter contains some useful youtube
links.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2012/apr/30/guide-contemporary-music-elliott-carter

And finally, here's Carter's 130th birthday celebration and the story
of how he met that itinerant insurance salesman, Ives. Enjoy!
http://www.earbox.com/posts/73