# Beethoven: The Last String Quartets



## Waehnen

Let us discuss these masterpieces and our favourite recordings of the quartets!

I have 2 sets: 

Alban Berg Quartet
Amadeus Quartet

My problem with the above is that the first has a very piercing sound in the upper strings. The latter has some problems with tuning.

Neverthless, both include wonderful takes although I do not like them all.

Suggestions for a full cycle of the last quartets?


----------



## Merl

You might wanna try some of the following for the late quartets... 

Prazak
Brodsky
Alexander (Foghorn) 
Belcea
Ebene 

... But plenty of others do different quartets really well.


----------



## bagpipers

The "Guarneri" is the best I have heard on CD and in concert(saw them twice)

I do love the Alban Berg on the A minor in particular.

The Budapest on youtube or maybe an old record if it still plays well(not on CD for them)

The Quartetto Italiano is exquisite on Beethoven and they have the full cycle of all 16 on CD


----------



## SearsPoncho

I think the following are excellent and provide a variety of approaches, each with a different group sonority that should cover a lot of bases:

Takacs Quartet
Quartetto Italiano
Vegh Quartet
Talich Quartet

Merl has heard them all and provides excellent comparative analyses of the available recordings on his blog.

All of the late quartets occupy a spot in my top 15 of all time, with Op. 132 as my #1 and Op. 131 as my #2, although Op. 130 + Grosse Fugue is a little iffy, perhaps getting edged out by another composer.

1) Op. 132 
2) Op. 131
3) Op. 135
Op. 127 (tie)
4) Op. 130 + Grosse Fugue

For what it's worth, the Quartetto Italiano's recording of Op.132 is one of my top 3 recordings of anything. 

I've never understood the "difficult" label associated with these works. Yes, Op. 131 is a long and winding road, so it takes multiple listening sessions to absorb all that's going on, but it eventually clicks and is worth the time and effort.

P.S. Each quartet has great interpretive challenges, so it's hard to find one set which nails them all. All the more reason to buy multiple sets!

EDIT: Can't believe I forgot the Tokyo String Quartet. Consistently top notch.


----------



## justekaia

We are dealing with the absolute summit of chamber music in the history of classical music, so i think it pays off to listen to different approaches from different periods.
I have owned the Vegh, Lindsay, Emerson, Tokyo versions and have enjoyed all of them. Time goes by and you get a wonderful version by Quatuors Mosaiques on period instruments. Agreed they are a bit raspy, a bit too serious but it is a terrific version.
Then you have the timeless Alban Berg who give an overall very satisfying take of all the quartets, which matters to collectors like me. Some of their quartets are not top-notch agreed, the sound can be a bit harsh sometimes, but overall their version is among the best.
My personal favourites are the Takacs and the Prazak versions. Strong, precise and expressive versions.
The Belcea Qt, The Quatuor Ebene, The Artemis Qt are among the best quartets in activity and all also deliver superlative versions.
I have always liked the Auryn Qt in their fabulous Schubert and Haydn surveys and they do not disappoint in Beethoven's late quartets with the benefit of terrific sound technology.
The Hagen QT is very reliable and gives us a technically nearly perfect contemporary version.
Some newcomers are also interesting like the Ehnes Qt who have one of the top three violinists on board and the Cuarteto Casals whose version is a bit more playful.
I guess by now you have understood I am addicted to this music. My clear favourite is the opus 130 with the Grosse Fugue as the last movement. I know Ludwig would agree. Opus 131 is nearly as good.


----------



## Caroline

Waehnen said:


> Suggestions for a full cycle of the last quartets?


Like others on the thread I own several recordings of these masterpieces. The Quatuors Mosaiques on period instruments are warmer and a bit heavier on the cello. Amongst the Belcea, Artemis, Takacs and others - I go to these the most often. One caveat is that they do not contain the Op. 95, the Serioso, which may be considered a transition work from the middle to late string quartets.

For modern instruments my preference is for the Belcea.


----------



## bagpipers

SearsPoncho said:


> I think the following are excellent and provide a variety of approaches, each with a different group sonority that should cover a lot of bases:
> 
> Takacs Quartet
> Quartetto Italiano
> Vegh Quartet
> Talich Quartet
> 
> Merl has heard them all and provides excellent comparative analyses of the available recordings on his blog.
> 
> All of the late quartets occupy a spot in my top 15 of all time, with Op. 132 as my #1 and Op. 131 as my #2, although Op. 130 + Grosse Fugue is a little iffy, perhaps getting edged out by another composer.
> 
> 1) Op. 132
> 2) Op. 131
> 3) Op. 135
> Op. 127 (tie)
> 4) Op. 130 + Grosse Fugue
> 
> I've never understood the "difficult" label associated with these works. Yes, Op. 131 is a long and winding road, so it takes multiple listening sessions to absorb all that's going on, but it eventually clicks and is worth the time and effort.
> 
> P.S. Each quartet has great interpretive challenges, so it's hard to find one set which nails them all. All the more reason to buy multiple sets!


Glad to appreciate the Quartetto Italiano,they were amazing,they didn't get the press they should


----------



## bagpipers

No one I can recall has mentioned the Emerson or Julliard
I don't know there Beethoven well unfortunately


----------



## Enthusiast

Lots of good recommendations here. But I didn't see the old Busch Quartet recordings. Pristine might be a good source if you are concerned about sound quality but the Warner "Great Recordings of the Century" set is perfectly acceptable. For many they have never been bettered.


----------



## wkasimer

I like the Juilliard's 1960's set, as well as the recordings that they made somewhat earlier for RCA. When I want something in more modern sound, the Alexander Quartet's second recording on Foghorn.

One set that's overlooked because it includes only the late quartets is this superb one by the Smetana Quartet. It predates their complete set that was issued by Denon, which I find a bit too relaxed. Still available, I believe.


----------



## Waehnen

I would also welcome brief descriptions of the late quartets. Of course I understand with intuition that for example my favourites, A minor, C# minor and F Major, are all different. But how could I describe them?

A-Minor might be the most personal and emotional. C#-minor the most noble, transcendental. F-Major the most existential.

Do you agree with those three descriptions? How would you describe the works?

I have not yet formed a bond with the Eb Major or Bb Major Quartets. For some reasons I do not care for the keys Eb Major and Bb Major as much as I care for A minor, C # minor and F major which are all absolutely adorable keys.


----------



## SearsPoncho

Caroline said:


> Like others on the thread I own several recordings of these masterpieces. The Quatuors Mosaiques on period instruments are warmer and a bit heavier on the cello. Amongst the Belcea, Artemis, Takacs and others - I go to these the most often. One caveat is that they do not contain the Op. 95, the Serioso, which may be considered a transition work from the middle to late string quartets.
> 
> For modern instruments my preference is for the Belcea.


The Takacs late quartets set has the Op. 95. It's a 3 cd set , including the "Serioso."


----------



## justekaia

Caroline said:


> Like others on the thread I own several recordings of these masterpieces. The Quatuors Mosaiques on period instruments are warmer and a bit heavier on the cello. Amongst the Belcea, Artemis, Takacs and others - I go to these the most often. One caveat is that they do not contain the Op. 95, the Serioso, which may be considered a transition work from the middle to late string quartets.
> 
> For modern instruments my preference is for the Belcea.


if you want op 95 you need to go to the quartets which record all: alban berg, takacs, belcea, auryn, ebène, artemis


----------



## ansfelden

Waehnen said:


> Suggestions for a full cycle of the last quartets?


Emerson SQ. 

haven´t listened to for many years, but put it on the "to hear" shelf.


----------



## Philidor

Waehnen said:


> Suggestions for a full cycle of the last quartets?


Nope. As with most cycles, there are good and less good recordings.

op. 127: ABQ (both recordings), Takács
op. 130: Busch, Takács
op. 131: Busch, Takács
op. 132: Takács, Hagen
op. 135: Busch, ABQ (studio recording)

(I admit that Busch and Takács seem to have their merits ...  ... for Busch this is general knowledge, isn't it?)


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> Nope. As with most cycles, there are good and less good recordings.
> 
> op. 127: ABQ (both recordings), Takács
> op. 130: Busch, Takács
> op. 131: Busch, Takács
> op. 132: Takács, Hagen
> op. 135: Busch, ABQ (studio recording)
> 
> (I admit that Busch and Takács seem to have their merits ...  ... for Busch this is general knowledge, isn't it?)


Takács sure has gotten quite many mentions. There must be something there!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

By this point I've listened to lots of these (when I get on a kick with them I can quite literally listen to these works all day). Here are the ones I find myself returning to most, in no particular order:

Takács: The richest tone around and impeccable in both energy and lyricism. They more or less play the quartets like I hear them in my mind.
Auryn: A perfect compromise between the "soupier," old-fashioned style and the precision of modern approaches. Supremely poetic with all sorts of wonderful little ear-tickling touches. 
Italiano: Warm, genial, sensitive, glowing. The more visionary side of Beethoven.
Juilliard '60s: An entirely distinctive "French" style with light feathery tone, improvisatory playing, and buoyant rhythms. The intonation isn't perfect, but it's still absolutely delightful.
Busch: They sound like they're making up the music on the spot. A must-hear even though they have been bettered in many ways.
Budapest mono: Rugged, biting playing in the energetic pieces; exquisitely poetic slow movements. The strings sound like voices.
Lindsay: Big, thick, juicy tone; highly romanticized. Not for everyone and there are flaws, but it grows on you.
Végh stereo: A "folksy," homespun approach, yet highly polished. A relic from the days when quartets didn't sound alike.
Alban Berg: Sheer voluptuous ear candy. Perhaps more interpretively limited than others, but you must hear it for the sonic beauty. Their 12th quartet is perhaps my favorite of that one.
Wihan: A bit of a sleeper, but really good: hard-nosed, virtuosic, and exciting when needed but it hits all the sweet spots it needs to.
Tokyo: Middle of the road, somewhat standard interpretations, but still really satisfying, polished playing.
Smetana: Another "folksy" one with distinctive tone; they especially nail the dance movements.
Melos: Very lyrical, maybe too much sometimes, but few others convey Beethoven's songfulness so well.
Gewandhaus: I've only listened to one quartet with them, but I was really impressed and I have them marked down for further listening.

There are others I'm probably forgetting.


----------



## Waehnen

Allegro Con Brio said:


> By this point I've listened to lots of these (when I get on a kick with them I can quite literally listen to these works all day). Here are the ones I find myself returning to most, in no particular order:
> 
> Takács: The richest tone around and impeccable in both energy and lyricism. They more or less play the quartets like I hear them in my mind.
> Auryn: A perfect compromise between the "soupier," old-fashioned style and the precision of modern approaches. Supremely poetic with all sorts of wonderful little ear-tickling touches.
> Italiano: Warm, genial, sensitive, glowing. The more visionary side of Beethoven.
> Juilliard '60s: An entirely distinctive "French" style with light feathery tone, improvisatory playing, and buoyant rhythms. The intonation isn't perfect, but it's still absolutely delightful.
> Busch: They sound like they're making up the music on the spot. A must-hear even though they have been bettered in many ways.
> Budapest mono: Rugged, biting playing in the energetic pieces; exquisitely poetic slow movements. The strings sound like voices.
> Lindsay: Big, thick, juicy tone; highly romanticized. Not for everyone and there are flaws, but it grows on you.
> Végh stereo: A "folksy," homespun approach, yet highly polished. A relic from the days when quartets didn't sound alike.
> Alban Berg: Sheer voluptuous ear candy. Perhaps more interpretively limited than others, but you must hear it for the sonic beauty. Their 12th quartet is perhaps my favorite of that one.
> Wihan: A bit of a sleeper, but really good: hard-nosed, virtuosic, and exciting when needed but it hits all the sweet spots it needs to.
> Tokyo: Middle of the road, somewhat standard interpretations, but still really satisfying, polished playing.
> Smetana: Another "folksy" one with distinctive tone; they especially nail the dance movements.
> Melos: Very lyrical, maybe too much sometimes, but few others convey Beethoven's songfulness so well.
> Gewandhaus: I've only listened to one quartet with them, but I was really impressed and I have them marked down for further listening.
> 
> There are others I'm probably forgetting.


Wonderful! Thank you!

And thanks everyone so far.


----------



## Merl

Yeah I missed the Artemis set off. I was rushing to get my plane. Super set. Nice to see some of the lesser hailed sets getting recommendations from people here too rather than the lazy 'copy the critics and some moist sheep from Amazon' recommendations. You won't go far wrong with the Suske, Wihan (live) or the Orion late sets either.



SearsPoncho said:


> ..... Merl has heard them all and provides excellent comparative analyses of the available recordings on his blog.


Almost, SP, I've still not heard ALL the New Budapest and Wiener Musikverein sets (just about half) and none of the Quatuor Voce or Stanislas cycles (if anyone can put me onto cheap versions of these I'd be very grateful. Heard the rest though.


----------



## Kreisler jr

SearsPoncho said:


> I've never understood the "difficult" label associated with these works. Yes, Op. 131 is a long and winding road, so it takes multiple listening sessions to absorb all that's going on, but it eventually clicks and is worth the time and effort.


I also think the difficult label is strongly exaggerated. It's understandable for a few movements, especially the op.133 fugue and op.131 because of the unconventional form. But the inner movements of op.130 are not that difficult and quite short and after the unusual beginning with slow fugal movement and fast vaguely pastoral movement (cannot think of parallels for these two), op.131 is basically slow variations - scherzo - slow intro - finale. But it's emotionally so gripping that I never found it inaccessible at all. 
And the other three I found more accessible than most other Beethoven quartets... although it was pure accident that op.127+135 were the first ones I encountered.

some favorites/interesting recordings not yet mentioned many times:

*Hagen *
esp. in op.130/133, unfortunately no alternative finale but it's clearly my favorite for the version with fugue, not only because the fugue is great.
Also their op.131 and op.135 (old one, I have not heard the more recent one), although their first movement of op.135 is very slow. This is almost always played too slow, it should last around 5 min, not 6:30, the fastest I have is the *Yale* quartet (but honestly I don't remember much else about it...) It also works at the common relaxed tempo but I'd love to hear it around the faster tempo suggested by Kolisch.
(I'd have to re-listen to their op.127+132, I used to find that disc a bit "cold")

*Leipzig* in op.132 because of the "fast" Dankgesang. This movement is obviously very impressive when dragged to almost 20 min but there are good reasons that it should be more flowing (like in the adagio of the 9th symphony the melody goes in half notes)

*LaSalle* on DG or Brilliant. They were of course a "modernist" quartet and can appear rather cool today but they are quite interesting in balances and details.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

justekaia said:


> We are dealing with the absolute summit of chamber music in the history of classical music, so i think it pays off to listen to different approaches from different periods.


Absolutely, yes. I haven't found a definitive recording of them, and I don't think I ever will. From your recs I haven't listened to the Prazak Quartet, Merl has recommended them too, so I'll be listening to those recordings pretty soon


----------



## SearsPoncho

Merl said:


> Yeah I missed the Artemis set off. I was rushing to get my plane. Super set. Nice to see some of the lesser hailed sets getting recommendations from people here too rather than the lazy 'copy the critics and some moist sheep from Amazon' recommendations. You won't go far wrong with the Suske, Wihan (live) or the Orion late sets either.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost, SP, I've still not heard ALL the New Budapest and Wiener Musikverein sets (just about half) and none of the Quatuor Voce or Stanislas cycles (if anyone can put me onto cheap versions of these I'd be very grateful. Heard the rest though.


Merl, I used to have all the late quartets by the Julliard Quartet on cassette. They were recorded live at The Library of Congress. Haven't heard them in a long time since the switch to cds. Have you heard them? Don't know how they would rate now.


----------



## justekaia

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> Absolutely, yes. I haven't found a definitive recording of them, and I don't think I ever will. From your recs I haven't listened to the Prazak Quartet, Merl has recommended them too, so I'll be listening to those recordings pretty soon


the originals are difficult to get, but you can download them on qobuz.com JK


----------



## Merl

SearsPoncho said:


> Merl, I used to have all the late quartets by the Julliard Quartet on cassette. They were recorded live at The Library of Congress. Haven't heard them in a long time since the switch to cds. Have you heard them? Don't know how they would rate now.


Yep, have them. Extremely hit and miss. Apart from from some glaring intonation issues in some quartets others are just a bit bland. There are some good recordings but it's not as good as their earlier set and I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a primary set. Don't get me wrong, there are a few very good performances in there but by and large it's not a strong cycle.

Edit: I don't normally link to reviews but this one (below) says similar things to what I said. I agree with the reviewer about the sound of the later quartets especially and the fact that the op18s are generally the stronger performances (but not always). I did read a terrible review of this cycle a few years back, but I can't find it now to link it, and that mentioned the intonation that I flagged up. Anyway, don't let me put you off as its just a personal opinion, try and listen to it on streaming to make your own mind up. It's on Spotify.






BEETHOVEN Complete String Quartets - SONY CLASSICAL 19075964442 [SSi] Classical Music Reviews: January 2021 - MusicWeb-International


Classical CD review



www.musicweb-international.com


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

The 70's LP set by Cleveland Quartet is long out of print. They recorded another set after that that is still available. For a short time this set was offered as a free download with updated and improved sound. I was fortunate enough to download before that was shut down. 

I also have the original Fine Arts Quartet recording that I like. That is a readily available download. 

Someday I will get a more modern recording, but these do for now.


----------



## wkasimer

Oldhoosierdude said:


> The 70's LP set by Cleveland Quartet is long out of print. They recorded another set after that that is still available.


The first set can be heard here, in rather noisy LP transfers: Cleveland Quartet


----------



## hoodjem

I have a number of recordings of these wonderful, supreme masterpieces.

1. For me the Vegh Quartet's recordings (1972-74; Valois/Naive) are peerless. They plumb the depths perfectly to find the greatest profundity of emotional meaning.
2. The earlier Lindsay Quartet set (1975-84; ASV/Resonance/Decca) are a close second, with a perhaps richer recorded tone and better ensemble. 
3. A third best interpretative choice would be the Yale Quartet (1967-71; Vanguard); though their use of vibrato seems a bit too pronounced and "old school." Decent but not warm recordings.
4. Fourth might be the Quartetto Italiano (1968-69; Philips/Decca), with rich, warm recordings; though sometimes they play perhaps a shade too slowly and wring every last drop of emotion from the music. 
5. As a fifth best choice, I find the first Tokyo Quartet set (1989-92; RCA/Sony) to be first-rate: lovely recordings, rich tone, plumb the emotional depths just right, excellent intonation, perfect tempi.


----------



## deangelisj35

A friend of mine used to work in a record store and one day Randy Newman came in and asked for the late Beethovens by the Hollywood String Quartet.


----------



## brahms4

deangelisj35 said:


> A friend of mine used to work in a record store and one day Randy Newman came in and asked for the late Beethovens by the Hollywood String Quartet.


His uncle was the great Hollywood film composer Alfred Newman.Might be some sort of connection.


----------



## hoodjem

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Végh stereo: A "folksy," homespun approach, yet highly polished. A relic from the days when quartets didn't sound alike.
> 
> Smetana: Another "folksy" one with distinctive tone; they especially nail the dance movements.


Interesting!
I do wonder if this "folksy" approach could be a Central European approach, with one quartet having orginated in Budapest, and the other in Prague.?

Just a question.


----------



## Merl

hoodjem said:


> Interesting!
> I do wonder if this "folksy approach could be a Central European approach, with one quartet having orginated in Budapest, and the other in Prague.?
> 
> Just a question.


I think it's more to do with their distinctive tone of the time in the same way that the Czech Philharmonic used to have a distinctly slavic tone.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I disagree that Smetana or Vegh are "folksy" in their Beethoven recordings but I'd have to relisten to some pieces that might be candidates for evidence for such an aspect. They probably just have a bit more of central European (Austro-hungarian-bohemian) tradition in many aspects (although they were clearly considered "modern" in the mid-20th century when founded/young) compared with international "jet set" quartets of the 1980s or 2000s.


----------



## staxomega

Allegro Con Brio said:


> By this point I've listened to lots of these (when I get on a kick with them I can quite literally listen to these works all day). Here are the ones I find myself returning to most, in no particular order:
> 
> Takács: The richest tone around and impeccable in both energy and lyricism. They more or less play the quartets like I hear them in my mind.
> Auryn: A perfect compromise between the "soupier," old-fashioned style and the precision of modern approaches. Supremely poetic with all sorts of wonderful little ear-tickling touches.
> Italiano: Warm, genial, sensitive, glowing. The more visionary side of Beethoven.
> Juilliard '60s: An entirely distinctive "French" style with light feathery tone, improvisatory playing, and buoyant rhythms. The intonation isn't perfect, but it's still absolutely delightful.
> Busch: They sound like they're making up the music on the spot. A must-hear even though they have been bettered in many ways.
> Budapest mono: Rugged, biting playing in the energetic pieces; exquisitely poetic slow movements. The strings sound like voices.
> Lindsay: Big, thick, juicy tone; highly romanticized. Not for everyone and there are flaws, but it grows on you.
> Végh stereo: A "folksy," homespun approach, yet highly polished. A relic from the days when quartets didn't sound alike.
> Alban Berg: Sheer voluptuous ear candy. Perhaps more interpretively limited than others, but you must hear it for the sonic beauty. Their 12th quartet is perhaps my favorite of that one.
> Wihan: A bit of a sleeper, but really good: hard-nosed, virtuosic, and exciting when needed but it hits all the sweet spots it needs to.
> Tokyo: Middle of the road, somewhat standard interpretations, but still really satisfying, polished playing.
> Smetana: Another "folksy" one with distinctive tone; they especially nail the dance movements.
> Melos: Very lyrical, maybe too much sometimes, but few others convey Beethoven's songfulness so well.
> Gewandhaus: I've only listened to one quartet with them, but I was really impressed and I have them marked down for further listening.
> 
> There are others I'm probably forgetting.


Nice selections and summary. I would also suggest seeing if you like Pražák or Hungarian Quartet's first complete cycle in mono (EMI and I believe Warner have reissued it). Pražák were more of a recent discovery for me, I heard op. 18 around the time Praga boxed it up but for some reason the interpretations didn't grab me (too serious? I'm not sure) but after listening to the full thing I have it among my best. And I will definitely need to hear Auryn all of the way through, your description matches exactly what I heard whereas some other(s) spoke less highly of them on another classical board. 

The only thing that I'm wondering about is you mentioning intonation issues in Juilliard, I don't hear this and this cycle is usually heralded as one of the most technically secure of the 20th century; Robert Mann's incarnation of Juilliard was rather famous for. I don't have it among my very favorites for other reasons.

Among your list the ones I hear intonation issues on are Lindsays (first and second), and much less occasionally Végh and Budapest (both are a non-issue for me).


----------



## Waehnen

For now I expanded my collection with versions by the Hagen Quartet. Maybe because I´ve got other recordings by them and they have earned my trust. Their interpretations convince me and the sound is very balanced. They are also somewhere in between the ABQ and Amadeus versions which seem to be very different from each other indeed. I do not disagree with the Hagen Quartet over anything, really. Which suits me!


----------



## Waehnen

I will repeat my request. Could you please describe in your own words what each of the last quartets "are about" and what are the qualities most unique to each quartet? I value the input and insight this forum has to offer, a lot.


----------



## Merl

staxomega said:


> Nice selections and summary. I would also suggest seeing if you like Pražák or Hungarian Quartet's first complete cycle in mono (EMI and I believe Warner have reissued it). Pražák were more of a recent discovery for me, I heard op. 18 around the time Praga boxed it up but for some reason the interpretations didn't grab me (too serious? I'm not sure) but after listening to the full thing I have it among my best. *And I will definitely need to hear Auryn all of the way through, your description matches exactly what I heard whereas some other(s) spoke less highly of them on another classical board.*
> 
> The only thing that I'm wondering about is you *mentioning intonation issues in Juilliard*, I don't hear this and this cycle is usually heralded as one of the most technically secure of the 20th century; Robert Mann's incarnation of Juilliard was rather famous for. I don't have it among my very favorites for other reasons.
> 
> Among your list the ones I hear intonation issues on are Lindsays (first and second), and much less occasionally Végh and Budapest (both are a non-issue for me).


A couple of small comments. Firstly, no single ensemble nails EVERY single quartet it's just that some are more consistently successful than others to that specific listener's ears. As far as the Auryn are concerned they are *bête noire* on another classical site along with the Emersons. Whilst I accept that the Auryn have a slightly more 'homogenous' sound on some of their recordings it's not _every_ one of them and some people actually really like their fuller, "crowd-pleasing" approach (not my quote). Its a generalisation too as not _every_ recording in their cycle has this type of sound and in some quartets it does work really well (check out their recording of the 16th quartet). Another quartet that are whipping boys on here, (and on the other classical site), but not amongst critics is the Emerson Quartet who are usually branded with the label "too cool" (sigh). Yes it's silly and anyone who thinks their Schumann cycle is too "cool" really needs their ears testing. As for the Juilliard earlier cycle there are a few lapses of intonation (nearly everyone has their moment) but nothing serious. The only issue some have with that cycle is that the recording is starting to show its age (the upper range can sound a bit thin) but it is still a fine cycle, beautifully played on the whole. The Juilliard set that has real intonation issues is the early 80s live at the Library of Congress set. Don't get me wrong there's some decent recordings in the LOC set but a few are plagued with poor intonation, strange balances, dull phrasing and playing that occasionally lacks cohesion or sounds uninspired. Again try not to generalise to much, though. They can still knock out some really good ones and even the worse ones are hardly that bad. As for the Lindsays, there are intonation issues (especially in the first cycle) but you'll find few people who don't like it (as someone here said they can occasionally be a bit more heart-on-sleeve here and there but it is a 'grower' of a set). The 2nd Lindsays cycle can be a bit more extreme and they occasionally over-egg their attacks but again there are some fine performances. Btw, don't listen to Hurwitz, he hates all British Quartets (and conductors) with a passion because Gramophone has always been uber-biased the other way and championed them (yes they are childish sods these critics). As I said on here before, and in my Beethoven blogs, is if someone is buying a set they should really take time and sample as many cycles as possible using comparative listening and find a quartet whose sound they really like.
We are all so different in what we hear. Ignore the fanboys, shellacophiles, hipsters and detractors and really listen for yourself.


----------



## ORigel

Merl said:


> A couple of small comments. Firstly, no single ensemble nails EVERY single quartet it's just that some are more consistently successful than others to that specific listener's ears. As far as the Auryn are concerned they are *bête noire* on another classical site along with the Emersons. Whilst I accept that the Auryn have a slightly more 'homogenous' sound on some of their recordings it's not _every_ one of them and some people actually really like their fuller, "crowd-pleasing" approach (not my quote). Its a generalisation too as not _every_ recording in their cycle has this type of sound and in some quartets it does work really well (check out their recording of the 16th quartet). Another quartet that are whipping boys on here, (and on the other classical site), but not amongst critics is the Emerson Quartet who are usually branded with the label "too cool" (sigh). Yes it's silly and anyone who thinks their Schumann cycle is too "cool" really needs their ears testing. As for the Juilliard earlier cycle there are a few lapses of intonation (nearly everyone has their moment) but nothing serious. The only issue some have with that cycle is that the recording is starting to show its age (the upper range can sound a bit thin) but it is still a fine cycle, beautifully played on the whole. The Juilliard set that has real intonation issues is the early 80s live at the Library of Congress set. Don't get me wrong there's some decent recordings in the LOC set but a few are plagued with poor intonation, strange balances, dull phrasing and playing that occasionally lacks cohesion or sounds uninspired. Again try not to generalise to much, though. They can still knock out some really good ones and even the worse ones are hardly that bad. As for the Lindsays, there are intonation issues (especially in the first cycle) but you'll find few people who don't like it (as someone here said they can occasionally be a bit more heart-on-sleeve here and there but it is a 'grower' of a set). The 2nd Lindsays cycle can be a bit more extreme and they occasionally over-egg their attacks but again there are some fine performances. Btw, don't listen to Hurwitz, he hates all British Quartets (and conductors) with a passion because Gramophone has always been uber-biased the other way and championed them (yes they are childish sods these critics). As I said on here before, and in my Beethoven blogs, is if someone is buying a set they should really take time and sample as many cycles as possible using comparative listening and find a quartet whose sound they really like.
> We are all so different in what we hear. Ignore the fanboys, shellacophiles, hipsters and detractors and really listen for yourself.


I was pondering over a Beethoven quartet cycle to get, and watched Hurwitz's video on it. I had the Emerson cycle (technically proficient but not enough heart) and Alban Berg late quartets-- the live recordings (excellent). Based on his recommendation, I got the Smetana quartet cycle after listening to a Youtube video of their Op 127. They have a lovely cello-heavy sound. 

When Hurwitz bashed The Lindsays in that same video, he said that the Grosse Fuge does not need to be any uglier and should be played as beautifully as possible while still "letting Beethoven do his thing." Well, I like my Grosse Fuge rough and exciting, so I found a Youtube video of it by the Lindsays. It was perhaps the best interpretation I've heard for the violent sections, but played the "slow" interior section a little too fast.

I also know the Vegh (highly recommended for the slow movements and some of the scherzi) and QM recordings (not recommended) from Youtube.


----------



## Waehnen

On my morning walk in the forest I listened to the Quartet no. 13 in Bb Major. In my opinion Alban Berg Quartet is excellent in this, better than Amadeus Quartet, which on the other hand is much better with the F Major Quartet.

I would say the 13th Quartet is a close relative to other grand Bb Major works, The Hammerklavier Piano Sonata and The Archduke Piano Trio. And as such it is very much pure, absolute and aesthatically autonomous music. I do not sense any kind of programme in any of them, but all of them are wonderful music. I think they all express both abstract musical beauty and cerebral aspects of Beethoven (and of humanity).

If you disagree, please enlighten me!


----------



## Kreisler jr

The Eb major is the most playful and lyrical and also the most "abstract", i.e. it mostly seems really "pure music" without any connotations or the drama of some others (not only late) Beethoven works. The center is clearly the long 2nd variation movement, the first and last movements are comparably slight but the scherzo is among the longest and most involved.

The a minor might be the most personal, it seems the most dramatic and emotional. Again, the center is the huge "Dankgesang". If we tried to construct a narrative starting from this center the little march could be the return to activity of the formerly ill person and first movement could be the dire situation/illness but the long 2nd mvmt. scherzo hardly fits, so we have to take the narratives on a more abstract level. The finale with the terrified recitative takes up again the passionate drama of the first movement until the resolution is gained in the long coda.

The Bb major is the strangest of all. It seems all about quirky contrasts rapidly following each other. It's also a bit of a gigantic divertimento (like the Mozart string trio K 563) with the short mvmts 2-5. The replacement finale fits that idea better than the fugue. It's probably not completely by accident that op. 106 is also in Bb major (as is the not very popular but at the time technically difficult and large scale sonata op.22). Interestingly the huge "et vitam venturi saeculi, amen"-fugue is also in Bb major as is at least the overall signature of the instrumental fugal section (after the alla marcia tenor solo) in the finale of the 9th symphony.

The c# minor has been claimed the most unified (thus a strong contrast to the least unified, op.130). It was a favorite of Wagner's who wrote some great poetic nonsense about it), comparing Beethoven (in the finale) to a huge magical fiddler creating a whole world. A bit bizarre but it fits quite well. It's my favorite together with the a minor. No poetic titles but it seems even more a "linear development", the "weight" distributed more evenly with the unique pair of movements at the beginning, the large scale (more playful than emotional) variations and quicksilver scherzo in the middle and the massive finale with the short but very emotional slow section before bringing all together by highlighting the 4 tone motto in the end.

There is a whole thread for op.135, so I'll skip this. These works deserve their reputation; they really are that special (on so many levels).


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> The Eb major is the most playful and lyrical and also the most "abstract", i.e. it mostly seems really "pure music" without any connotations or the drama of some others (not only late) Beethoven works. The center is clearly the long 2nd variation movement, the first and last movements are comparably slight but the scherzo is among the longest and most involved.
> 
> The a minor might be the most personal, it seems the most dramatic and emotional. Again, the center is the huge "Dankgesang". If we tried to construct a narrative starting from this center the little march could be the return to activity of the formerly ill person and first movement could be the dire situation/illness but the long 2nd mvmt. scherzo hardly fits, so we have to take the narratives on a more abstract level. The finale with the terrified recitative takes up again the passionate drama of the first movement until the resolution is gained in the long coda.
> 
> The Bb major is the strangest of all. It seems all about quirky contrasts rapidly following each other. It's also a bit of a gigantic divertimento (like the Mozart string trio K 563) with the short mvmts 2-5. The replacement finale fits that idea better. It's probably not completely by accident that op. 106 is also in Bb major (as is the not very popular but at the time technically difficult and large scale sonata op.22). Interestingly the huge "et vitam venturi saeculi, amen"-fugue is also in Bb major as is at least the overall signature of the instrumental fugal section (after the alla marcia tenor solo) in the finale of the 9th symphony.
> 
> The c# minor has been claimed the most unified (thus a strong contrast to the least unified, op.130). It was a favorite of Wagner's who wrote some great poetic nonsense about it), comparing Beethoven (in the finale) to a huge magical fiddler creating a whole world. A bit bizarre but it fits quite well. It's my favorite together with the a minor. No poetic titles but it seems even more a "linear development", the "weight" distributed more evenly with the unique pair of movements at the beginning, the large scale (more playful than emotional) variations and quicksilver scherzo in the middle and the massive finale with the short but very emotional slow section before bringing all together by highlighting the 4 tone motto in the end.
> 
> There is a whole thread for op.135, so I'll skip this. These works deserve their reputation; they really are that special (on so many levels).


Wonderful, Kreisler! Thank you.

My next step would be to find some personal connection with the C#-minor Quartet. You know, I respect it and musically it seems awesome -- but it is more distant to me than both the A-minor and F-Major which strongly communicate with my personality. When it comes to the Bb Major Quartet at least I have the other Cerebral Bb Major works with which it creates a world I know well. But the C# minor quartet, I do not know another work like it, anywhere.

@Merl , which version of the C#-minor Quartet you would recommend to me if you had to choose one? You gave absolutely excellent recommendations for some late Schubert and Janáček before.

Of the 3 versions I have, ABQ has this piercing sound I cannot bear, especially in this quartet. (Whereas their A-minor is the best!) The first violin of the Amadeus Quartet sounds like an elderly person with a wavery vibrato. Also the overall tempos seem too slow. This quartet cannot be performed THAT seriously all the time. The Hagen Quartet version is something from between the other two, it is very balanced and I do like it.


----------



## Merl

Waehnen said:


> @Merl , which version of the C#-minor Quartet you would recommend to me if you had to choose one? You gave absolutely excellent recommendations for some late Schubert and Janáček before.


Although it was Beethoven's favourite of his late quartets its mot mine (but obviously I still love and admire it). Here's the blog post I did on it (sorry there was no preamble for that one as I was on holiday at the time, I think). 









Beethoven - String Quartet 14 op.131 (SQ review)


A live performance of this quartet by the Ariel Quartet I recently realised I'd not posted a review of Beethoven's monster op.131 so time to redress that. As usual I listened to as many as I could. You may agree or not but hopefully you'll find a top one that you previously didn't know...




www.talkclassical.com





I really love the Belcea recording and think it's the best performance in their impressive cycle.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I like the Hagen recording of the c# minor a lot. I don't really remember another big favorite but I think I liked most of the ones I have or have heard well enough, except for minor quibbles. E.g. I think the Emerson and also the Yale play the E major Presto too fast, it should be fast but the shifts and contrasts work IMO better with a slightly more moderate and flexible tempo. There are also considerable differences between more austere and more "romantic" interpretations of the slow fugal first movement (IIRC Melos/DG, probably hard too find, is more on the romantic side). And the variation movement is a challenge because almost every variation has a new tempo (and often time signature).

The most romantically indulgent is of course the string orchestra recording with Bernstein/Vienna Phil (DG). This was my first encounter with the piece as I recorded this from the radio. It's too slow most of the time and too fat all the time but it's still quite wonderful once in a blue moon.


----------



## EdwardBast

No one has mentioned the Borodin Quartet. I like many of their performances of Beethoven Quartets. They always have a distinctive point of view and are rarely middle of the road.


----------



## staxomega

Merl said:


> A couple of small comments. Firstly, no single ensemble nails EVERY single quartet it's just that some are more consistently successful than others to that specific listener's ears. As far as the Auryn are concerned they are *bête noire* on another classical site along with the Emersons. Whilst I accept that the Auryn have a slightly more 'homogenous' sound on some of their recordings it's not _every_ one of them and some people actually really like their fuller, "crowd-pleasing" approach (not my quote). Its a generalisation too as not _every_ recording in their cycle has this type of sound and in some quartets it does work really well (check out their recording of the 16th quartet). Another quartet that are whipping boys on here, (and on the other classical site), but not amongst critics is the Emerson Quartet who are usually branded with the label "too cool" (sigh). Yes it's silly and anyone who thinks their Schumann cycle is too "cool" really needs their ears testing. As for the Juilliard earlier cycle there are a few lapses of intonation (nearly everyone has their moment) but nothing serious. The only issue some have with that cycle is that the recording is starting to show its age (the upper range can sound a bit thin) but it is still a fine cycle, beautifully played on the whole. The Juilliard set that has real intonation issues is the early 80s live at the Library of Congress set. Don't get me wrong there's some decent recordings in the LOC set but a few are plagued with poor intonation, strange balances, dull phrasing and playing that occasionally lacks cohesion or sounds uninspired. Again try not to generalise to much, though. They can still knock out some really good ones and even the worse ones are hardly that bad. As for the Lindsays, there are intonation issues (especially in the first cycle) but you'll find few people who don't like it (as someone here said they can occasionally be a bit more heart-on-sleeve here and there but it is a 'grower' of a set). The 2nd Lindsays cycle can be a bit more extreme and they occasionally over-egg their attacks but again there are some fine performances. Btw, don't listen to Hurwitz, he hates all British Quartets (and conductors) with a passion because Gramophone has always been uber-biased the other way and championed them (yes they are childish sods these critics). As I said on here before, and in my Beethoven blogs, is if someone is buying a set they should really take time and sample as many cycles as possible using comparative listening and find a quartet whose sound they really like.
> We are all so different in what we hear. Ignore the fanboys, shellacophiles, hipsters and detractors and really listen for yourself.


Emersons are well regarded on the board I'm referring to. 



> Ignore the fanboys, shellacophiles, hipsters and detractors and really listen for yourself.


Sure, but there can be stunning performances from the dawn of recording up to the current day, including pure HIP (PI, fleeter tempi, no vibrato; though for me there is no truly outstanding complete cycle yet, I'm sure one will happen in my lifetime). I wouldn't place much weight in anyone's opinion that dismissed either of these two categories either.

Re - the shellacophiles, the poor sound quality Busch Quartet and the Budapest Quartet's first "official" (Columbia) late Beethoven quartets are in many ways unparalleled, with a big apology to the audiophiles that only want to hear the good sounding recordings.


----------



## realmassy

I’ve got to say thanks to anyone that mentioned the Prazak quartet in this thread. I never heard them before and now I’m in love with their version of Beethoven’s quartets. 
I’m not a musician, just a listener and a lover of chamber music, and there’s something magical about their cycle: the balance of the instruments is just right (to my ears at least), every voice is nice and clear and the recording is great too. The Takács cycle was my favourite without doubt, but now there’s another strong contender.


----------



## Waehnen

I eventually got myself the Late Quartet Cycle by the Takacs Quartet, which has been recommended here.

Started listening a little while ago. After listening to some wonderful Bach played by Williams, and then Palestrina sung by the Tallis scholars. Both wonderful recordings.

And… At least the first Eb Major quartet Op. 127 kind of ”makes sense” the first time!

It is peculiar that I know the music rather well but for the first time the performance convinces me or communicates something meaningful. How could one explain this magic?

Cannot wait for the rest!


----------



## Waehnen

Same with the C# minor Op. 131 Quartet! The Takacs Quartet truly has a vision to communicate.

They seem to play the movements attacha which really creates a concept of variations, kind of. For me this is a meaningful revelation and it brings the pieces of the puzzle together.

(Same with the op. 127, pieces got together and formed a picture.)


----------

