# Beethoven's Late Quartets



## Oliver

I've listened to Beethoven's late quartets hundreds of times to the extent that I can whistle them over breakfast, and they're among my favourite pieces, but I can't understand why they are considered in particular to be among the greatest compositions of all time. They're obviously masterpieces but what puts them above (say) Dvorak's stunning 'American' quartet? Also what is so special in particular about the op 131? _Relative_ to the other 5, it didn't stand out to me.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Music is very subjective. You may rate Dvorak far higher than Beethoven, while someone else might not be able to stand Dvorak. Neither is objectively 'better' than the other, since both are collections of sounds.
Beethoven and Dvorak were both very talented composers, but a lot of people prefer Beethoven. It's just personal taste. Another possible reason is that a lot of late Beethoven is very innovative, e.g. the Grosse Fuge, my favourite work for string quartet.
Personally, I love the string quartets of both Beethoven and Dvorak.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I'm not very satisfied with the "Everything and the kitchen sink is subjective. It's all relative." line of thinking. I find it difficult to accept that _Tristan und Isolde_ is no better than _Fidelio_, just because it's all very subjective. I think it's fair to say that Tristan is better, let's not beat around the bush! There must be a reason why the Beethoven's Late Quartets are considered as highly as they are. It's difficult to assert that String Quartet #14, or #15 or #13, or the Grosse Fuge are _just_ as good as #1 or #2, or #6. The late quartets represent one of the very highest peaks in the classical music landscape, for good reason. I hope.

I've tried to maintain an "unsure" tone, because this is something I think about often. I don't have an answer, but it's just something I feel in my gut. There just has to be at least _some_ objectivity to all of this, or some kind of agreed upon criteria. I don't know, maybe I'm just losing it. 

In the meantime, while better minds try to figure it all out, like MoonlightSonata says, we can all relax and enjoy both Beethoven and Dvorak. Both Bach and Wagner. Both Debussy and Rameau... :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

I did a poll some time back asking readers to choose between Beethoven's late sonatas and late quartets. The quartets won, but it wasn't a walkover. Certainly we're operating at a pretty high level here! Can I prove that? No... :lol:


----------



## GKC

In opus 131, relative to your illustration of Dvorak's no. 12, There is much mystery, drama, gaiety (even a little goofiness), sadness,longing, unearthly beauty, not to mention the inspirational working out of themes. Dvorak's 12th has some lovely themes, but is not in the same class as B's 14th.

Now, can you whistle all four parts of opus 131's opening movement (not at the same time)? ;-)

Finally, do you have a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis? ;-)


----------



## Mandryka

With Dvorak, the music is a bit like chewing gum. Tasty at first but not very interesting after a while. Beethoven's quartets are a like a person you love. The more you know them the more you realise that there is more to know.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> With Dvorak, the music is a bit like chewing gum. Tasty at first but not very interesting after a while. Beethoven's quartets are a like a person you love. The more you know them the more you realise that there is more to know.


Interesting. In Kerman's book on Beethoven's quartets, he comments that beginning with the Op. 59 set, each quartet is like an individual person, each with a "unique physiognomy." That struck me when I read it because I think it's quite true.

Not to take anything away from Dvorak!


----------



## Mandryka

The idea isn't mine, or Kerman's, it's in A la recherche du temps perdu.

There are handful of late quartets by Dvorak which I like too.


----------



## nightscape

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I'm not very satisfied with the "Everything and the kitchen sink is subjective. It's all relative." line of thinking. I find it difficult to accept that _Tristan und Isolde_ is no better than _Fidelio_, just because it's all very subjective. I think it's fair to say that Tristan is better, let's not beat around the bush! There must be a reason why the Beethoven's Late Quartets are considered as highly as they are. It's difficult to assert that String Quartet #14, or #15 or #13, or the Grosse Fuge are _just_ as good as #1 or #2, or #6. The late quartets represent one of the very highest peaks in the classical music landscape, for good reason. I hope.
> 
> I've tried to maintain an "unsure" tone, because this is something I think about often. I don't have an answer, but it's just something I feel in my gut. There just has to be at least _some_ objectivity to all of this, or some kind of agreed upon criteria. I don't know, maybe I'm just losing it.
> 
> In the meantime, while better minds try to figure it all out, like MoonlightSonata says, we can all relax and enjoy both Beethoven and Dvorak. Both Bach and Wagner. Both Debussy and Rameau... :tiphat:


I do agree that art is not entirely subjective in terms of quality. The mistake a lot of people can make is to state that all art is even. You can, to a point, objectively weigh the character of a certain work and judge it better than something else. Just to take painting as an example. You have brush stroke, depth, use of color, scope, creativity, intent, etc. If I painted a stick figure on a canvas, you can probably find one person on this earth who likes it better than the Mona Lisa, but are we incapable of objectively stating as fact that it is artistically less interesting than the Mona Lisa? Not at all. We can, as a culture, make collective decisions about good art and bad art. That discussion is worth having. That discussion, however, shouldn't prevent someone as an individual from liking my stick figure masterpiece.


----------



## ptr

The Late Quartets is the only Beethoven I listen to regularly, his best work of any compositional category!

/ptr


----------



## Albert7

Meh the Mona Lisa is overrated. gimme Paul Klee any day of the week LOL


----------



## DebussyDoesDallas

I think because Beethoven's quartets strike a deeper cord of emotion and breathe a more rarified air, in contrast to the simpler, more immediate and less elusive pleasures of Dvorak. Not that the latter is superficial--quite to the contrary, the American quartet strikes several poignant and evocative cords--and it's one of the pieces that got me into string quartets. It's immediately charming, catchy, even touching. But the late quartets contain uniquely moving and mystifying passages as well as instantly appealing hooks.


----------



## Triplets

I don't like the idea of exalting one composer by dumping on another. It isn't Dvorak's fault that he couldn't write like Beethoven. What he did write is pretty enjoyable and we would be the poorer without it.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I tend to split Beethoven's late quartets into two groups - the Grosse Fuge and the rest


----------



## Skilmarilion

MoonlightSonata said:


> I tend to split Beethoven's late quartets into two groups - the *Heiliger Dankgesang* and the rest


Same here, only with the bolded change.


----------

