Indeed, I favor solo instrumental recordings, because that is what I relate to or understand the most: it is my "easy listening" genre. I do not accept this as healthy. One thing I have discovered is that the string quartet – at least as performed by a good ensemble – provides the same response as a soloist, but with a gorgeous, rich sound. I can listen to solo instrumental anywhere, on an iPod with headphones, on the small Squeezebox Boom in my office, or on the "big" stereo. However, if I want to really luxuriate in sound with the stereo, there's nothing like surrounding myself with the sound of a well-recorded string quartet.
This has led me to search for more repertoire. I have my Beethoven, my Haydn, a lot of Dvořák, all of Mendelssohn, etc. I keep looking for new composers in this medium, and this inevitably has led me to the Russians. Most recently I have discovered Glazunov, one of those well recognized names who has sat on the periphery of my experience: I knew who he was, but couldn't think of a single piece of his that I was familiar with. I knew that he was musically "conservative," but why would I hold that against him?
I have a recording of Tchaikovsky's quartets performed by the Utrecht String Quartet that always elicits the same reaction when I listen to it: "this is really nice!" This prompted me to order three CDs of Glazunov's quartets. Glazunov's quartets are also really nice – dare I say maybe a little nicer than Tchaikovsky's, on the whole? Does it matter? The MDG label has never let me down on excellence of engineering and these recordings just beg me to move my laptop into the living room so that I can wallow in the sound.
The label "Russian Romanticism" is sometimes intended as a slight: suggesting, pretty music with little substance. Is it a bad thing that one can derive such each easy pleasure from music – any music? In fact, the Utrecht String Quartet has recorded the works of an even lesser known Russian, Alexander Grechaninov, who eventually immigrated to America.
