# Beethoven's late quartets



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Way over a century ago, George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Why should I be asked to listen to the intentional intellectualities, profundities, theatrical fits and starts, and wayward caprices of self-conscious genius which make up those features of the middle period Beethovenism of which we all have to speak so seriously, when I much prefer these beautiful, simple, straightforward, unpretentious, perfectly intelligible posthumous quartets?"

Was Shaw right? Do we, even today, truly "get" these quartets? What do you think?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Yeh, they can be enjoyed as music, no reason to put mystique behind music. The one I like least is probably the last, love the middle movements of it though.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I believe the only person who truly "gets" a piece of music is the person who wrote it, though only on the deepest levels of consciousness, such that they would be quite unable to communicate that understanding to someone else in any meaningful way. Everyone else will come to some understanding, on quite the same level of consciousness, but one that is only relevant to their own personal contexts.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Why does there have to be one meaning behind music anyway. It's very nature is universal and really more abstract than some other more representational arts. I'm sure many composers write music knowing that there is probably more than one way it can be performed and interpreted. For a performance art to live it has to be recreated every time and brought alive in a new way.


----------



## unpocoscherzando (Sep 24, 2011)

"Was Shaw right?"

Very rarely.

"Do we, even today, truly "get" these quartets?"

Some do, certainly.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I can see what Shaw was meaning with the middle period ones (or even some earlier ones perhaps), or at least parts of them. In a way Beethoven is more direct in the later pieces, not looking to impress so much as just write down what he felt. The mysticism over them comes from them being at the end of his life more than anything else. People always romanticise the final works of a composer.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> I believe the only person who truly "gets" a piece of music is the person who wrote it, though only on the deepest levels of consciousness, such that they would be quite unable to communicate that understanding to someone else in any meaningful way. Everyone else will come to some understanding, on quite the same level of consciousness, but one that is only relevant to their own personal contexts.


I believe that non-vocal music is apt to have as many potential 'gets' as its intricacy allows. Music communicates the sense of things even more imprecisely than language does. I have often been startled by what another mind 'got' from a music, in that I had perceived something(s) entirely different.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

As I said before though differering approaches by performers quite clearly show there are different ways to see a piece.

Beethoven said he only just started to learn how to write for quartets with these. That was clearly an overstatement, but I think he meant he found a more direct intimacy which is more relevant to this medium, as opposed to some other areas like the symphony or piano music where a more heroic approach or virtuoso technique can be used to express thoughts.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't know if I "truly get" these quartets or, for that matter, any other music. I know that his late quartets are clearly my favorites of those he wrote. They were not always so. After listening to them a few times and, perhaps more importantly, hearing a wealth of other music that expanded my listening pleasure, I came to view them as fascinating and beautiful.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here's the context of that quote, from the SA-CD.net site:

[...the Ninth Symphony has fugue, fugatto and double fugues from start to end.]

[-Of which symphony Ludwig Spohr said "It is true that there are people who imagine they can understand them, and in their pleasure at the claim, rank them far above his earlier masterpieces. But I am not of their number and freely confess that I have never been able to relish the last works of Beethoven. Yes, I must even reckon the much admired Ninth Symphony among these, the three first movements of which seem to me, despite some solitary flashes of genius, worse than all the eight previous symphonies. The fourth movement is, in my opinion, so monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's Ode, so trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could have written it."]

[-To which after a lengthy pause, George Bernard Shaw replied, "Why should I be asked to listen to the intentional intellectualities, profundities, theatrical fits and starts, and wayward caprices of self-conscious genius which make up those features of the middle period Beethovenism of which we all have to speak so seriously, when I much prefer these beautiful, simple, straightforward, unpretentious, perfectly intelligible posthumous quartets?"]

This quote confuses me somewhat, especially placed out of context; and retrieving the context did not clarify it. I can only assume that Shaw was being sarcastic or facetious when he said this, as he seems to have "reversed" the character of the more conservative middle quartets with the late (unless he actually thought this).

For me, it's the late quartets which have "intentional intellectualities, profundities, theatrical fits and starts, and wayward caprices of self-conscious genius," as in the fits & starts of the op. 135 in F major, second movement and last movement, which is also "intellectually profound."

Of course, it is widely held that these quartets helped usher-in modernism, with their self-absorbed ideas which obey their own laws, and seem to be a direct expression of the composer's intellectual and artistic concerns, not "entertainment" for any imagined audience. The abrupt bursts of flat-nine chords in movement IV/Op. 135 would cause ladies to spill their teacups.

If we "get" these quartets, it's because we are receptive to "art" and see music as a somewhat self-absorbed feral creature which we will never quite be able to tame; if we don't, then it's because we have rejected them as not meeting our expectations of what Beethoven was doing earlier, which, as Michael Karman ("someguy") pointed out in his interview, is not truly "listening" to new music in the correct way, but simply expecting our expectations to be catered to. which runs contrary to my ideas about engaging with art. For me, music is more than simply "furniture" with which I decorate the showroom window of my pretensions.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> They were not always so. After listening to them a few times and, perhaps more importantly, hearing a wealth of other music that expanded my listening pleasure, I came to view them as fascinating and beautiful.


This is what I always feel with music, the more someone expands their listening horizons the better they can get to understand and really judge the individual creativity of music.

On the point again concerning how complex or not this music is. I think the individual components aren't necessarily that difficult, there's quite a simple march in op132, and a German dance in op130. It's more the juxtaposition of things that takes more getting used to, but once you accept the wide range of emotions I don't see the problem really. And that was probably even the case for some in the 19th century. The idea that it's ahead of its time I think is just myth-making.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> On the point again concerning how complex or not this music is. I think the individual components aren't necessarily that difficult, there's quite a simple march in op132, and a German dance in op130. It's more the juxtaposition of things that takes more getting used to, but once you accept the wide range of emotions I don't see the problem really.


It seems as though this would involve a strain to reach "simplicity," as if one had to go through a process of "acceptance of a wide range of emotions" to reach the simplicity. That's too much work for me.

The view that these late quartets are "problematic" is an implicit assumption assumed by the OP: "Do we, even today, truly "get" these quartets?" One must wonder what the OP talking about, or implying.



> The idea that it's ahead of its time I think is just myth-making.


If there's nothing to "get" since these late quartets are so "simple, not difficult" and "not ahead of their time," I must wonder why the OP framed the question "Do we, even today, truly "get" these quartets..." These seem to be opposing views. Perhaps the OP has bought-in to that very myth.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Everything it seems to me is of its time inescapably, unless Beethoven had a time travel machine we aren't aware of.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starry said:


> Everything it seems to me is of its time inescapably, unless Beethoven had a time travel machine we aren't aware of.


The 'public' is always ready to take the easy way. Rossini's music charmed the public, Beethoven's mostly did not. That situation always exists, at least that seems to be one cornerstone in _some guy_'s perennial argument.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well yeh, but you can't expect to please everyone. Some DID appreciate Beethoven's late works at the time.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Here's the context of that quote, from the SA-CD.net site:...


Don't think so. Since Shaw was three years old when Spohr died, I doubt they ever had a serious conversation about late Beethoven!

The Shaw quote is from one of the essays he wrote as a music critic. I think it can be found in "Bombardments," an excellent anthology of his music writings.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The 'public' is always ready to take the easy way. Rossini's music charmed the public, Beethoven's mostly did not. That situation always exists, at least that seems to be one cornerstone in _some guy_'s perennial argument.


Speaking of millions's "myths," Beethoven was very popular indeed in the 1820s. Publishers bid against one another for the late quartets and paid top ducat. Why? Because Beethoven could move a lot of sheet music. The amateur market of the day was extensive, enthusiastic, obviously not easily daunted, and always wanting the newest and most exciting thing.

There's a great passage in Cooper about this with a lot of detail. I'll repost it if anybody's interested.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Speaking of millions's "myths," Beethoven was very popular indeed in the 1820s. Publishers bid against one another for the late quartets and paid top ducat. Why? Because Beethoven could move a lot of sheet music. The amateur market of the day was extensive, enthusiastic, obviously not easily daunted, and always wanting the newest and most exciting thing.
> 
> There's a great passage in Cooper about this with a lot of detail. I'll repost it if anybody's interested.


Stravinsky was also able to live very comfortably off of commissions in his late period, at which time he was also allowed to record all of his works by Columbia, a major record company.

Are you going to argue that Stravinsky's late music was also popular with audiences?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Stravinsky was also able to live very comfortably off of commissions in his late period, at which time he was also allowed to record all of his works by Columbia, a major record company.
> 
> Are you going to argue that Stravinsky's late music was also popular with audiences?


Unlike Stravinsky, Beethoven got paid only for brand new works and had to survive on that. That the publishers were willing to pay VERY well for his new works seems to say, yes, he was VERY popular among people who bought sheet music. And that of course was his market, for chamber music at least.

I suspect that Stravinsky, even late Stravinsky, had his market as well and didn't do too badly there. But he was careful to re-write his old favorites to try to bring those copyrights back to life. Beethoven didn't have that option...

BTW another parallel: Beethoven tried hard to sell his collected works as a single edition, for which he wanted $320,000 USD equivalent. He did NOT succeed in that!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I assume his classical fans loved his stuff. Though personally I woudn't really compare Stravinsky to Beethoven, I just think Beethoven was better.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Unlike Stravinsky, Beethoven got paid only for brand new works and had to survive on that. That the publishers were willing to pay VERY well for his new works seems to say, yes, he was VERY popular among people who bought sheet music. And that of course was his market, for chamber music at least.


Are you telling me that Beethoven did not also earn money from conducting and playing engagements, as Stravinsky did?



> I suspect that Stravinsky, even late Stravinsky, had his market as well and didn't do too badly there. But he was careful to re-write his old favorites to try to bring those copyrights back to life. Beethoven didn't have that option...


Yes, and in spite of this, people continued to play the original versions anyway. And I'm sure that Stravinsky didn't try to otherwise sell his works to multiple publishers!



starry said:


> I assume his classical fans loved his stuff. Though personally I wouldn't really compare Stravinsky to Beethoven, I just think Beethoven was better.


Well, Beethoven has the upper hand in string quartet writing, that's for sure. And I'd have to give him the edge in symphonies and piano concertos as well. But Stravinsky wrote a better opera, better choral music, and I'd like to meet the nut who thinks that Beethoven was a better composer of ballet scores.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Are you telling me that Beethoven did not also earn money from conducting and playing engagements, as Stravinsky did?


In the period we're talking about, Beethoven had neither conducted nor played in public for some years. He had this little problem, you see...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> In the period we're talking about, Beethoven had neither conducted nor played in public for some years. He had this little problem, you see...


Well, he did sort-of conduct the 9th....


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, he did sort-of conduct the 9th....


Indeed! And like in the Wizard of Oz, the orchestra was told, "Pay no attention to the man waving his arms over there!" The whole situation has always struck me as kind of pathetic...

BTW an add-on to Beethoven's "Collected Works." The price may seem high to us, but he promised to compose, for the edition, a new work in every genre. Wouldn't that have been nice?


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> In the period we're talking about, Beethoven had neither conducted nor played in public for some years. He had this little problem, you see...


Pardon????


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Beethoven probably wasn't as good a business person as Stravinsky. Not that unusual in this early period for freelance composers, Beethoven was probably just in the second generation of them. So I don't think that reflects the obvious popularity he had or greatness (not in stage works perhaps like Stravinsky, but pretty much nearly everything else). There will always be some shifts in fashion but Beethoven hardly died forgotten (neither did Mozart, who was buried in an unmarked grave but only because of a plague at the time).


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Earlier this weekend (below) Schuberkovich posted about his disappointment with Opus 131, where he was led to believe he would hear something different from what he did hear. I replied to give it time, but on further reflection, revised my answer as follows:

"In some ways the “difficulty” of the late Beethoven quartets has been oversold. What sets them apart is not so much their profundity – although individual movements do plumb expressive depths that were and are unique – but their inventiveness. Individually and as a set, there is barely a movement in them that doesn’t expand the boundaries of what had been considered possible for the type of movement it was – and many of these – even whole quartets – are delightfully accessible to most anyone. Therefore, they need to be enjoyed this way, not in the expectation of some pre-conceived level of difficulty. "

There is something in these works for everyone, and the more you listen to them, the better they become.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Don't think so. Since Shaw was three years old when Spohr died, I doubt they ever had a serious conversation about late Beethoven!
> 
> The Shaw quote is from one of the essays he wrote as a music critic. I think it can be found in "Bombardments," an excellent anthology of his music writings.


Quote: to repeat or copy out a group of words from a* text *or speech.

Yes, the Shaw quote was from an essay, as you said in your opening: "Way over a century ago, George Bernard Shaw wrote,..."...but you assumed I thought it was a conversational exchange between Spohr and Shaw. As far as I can tell from the site, Shaw was responding in text to the Spohr comment which he would obviously have had to read.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Millions, I have no idea whether Shaw was aware of what Spohr wrote. I certainly have no information as to whether he was responding to Spohr. In Shaw's day, there was still a lot of bafflement about Beethoven's late quartets, and I suppose he was responding to that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, it's there on the site, and I was just trying to make some sense out of what Shaw wrote, and even with the Spohr comment, it still makes no sense to me.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

KenOC said:


> In Shaw's day, there was still a lot of bafflement about Beethoven's late quartets, and I suppose he was responding to that.


How much of that is because they simply weren't performed that much then? And that probably helped the mystification of them too.


----------

