# An amazing thing



## KenOC

My wife was playing Beethoven’s C-sharp minor quartet Op. 131, and I was listening on the edge of my seat. It struck me as quite amazing – how one person could single-handedly move music from late Mozart and Haydn to this in the span of 30 years. A whole new world and a far different one, one that continues to be our world today.

Nothing else to add, just wanted to register my amazement.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> My wife was playing Beethoven's C-sharp minor quartet Op. 131, and I was listening on the edge of my seat. It struck me as quite amazing - how one person could single-handedly move music from late Mozart and Haydn to this in the span of 30 years. A whole new world and a far different one, one that continues to be our world today.
> 
> Nothing else to add, just wanted to register my amazement.


I must admit to struggling with this piece even though I am a Beethoven devotee. I'll give it another go.
Bernstein loved the piece so much that he arranged it for string orchestra.

You probably know that.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> I must admit to struggling with this piece even though I am a Beethoven devotee. I'll give it another go.
> Bernstein loved the piece so much that he arranged it for string orchestra.
> 
> You probably know that.


Thomas Beecham said in his usual mischievous way: ' The late Beethoven quartet's were written by a deaf man and should only be heard by deaf people!'
I could see what he meant because in these works Beethoven anticipates not just the romantic but the modern musical movement. They are quite extraordinary and could be had been written by someone yesterday. They are certainly not easy to come to terms with but in the Beethoven moved music forward not just a generation but about 200 years


----------



## Tallisman

"After this, what is left for us to write?"


----------



## Manxfeeder

KenOC said:


> Nothing else to add, just wanted to register my amazement.


At the risk of hyperbole and speaking in all honesty, that's at the very top of my list of necessary compositions to sustain my soul.


----------



## Triplets

KenOC said:


> My wife was playing Beethoven's C-sharp minor quartet Op. 131, and I was listening on the edge of my seat. It struck me as quite amazing - how one person could single-handedly move music from late Mozart and Haydn to this in the span of 30 years. A whole new world and a far different one, one that continues to be our world today.
> 
> Nothing else to add, just wanted to register my amazement.


Duly registered.
I dislike the chamber music enlargements of piece because while I understand the impulse to do it, it lessons that sense Of Herculean strain of 4 lone Musicians being taxed to the limit. My favorite recordings are the ones where it sounds like everything is about to spin out of control, particularly in the Last movement


----------



## PlaySalieri

Well - never heard it.

However - I am just going to have a listen now. Will tell you my thoughts.


----------



## Martin D

KenOC said:


> My wife was playing Beethoven's C-sharp minor quartet Op. 131, and I was listening on the edge of my seat. It struck me as quite amazing - how one person could single-handedly move music from late Mozart and Haydn to this in the span of 30 years. A whole new world and a far different one, one that continues to be our world today.
> 
> Nothing else to add, just wanted to register my amazement.


I thought you'd discovered something new for a moment there from the way you presented this. But then I blinked and realised that it's just about the most well known piece of chamber music in the entire repertoire.


----------



## janxharris

Certainly, I would make those OP comments about the Grosse Fuge.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Just listened to the Takacs Qt. 

Some beautiful passages which is what I would expect of Beethoven. 

But - I don't get the piece I'm afraid. Repeated listenings might fix this of course. Or another performance.


----------



## Ras

stomanek said:


> But - I don't get the piece I'm afraid. Repeated listenings might fix this of course. Or another performance.


I have been trying to "get" Beethoven's late quartets for ten years and it just isn't happening...
I love the middle quartets though: opus 59 (that is the three Razumovsky quartets) and the Harp Q. opus 74
If you are new to Beethoven's string quartets I suggest you start with those "middle quartets" - My favorite recording is the one on Decca with Quartetto Italiano.:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ras said:


> I have been trying to "get" Beethoven's late quartets for ten years and it just isn't happening...
> I love the middle quartets though: opus 59 (that is the three Razumovsky quartets) and the Harp Q. opus 74
> If you are new to Beethoven's string quartets I suggest you start with those "middle quartets" - My favorite recording is the one on Decca with Quartetto Italiano.:


I did listen to one or two of the middle period quartets a long time ago - I thought them quite reasonable but still did not find myself returning to them. To me - they just don't sound as interesting and engaging as Mozart and Schubert at their best - even Haydn.

I'm not someone who cant listen to Beethoven - the symphonies, concertos and the 2 great violin sonatas are phenomenal.

thanks for the link though I will check it out.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> My wife was playing Beethoven's C-sharp minor quartet Op. 131, ...


 Playing a recording of, or actually playing it on a piano (assuming there can be a piano transcription of such)?


----------



## KenOC

Fritz Kobus said:


> Playing a recording of, or actually playing it on a piano (assuming there can be a piano transcription of such)?


Playing it on the liv8ng room stereo. Not sure which performers since we have a lot. BTW her favorite of the late quartets is the Op. 132, which I can well understand. But the Op. 131 ain't chopped liver.


----------



## MarkW

FYI: Bernstein just recreated a performance he heard of a string arrangement by Kousevitsky/BSO.

Although it's not my absolute favorite late Beethoven, it's all of a piece with the way he created an expressive sound world that was completely unprecedented and has few natural succesors.

What I particularly love about the c-sharp minor, is his sense of comic relief -- which emerges three or four times, just when you need it.


----------



## Tallisman

stomanek said:


> Well - never heard it.


Sorry but


----------



## Woodduck

You've prompted me to listen to this work, which I know well, after a hiatus of several years. I am once again astounded and completely shaken. 

Is there any music that explores so many states of being, and such previously unimagined ones, in such a compact space? What's true of Beethoven's late works in general is, I'm inclined to say, pushed to its farthest limit in the C# minor quartet. It's a compact universe in which we're whipped from profound tragedy to outrageous comedy and back at warp speed. 

Does this music "work"? It seems not to for some. It always has worked for others, including me, but why? We can point to technical devices, such as the way Beethoven holds this seeming crazy quilt together by, for example, carefully relating his themes, building them from motifs revolving around intervals of the second and third, and by employing unusual chord voicings that take him to extremes of treble and bass and create a certain sonorous image peculiar to his late quartets. But do such observations suffice to explain why this music appears to us as a mini-cosmos fully formed, both surprising and inevitable, and utterly compelling?

We see here a paradox of authentic genius: a shocking originality that makes most music, even great music, written before and since sound conventional, but at the same time a comprehensive mastery of the composer's musical heritage that makes the "innovations" of much modern music seem like shooting in the dark.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> this seeming crazy quilt


I think this is a good expression for a part of it. I sometimes imagine little tunes going round and round in the head of someone who isn't totally sane. This slightly disturbing aspect is, for me, an important part of its allure.

Another aspect of it is the fugue. When it's played well it must be one of the most expressive opening movents, one of the most expressive fugues.

I have always been astonished by this quartet, it's magnificence seems to me as clear as the hand in front of my face.


----------



## Bluecrab

Woodduck said:


> We see here a paradox of authentic genius: a shocking originality that makes most music, even great music, written before and since sound conventional...


Yes indeed. Beethoven's late quartets, especially this one IMO, represent a quantum leap forward for the genre. He basically leaves the string quartet composers of the classical period in the dust.

It's a towering work. Some believe that it inspired parts of Bartok's first quartet. Bartok and Schoenberg, with their early quartets in the early 20th century, represent the next quantum leap forward for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

It doesn't really take off for me until the V movement, presto. The rhythmic figure sounds similar to the Grosse Fugue. The abrupt tempo changes are also contributors to what males it sound unique.


----------



## Tallisman

Tallisman said:


> "After this, what is left for us to write?"


Quite a lot, actually, Schubert.


----------



## Tallisman

You've prompted me to revisit the quartets too. Thanks. I had forgotten how much I love the Harp Quartet, and my love for Op.130 and 132 in particular.


----------



## beetzart

Tallisman said:


> You've prompted me to revisit the quartets too. Thanks. I had forgotten how much I love the Harp Quartet, and my love for Op.130 and 132 in particular.


Of the 1st 11 quartets the Harp is my favourite. That powerful ending of the 1st movement never fails to get me, how he does it I don't know. I look at the score, listen, look and listen again and it is so beaufifully simple it is equally and utterly complex at the same time. Only Beethoven could have written it. Yet like others I have read this thread and gone straight to listen to the C# minor quartet again. Those first opening notes play and water comes out of my eyes.


----------



## Tallisman

beetzart said:


> Of the 1st 11 quartets the Harp is my favourite. That powerful ending of the 1st movement never fails to get me, how he does it I don't know. I look at the score, listen, look and listen again and it is so beaufifully simple it is equally and utterly complex at the same time. Only Beethoven could have written it. Yet like others I have read this thread and gone straight to listen to the C# minor quartet again. Those first opening notes play and water comes out of my eyes.


Yes, that ending of the Harp Quartet 1st mvmt never fails to give me goosebumps. It soars. It's Beethoven at his Beethovenian best.


----------



## DaveM

I listen to this wondrous classical work written 192 years ago by a deaf man racked by several maladies a year before his death, compare it to works that have been the subject of very long recent threads and think: how far we have not come.


----------



## beetzart

Maybe Beethoven's music is the apex of all music, or his and JS Bach's. That is not to say there is no room for other good music; just not as good music as what those two wrote. If Beethoven had never existed no writer could have invented him and made his greatness combined with his deafness believable. It would just seem too far-fetched.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I listen to this wondrous classical work written 192 years ago by a deaf man racked by several maladies a year before his death, compare it to works that have been the subject of very long recent threads and think: how far we have not come.


Yeah. Some call it "evolution."


----------



## Tallisman

DaveM said:


> I listen to this wondrous classical work written 192 years ago by a deaf man racked by several maladies a year before his death, compare it to works that have been the subject of very long recent threads and think: how far we have not come.


Preach, Dave. ............


----------



## JeffD

Compelling indeed. And because the ear is "prepared" by the earlier quartets and especially by Mozart. IMO.

Listening to Takacs.


----------



## Phil loves classical

When I listen to the Yale Quartet's version, I'm mesmerized, but other versions don't move me.


----------



## KenOC

Just a reminder that the entire quartet cycle, well-played and excellently recorded, can be had for (wait for it) 99 cents.

https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Co...&qid=1536626072&sr=1-1-mp3-albums-bar-strip-0


----------



## MarkW

Phil loves classical said:


> When I listen to the Yale Quartet's version, I'm mesmerized, but other versions don't move me.


I, too, am a Yale fan -- along with their 127 and 132. (The others -- after Walter Trampler joined -- aren't as good.)


----------



## DavidA

Just listening to this played by Takacs Quartet

Such extraordinary music


----------



## KenOC

Rankings from another site:

Beethoven string quartet cycles:
1 - Takacs
2 - Alban Berg (late 70s/early 80s)
3 - Cleveland (Telarc)
4 - Italiano (Decca)
5 - Emerson
6 - Tokyo (Harmonia Mundi)
7 - Gewandhaus
8 - Fine Arts
9 - Tokyo (RCA)
10 - Kodaly (Naxos) (tie)
10 - Melos (DG) (tie)


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Just listening to this played by Takacs Quartet
> 
> Such extraordinary music


Seems I listened to a good recording then.

This is probably the first time on TC when a major work by a major composer flies over my head.

Will have another listen today to see if I can get this piece.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> Seems I listened to a good recording then.
> 
> This is probably the first time on TC when a major work by a major composer flies over my head.
> 
> Will have another listen today to see if I can get this piece.


Don't worry, Beethoven was faking it. Schindler reports that Ludwig called him over one day and said, "Anton, look at this. Such a simple trick, and yet it makes the music sound quite profound. It should be good to pump up those sheet music sales, eh?"


----------



## derin684

It is indeed an amazing piece of music. I always thought that Beethoven composed his own character in this quartet. And I'm not saying this based on only the final movement. If you listen carefully, you will see that yourself. This quartet is complex, painful, passionate, insane, insanely peaceful, sorrowful, hopeful, and maybe angry. So is Beethoven. 

IMHO, the Beethoven late quartets are the only quartets that can compete with Bartok's.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Don't worry, Beethoven was faking it. Schindler reports that Ludwig called him over one day and said, "Anton, look at this. Such a simple trick, and yet it makes the music sound quite profound. It should be good to pump up those sheet music sales, eh?"


That's ok - there's enough great music around to have a few deaf spots.

I like the Brahms qts a lot - so dont know why I dont get Beethoven's.


----------



## beetzart

The opening 12 notes are Beethovian code for 'I am in a great deal of pain, please help me.' And you would think he would just say that. He was probably thought insane so people perhaps humoured him. Maybe.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> Well - never heard it.
> 
> However - I am just going to have a listen now. Will tell you my thoughts.


You're kidding?! This from the guy who touts Mozart's superior genius and claims he woulda coulda shoulda done what Beethoven did had he lived longer - and you haven't actually heard what Beethoven did?  Do you know Beethoven's piano sonatas?



stomanek said:


> That's ok - there's enough great music around to have a few deaf spots.
> 
> I like the Brahms qts a lot - so dont know why I dont get Beethoven's.


Possibly because Beethoven's are much more original and difficult.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> You're kidding?! This from the guy who touts Mozart's superior genius and claims he woulda coulda shoulda done what Beethoven did had he lived longer - and you haven't actually heard what Beethoven did?  Do you know Beethoven's piano sonatas?
> 
> Possibly because Beethoven's are much more original and difficult.


I never said Mozart was a greater/better composer than Beethoven. I also never made the claims you cite above. I said he most likely would have produced work of a nature that musical history would be different from what it actually is. This is not too controversial.

As for what I know of Beethoven. I never explored his music in the way I explored Mozart for the simple reason that I lacked time - when I discovered Mozart and understood this was a lifelong passion - it was always going to be difficult to squeeze everything in. I dabbled with Beethoven's middle quartets - didnt find them sufficiently interesting and saw no reason to explore the late quartets. The piano sonatas - I know the famous ones quite well - but I try to avoid listening to keyboard bashing - so yes - the delicate classical works appeal more to me and I avoid most romantic solo piano.

Beethoven's may be more original and difficult - but that's pretty much irrelevant to me if I dont get them and find the Brahms works more pleasing to listen to. It may well be my shortcoming - I can live with that.


----------



## Woodduck

derin684 said:


> It is indeed an amazing piece of music. I always thought that Beethoven composed his own character in this quartet. And I'm not saying this based on only the final movement. If you listen carefully, you will see that yourself. This quartet is complex, painful, passionate, insane, insanely peaceful, sorrowful, hopeful, and maybe angry. So is Beethoven.
> *
> IMHO, the Beethoven late quartets are the only quartets that can compete with Bartok's.*


I would turn this around and say that, IMHO, the Bartok quartets are the only ones that can compete, as a set, with Beethoven's - but still lose the competition.


----------



## jdec

For me Beethoven's greatest string quartets (op.127-135, Razumovsky 1, Harp, etc) are the greatest ever, I have known these works very well for over 20 years. Yes, op.131 is an amazing thing, though overall I might still prefer op.132 (not only for the Heiliger Dankgesang movement). But hey, there are equal amazing things from other of the truly great composers too.

So I'm with Woodduck on this one (regarding post #37), Bartok's as fine as they are, easily lose the competition against Beethoven's for me.


----------



## Heliogabo

Last 5 piano sonatas and last 5 string quartets are emblematic of Beethoven's late style. I've been reading about this (T. W. Adorno and Edward Said above all).
I just love this music and is indeed an amazing thing. Beethoven jumped almost 100 years of music history and became modern and, as Stravinsky said (about the grand fugue) an eternal contemporary.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Just a reminder that the entire quartet cycle, well-played and excellently recorded, can be had for (wait for it) 99 cents.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Co...&qid=1536626072&sr=1-1-mp3-albums-bar-strip-0


Yes, the C#minor quartet is very good, and well-worth a quarter.


----------



## Bluecrab

stomanek said:


> I never said Mozart was a greater/better composer than Beethoven.


Really? Then how do you explain this? ("If Mozart lived longer..." thread, post 8)

"I doubt if there would have been an eroica - Mozart would have produced something far far greater and Beethoven would have been forever watching the great master's ever move - he would have been in Mozart's shadow... in Mozart and Schubert we lost at a young age (in my view) the two greatest musical talents to walk the earth..."

You are clearly saying that you believe that Mozart was a better composer than Beethoven. That inference is inescapable.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> I listen to this wondrous classical work written 192 years ago by a deaf man racked by several maladies a year before his death, compare it to works that have been the subject of very long recent threads and think: how far we have not come.


Was Beethoven a great artist? Yes.

Did he communicate profound meaning to his audience? 
Yes, but this may have little to do with formal musical principles, which may be unconscious to the average listener, and everything to do with his "being" as an artist, which is a product of his time, his experience, his life, and milieu.

Does it transcend his own time & communicate with us in the modern era? 
Yes, because that "being" and identity is relevant to us now.

Can it be duplicated in modern times? 
I doubt it, because its existence and creation is as much the result of musical craftsmanship and ideas as it is a product of his being and identity, and the circumstances of his experience and existence in his particular environment.

The particular qualities you are referring to might be extra-musical in strict formal terms, but are artistic and spiritual in nature, and therefore unprovable and unsuitable for comparison to any attempt to "re-create" its greatness or compare it to other unique instances of creation.

As I've said before, many of us who are drawn to Classical music and art of the past are lamenting the "loss of soul" that the modern era lacks, because of our over-rationalized scientific world view.

The "language of the soul" which Beethoven was so immersed in has been lost, because it has been replaced by logic, reason, behavior, and data.

So, of course, how far have we not come? Don't blame it on other composers; blame it on Man.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> For me Beethoven's greatest string quartets (op.127-135, Razumovsky 1, Harp, etc) are the greatest ever, *I have known these works very well for over 20 years.* Yes, op.131 is an amazing thing, though overall I might still prefer op.132 (not only for the Heiliger Dankgesang movement). But hey, there are equal amazing things from other of the truly great composers too.
> 
> So I'm with Woodduck on this one (regarding post #37), Bartok's as fine as they are, easily lose the competition against Beethoven's for me.


I've known them for over 50 years and still can't quite believe them. I was probably 16 when I first heard Opp. 127, 132, 135 and the Grosse Fuge, and no music I knew up to that time had prepared me for entry into their world, which contained so many emotions yet seemed to rise above them, surveying human life from a perspective hard-won but ultimately serene. It was a sense of life as far removed from the Romantic (which then constituted the bulk of my listening) as from the Classical, Baroque, or Modern; it seemed somehow to include and transcend them all. As a teenager, with much less of life under my belt than Beethoven, I understood intuitively the exalted perspective he had embodied in this unique music, and remember suggesting to a violinist, a professor of music and a superb musician, that the late quartets were the greatest music ever written. His eyes opened wide, he looked into the distance and smiled, and he said quietly, "They probably are."


----------



## Strange Magic

> millionrainbows: "The "language of the soul" which Beethoven was so immersed in has been lost, because it has been replaced by logic, reason, behavior, and data."


Do you prefer illogic, unreason, no data? (Hate those nasty data!). There is no, repeat no, evidence other pure assertion, to link the fact that Beethoven's sort of music is no longer being written with the alleged arrival upon the scene of logic, reason, "behavior" [sic], and the gathering of data. The Enlightenment was well in hand while Beethoven was composing; he was a product and beneficiary of it. But the periodic firing of MR's blunderbuss is part of what makes TC so enjoyable .


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Was Beethoven a great artist? Yes.
> 
> Did he communicate profound meaning to his audience?
> Yes, but this may have little to do with formal musical principles, which may be unconscious to the average listener, and everything to do with his "being" as an artist, which is a product of his time, his experience, his life, and milieu.
> 
> Does it transcend his own time & communicate with us in the modern era?
> Yes, because that "being" and identity is relevant to us now.
> 
> Can it be duplicated in modern times?
> I doubt it, because its existence and creation is as much the result of musical craftsmanship and ideas as it is a product of his being and identity, and the circumstances of his experience and existence in his particular environment.
> 
> The particular qualities you are referring to might be extra-musical in strict formal terms, but are artistic and spiritual in nature, and therefore unprovable and unsuitable for comparison to any attempt to "re-create" its greatness or compare it to other unique instances of creation.
> 
> As I've said before, many of us who are drawn to Classical music and art of the past are lamenting the "loss of soul" that the modern era lacks, because of our over-rationalized scientific world view.
> 
> The "language of the soul" which Beethoven was so immersed in has been lost, because it has been replaced by logic, reason, behavior, and data.
> 
> So, of course,how far have we not come? Don't blame it on other composers; blame it on Man.


I just don't understand how anyone who has listened to Ferneyhough, Transit or some of the quartets, can bemoan any lack of soul in modernity. Same for the Boulez Ritual or Nono's "Hay que caminar" soñando

Ferneyhough made this comment on the process of composing music in _Il Tempo della Figura_



> We, as composers, do not only manipulate material; it signals to us - by means of the ordered freeing up and redisposing of figural energies - what it itself desires


I wonder if it was the same for Machaut, Josquin, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner . . . But anyway, "figural energy" sounds a bit like soul to me.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> I would turn this around and say that, IMHO, the Bartok quartets are the only ones that can compete, as a set, with Beethoven's - but still lose the competition.


You may be saying no more than you like Beethoven. Mozart wrote some very good music for small ensembles, not _obviously_ inferior, some of it, that op 131 or Bartok 3. It's not obvious to me, at least that the variations in op 131 are inferior to those in K 563. It may be obvious to you, but that just maybe shows that we're not going beyond "I prefer . . . "


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Do you prefer illogic, unreason, no data? (Hate those nasty data!). There is no, repeat no, evidence other pure assertion, to link the fact that Beethoven's sort of music is no longer being written with the alleged arrival upon the scene of logic, reason, "behavior" [sic], and the gathering of data. The Enlightenment was well in hand while Beethoven was composing; he was a product and beneficiary of it. But the periodic firing of MR's blunderbuss is part of what makes TC so enjoyable .


What I'm saying has parallels in other areas and eras as well, where people on the 'artistic fringe' have been able to escape the debilitating effects of 'soul-killing' by creating their own sub-culture. I'm not thinking of hippies, either; what jazz guitarist Pat Martino said in his autobiography "Here & Now" is what rings my bell lately. His style of playing, which is an 'expression of his being,' would be impossible to recreate in an academic setting where jazz is currently taught in a more 'classical' way. He was formed by playing in Harlem and all the places in Philadelphia, which no longer exist, but were key in forming his "being" as an artist, because he was part of the people and the social milieu there. This sort of thing can't be re-created in a laboratory setting.

This is no different from looking back on Beethoven and his music. The "new generation" cannot hope to re-create this. Music can be copied, art can be imitated, but the spirit and being of artistic formation is something that is unique, and might only crop-up in isolated instances, when the cultural conditions are 'just right.'


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> You may be saying no more than you like Beethoven. Mozart wrote some very good music for small ensembles, not _obviously_ inferior, some of it, that op 131 or Bartok 3. It's not obvious to me, at least that the variations in op 131 are inferior to those in K 563. It may be obvious to you, but that just maybe shows that we're not going beyond "I prefer . . . "


Ferneyhough and Beethoven? Is there really that much difference in out souls? Is there an "X" factor we are overlooking, which distinguishes certain music from others?


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> ..._There is no, repeat no, evidence_ other pure assertion, to link the fact that Beethoven's sort of music is no longer being written with the alleged arrival upon the scene of logic, reason, "behavior" [sic], and the gathering of data.


No _evidence?_ Isn't this exactly symptomatic of what I am asserting? The only evidence would be our experience, and this is not provable to even exist.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Ferneyhough and Beethoven? Is there really that much difference in out souls? Is there an "X" factor we are overlooking, which distinguishes certain music from others?


Well I'm encouraging you to say more about the X.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> I just don't understand how anyone who has listened to Ferneyhough, Transit or some of the quartets, can bemoan any lack of soul in modernity. Same for the Boulez Ritual or Nono's "Hay que caminar" soñando
> 
> Ferneyhough made this comment on the process of composing music in _Il Tempo della Figura_:
> 
> "We, as composers, do not only manipulate material; it signals to us - by means of the ordered freeing up and redisposing of figural energies - what it itself desires."
> 
> I wonder if it was the same for Machaut, Josquin, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner . . . But anyway,* "figural energy" sounds a bit like soul to me.*


"The ordered freeing up and redisposing of figural energies" doesn't sound remotely like anything I would ever call "soul."


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> "The ordered freeing up and redisposing of figural energies" doesn't sound remotely like anything I would ever call "soul."


A friend of mine once said to me that I don't have the god gene, I clearly don't have the soul gene either. Can someone please explain what would is if it's not energy, heat, passion?


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> You may be saying no more than you like Beethoven. Mozart wrote some very good music for small ensembles, not _obviously_ inferior, some of it, that op 131 or Bartok 3. It's not obvious to me, at least that the variations in op 131 are inferior to those in K 563. It may be obvious to you, but that just maybe shows that we're not going beyond "I prefer . . . "


What I would say is that Bartok's quartets are masterpieces of compositional art, expressive power, and original thinking - but that Beethoven's are all of that and more. Beethoven's sympathies are much broader - more varied, more comprehensive, more universal - than Bartok's, whose emotional domain is relatively dark, severe, and private, and makes his works forbidding and even repellent to many people. The late quartets typically evoke such adjectives as "sublime" and "transcendental"; it's an attempt to convey the feeling that they take us beyond ordinary experience (see my post #48). I've never heard Bartok described in those terms.

It goes without saying that not everyone will share these perceptions.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> No _evidence?_ Isn't this exactly symptomatic of what I am asserting? The only evidence would be our experience, and this is not provable to even exist.


We agree. You assert things, all sorts of things, it's almost like an overflowing fountain of assertions. Evidence? It only drags one down; we should be free as birds to fly as high and far as our fancy takes us. It's a gift.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bartok vs. Beethoven:
Beethoven exemplifies that there's something in all of us that struggles to embody and realize the true aim of our psychology or 'soul journey.' The integration of the psyche, as Jung put it. This is a universally recognized drive; survive. Bartok represents the darker side of our souls, isolated, severe, conflicted, which also is familiar to all: defeat, struggle, and the failure to consummate the pact of the soul. Neither one is foreign to us.

I think there must be an emotional component to Beethoven which is more direct than Bartok, but in ways more naive and simple. Apparently, it works. It is an easier path.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> We agree. You assert things, all sorts of things, it's almost like an overflowing fountain of assertions. Evidence? It only drags one down; we should be free as birds to fly as high and far as our fancy takes us. It's a gift.


All I assert is that we are attracted to music and art which has depth of experience, and depth of soul. We are attracted to the "being" of a performer or artist. We sense this. Bob Dylan couldn't sing worth a damn, but we saw his "being," and that being was the truth.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Bartok vs. Beethoven:
> Beethoven exemplifies that there's something in all of us that struggles to embody and realize the true aim of our psychology or 'soul journey.' The integration of the psyche, as Jung put it. This is a universally recognized drive; survive. Bartok represents the darker side of our souls, isolated, severe, conflicted, which also is familiar to all: defeat, struggle, and the failure to consummate the pact of the soul. Neither one is foreign to us.
> 
> *I think there must be an emotional component to Beethoven which is more direct than Bartok, but in ways more naive and simple. Apparently, it works. It is an easier path.*


I was (more or less) with you until you described Beethoven's "path" as "easier" than Bartok's. There's nothing "naive" or "simple" about Beethoven's late works, neither technically nor spiritually, unless we use those words in recognition of the "second simplicity" achieved through struggle, which is a heroic achievement (we hear his battle in the works of his second period).


----------



## MarkW

I have always thought that, unlike, say, the more ethereal utterances of the slow movements of the Hammerklavier or Op. 111 sonatas, there is something about most of the late quartets that can appeal to anyone at whatever musical or appreciative level he happens to be at at the time. And that, as his or her taste/life experience/musical knowledge developes, the quartets are always able to speak on that level. That's a truly amazing thing that doesn't apply to an awful lot of Art.


----------



## millionrainbows

MarkW said:


> I have always thought that, unlike, say, the more ethereal utterances of the slow movements of the Hammerklavier or Op. 111 sonatas, there is something about most of the late quartets that can appeal to anyone at whatever musical or appreciative level he happens to be at at the time. And that, as his or her taste/life experience/musical knowledge developes, the quartets are always able to speak on that level. That's a truly amazing thing that doesn't apply to an awful lot of Art.


That seems true, and "easier" than Bartok.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> Really? Then how do you explain this? ("If Mozart lived longer..." thread, post 8)
> 
> "I doubt if there would have been an eroica - Mozart would have produced something far far greater and Beethoven would have been forever watching the great master's ever move - he would have been in Mozart's shadow... in Mozart and Schubert we lost at a young age (in my view) the two greatest musical talents to walk the earth..."
> 
> You are clearly saying that you believe that Mozart was a better composer than Beethoven. That inference is inescapable.


Yes - that is what I said. I base this on the inescapable fact that Mozart reached a much higher level than Beethoven did at the same stage in their lives (ie before age 36). Mozart may have been a prodigy and perhaps started a little younger than Beethoven 
but I think few classical music authorities would argue that Mozart's best work is inferior to Beethoven's best and it's hard to imagine that Mozart would not have improved yet further. On that basis I made those remarks so yes - I do hold that opinion and I make no apologies for gatecrashing this thread and I agree with another poster that K563 is a supreme chamber work.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> All I assert is that we are attracted to music and art which has depth of experience, and depth of soul. We are attracted to the "being" of a performer or artist. We sense this. Bob Dylan couldn't sing worth a damn, but we saw his "being," and that being was the truth.


But then you assert that along came logic, reason, "behavior", and data, and Beethoven was therefore, as a result, swept away from us (or we from him). The preceding world, the world of Kepler, Newton, Leibnitz, the world of the calculus, optics, elliptical orbits, and gravity, was also the world of Bach and Handel. Without writing several encyclopedias, it's actually more accurate to say "That was Then; This is Now" than to run on about the "coming" of logic, reason, and data (we'll skip the behavior reference entirely).

I agree about Dylan: I too saw his "being" and that being was the truth.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> For me Beethoven's greatest string quartets (op.127-135, Razumovsky 1, Harp, etc) are the greatest ever, I have known these works very well for over 20 years. Yes, op.131 is an amazing thing, though overall I might still prefer op.132 (not only for the Heiliger Dankgesang movement). But hey, there are equal amazing things from other of the truly great composers too.
> 
> So I'm with Woodduck on this one (regarding post #37), Bartok's as fine as they are, easily lose the competition against Beethoven's for me.


I find these kind of comparisons across eras meaningless. Mozart vs. Beethoven, Beethoven vs. Bartok, etc. If there were a comparison worth making between the 20thc quartet composers and Beethoven, it would be Shostakovich. But there isn't.

Everyone seems to leave out the amazing Op. 95, which I think is among Beethoven's greatest works.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> I find these kind of comparisons across eras meaningless. Mozart vs. Beethoven, Beethoven vs. Bartok, etc. If there were a comparison worth making between the 20thc quartet composers and Beethoven, it would be Shostakovich. But there isn't.
> 
> Everyone seems to leave out the amazing Op. 95, which I think is among Beethoven's greatest works.


And I actually prefer Shotakovich's to Bartok's too.

By the way, I included the Serioso with my "etc".


----------



## Bluecrab

stomanek said:


> Yes - that is what I said. I base this on the inescapable fact that Mozart reached a much higher level than Beethoven did at the same stage in their lives...


I see that you still do not comprehend the difference between subjective and objective statements. "Inescapable _fact_"? The statement above is nothing more than your opinion. I'd remind you that your opinion is subjective, but I've tried that before, and it was futile. Your issue to deal with.

Beethoven turned 36 in 1806. Here's a partial list of some of his compositions that were completed before then:

Symphonies 1-4
Piano concertos 1-4
Triple concerto
Piano trios 1-4, and possibly 5 and 6
String quartets 1-9
... and so on.

Now, I'm willing to wager that at least one critic or musicologist in the world would argue that these works are certainly not on a lower level than similar works by Mozart.



stomanek said:


> yes - I do hold that opinion and I make no apologies for gatecrashing this thread...


Well, that rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? as Donald Trump might say, "Sad!"


----------



## jdec

Bluecrab said:


> I see that you still do not comprehend the difference between subjective and objective statements. "Inescapable _fact_"? The statement above is nothing more than your opinion. I'd remind you that your opinion is subjective, but I've tried that before, and it was futile. Your issue to deal with.
> 
> *Beethoven turned 36 in 1806. Here's a partial list of some of his compositions that were completed before then:
> 
> Symphonies 1-4
> Piano concertos 1-4
> Triple concerto
> Piano trios 1-4, and possibly 5 and 6
> String quartets 1-9
> ... and so on.*
> 
> Now, I'm willing to wager that at least one critic or musicologist in the world would argue that these works are certainly not on a lower level than similar works by Mozart.
> 
> Well, that rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? as Donald Trump might say, "Sad!"


If you are trying to list some of Beethoven's best works composed by the age Mozart died, you need to leave out Symphony 4, string quartets 7-9, piano trios 5 and 6. 
Instead add the Kreutzer, the Pathetique, the Moonlight and the Waldstein.
Then you still have 10 great Mozart's works per each of the above listed by that age.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> I see that you still do not comprehend the difference between subjective and objective statements. "Inescapable _fact_"? The statement above is nothing more than your opinion. I'd remind you that your opinion is subjective, but I've tried that before, and it was futile. Your issue to deal with.
> 
> Beethoven turned 36 in 1806. Here's a partial list of some of his compositions that were completed before then:
> 
> Symphonies 1-4
> Piano concertos 1-4
> Triple concerto
> Piano trios 1-4, and possibly 5 and 6
> String quartets 1-9
> ... and so on.
> 
> Now, I'm willing to wager that at least one critic or musicologist in the world would argue that these works are certainly not on a lower level than similar works by Mozart.
> 
> Well, that rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? as Donald Trump might say, "Sad!"


Relatively few works - perhaps a dozen supreme masterworks by age 36 and I dont include in that number many of those you cited above. the first 3 PCs for example, sy 1 and 2, many of the early quartets. Some of the piano sonatas yes - the 2 great violin sonatas.

But Mozart reached this level a decade before Beethoven and had a much greater rate of productivity - including 6 operas to Beethovens 1.

One musicologist? That wouldnt be an appeal to authority would it?


----------



## endelbendel

When i first heard it i thought this defines brilliance, creativity, art.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven became Mozart's death age during the first half of 1806, by my possibly shaky reckoning. So some of his 1806 works *may *have been completed after that date. These include the Appassionata, Piano Concerto #4, the Razumovskys, the 4th Symphony, the Violin Concerto. and the C-minor WoO 80 variations. A busy year for Beethoven!

Productivitywise, did Mozart ever have such a string of hits in a single year? I'm curious.

In any event, this discussion seems to be slicing the baloney exceedingly fine.


----------



## DaveM

I’m rather surprised that anyone would compare the age at which particular works were composed as a measure of composers Mozart and Beethoven. Some of the greatest composers, probably Beethoven, certainly Brahms for example, were more cautious about composing ie. took longer, agonized over their compositions more than others.

I can’t think of any early works of Beethoven that sound weak or thin whereas I find that a number of Mozart’s do. Compare the earliest piano sonatas and concertos of Mozart with Beethoven’s. Likewise and even moreso, the early symphonies. Also, the earliest vocal works of Mozart were rather formulaic, if not boring. But Mozart learned quickly and the improvement a decade after these earlier works was rather astounding.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> Beethoven became Mozart's death age during the first half of 1806, by my possibly shaky reckoning. So some of his 1806 works *may *have been completed after that date. These include the Appassionata, Piano Concerto #4, the Razumovskys, the 4th Symphony, the Violin Concerto. and the C-minor WoO 80 variations. *A busy year for Beethoven!
> 
> Productivitywise, did Mozart ever have such a string of hits in a single year? I'm curious.*
> 
> In any event, this discussion seems to be slicing the baloney exceedingly fine.


Indeed, a productive year for Beethoven (1806).

Mozart's last year comes right now to mind regarding your question. Die Zauberflöte, La clemenza di Tito, Clarinet Concerto, Ave verum Corpus, Piano Concerto No. 27, Requiem in D minor, etc, all composed in 1791.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Beethoven became Mozart's death age during the first half of 1806, by my possibly shaky reckoning. So some of his 1806 works *may *have been completed after that date. These include the Appassionata, Piano Concerto #4, the Razumovskys, the 4th Symphony, the Violin Concerto. and the C-minor WoO 80 variations. A busy year for Beethoven!
> 
> Productivitywise, did Mozart ever have such a string of hits in a single year? I'm curious.
> 
> In any event, this discussion seems to be slicing the baloney exceedingly fine.


1786 was quite busy

pc 23
pc 24
Nozze Di Figaro
K493 pf qt
k494 pf s
horn concerto no 4
k496 pf trio
4 hand ps
clarinet trio
hoffmeister qt
k502 pf trio
pc 25
sy 38

I have left out various minor works - variations, canons, concert arias etc.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DaveM said:


> I'm rather surprised that anyone would compare the age at which particular works were composed as a measure of composers Mozart and Beethoven. Some of the greatest composers, probably Beethoven, certainly Brahms for example, were more cautious about composing ie. took longer, agonized over their compositions more than others.
> 
> I can't think of any early works of Beethoven that sound weak or thin whereas I find that a number of Mozart's do. Compare the earliest piano sonatas and concertos of Mozart with Beethoven's. Likewise and even moreso, the early symphonies. Also, the earliest vocal works of Mozart were rather formulaic, if not boring. But Mozart learned quickly and the improvement a decade after these earlier works was rather astounding.


Not really fair as Mozart's juvenelia survived rather too well. Nevertheless I would not say Mozart's early concertos inc K175, the VCs - even the bassoon concerto - are inferior works. The VCs are the only 18thc classical VCs that are in the modern repertoire.
Even the early piano sonatas k279-k284 are an accomplished set.


----------



## jdec

DaveM said:


> I'm rather surprised that anyone would compare the age at which particular works were composed as a measure of composers Mozart and Beethoven. Some of the greatest composers, probably Beethoven, certainly Brahms for example, were more cautious about composing ie. took longer, agonized over their compositions more than others.
> 
> I can't think of any early works of Beethoven that sound weak or thin whereas I find that a number of Mozart's do. Compare the earliest piano sonatas and concertos of Mozart with Beethoven's. *Likewise and even moreso, the early symphonies.* Also, the earliest vocal works of Mozart were rather formulaic, if not boring. But Mozart learned quickly and the improvement a decade after these earlier works was rather astounding.


Comparing a child vs. a 30 year old adult for symphonies (early ones)?


----------



## PlaySalieri

DaveM said:


> I'm rather surprised that anyone would compare the age at which particular works were composed as a measure of composers Mozart and Beethoven. Some of the greatest composers, *probably Beethoven,* certainly Brahms for example, were more cautious about composing ie. took longer, agonized over their compositions more than others.
> 
> I can't think of any early works of Beethoven that sound weak or thin whereas I find that a number of Mozart's do. Compare the earliest piano sonatas and concertos of Mozart with Beethoven's. Likewise and even moreso, the early symphonies. Also, the earliest vocal works of Mozart were rather formulaic, if not boring. But Mozart learned quickly and the improvement a decade after these earlier works was rather astounding.


 I wouldnt say so - Beethoven has quite a considerable number of compositions dating pre 1800 when he was in his 20s. He composed a lot. Brahms waited until he was in his 40s before his 1st sy.


----------



## Bluecrab

jdec said:


> If you are trying to list some of Beethoven's best works composed by the age Mozart died, you need to leave out Symphony 4...


Wikipedia: "The Symphony No. 4 in B-flat major, Op. 60, is a symphony in four movements composed by Ludwig van Beethoven in the summer of 1806."

1806 - 1770 = 36. QED.



jdec said:


> ...string quartets 7-9...


"String quartets...

Opus 59: Three String Quartets ("Rasumovsky") (1806)

No. 1: String Quartet No. 7 in F major
No. 2: String Quartet No. 8 in E minor
No. 3: String Quartet No. 9 in C major"

_Ibid_.



jdec said:


> Then you still have 10 great Mozart's works per each of the above listed by that age.


More opinion. Apparently you suffer from the same subjective/objective distinction malady that stomanek does.


----------



## Woodduck

What point is there to comparing the quantities of music composers turned out and how old they were when they did it? It isn't as if we're raising chickens and judging them by how many eggs they lay.


----------



## KenOC

Just in passing, some time back I tried to estimate the amount of music, by duration, composed by the classical period composers in their working years. Obviously there were some assumptions made! But Mozart came in first, with Beethoven and Haydn each having about half his annual output. Haydn can fool us because he had such a long working career...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> Wikipedia: "The Symphony No. 4 in B-flat major, Op. 60, is a symphony in four movements composed by Ludwig van Beethoven in the summer of 1806."
> 
> 1806 - 1770 = 36. QED.
> 
> "String quartets...
> 
> Opus 59: Three String Quartets ("Rasumovsky") (1806)
> 
> No. 1: String Quartet No. 7 in F major
> No. 2: String Quartet No. 8 in E minor
> No. 3: String Quartet No. 9 in C major"
> 
> _Ibid_.
> 
> More opinion. Apparently *you suffer from the same subjective/objective distinction malady* that stomanek does.


You too then - as you are citing works you believe are equal or better than Mozart's best - where does that come from other than your own opinion.

NB Mozart died 1 month before he reached the age of 36 - and that's not a matter of opinion.


----------



## jdec

Bluecrab said:


> Opus 59: Three String Quartets ("Rasumovsky") (1806)
> 
> No. 1: String Quartet No. 7 in F major
> No. 2: String Quartet No. 8 in E minor
> No. 3: String Quartet No. 9 in C major"


FYI, only Razumovsky 1 was finished in 1806.



Bluecrab said:


> More opinion. Apparently you suffer from the same subjective/objective distinction malady that stomanek does.


You can include Arrau, Solti, Szell as sufferers too.

"Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another."
(Claudio Arrau)

Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces.
(Georg Solti)

21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece.
(George Szell)


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> What point is there to comparing the quantities of music composers turned out and how old they were when they did it? It isn't as if we're raising chickens and judging them by how many eggs they lay.


Somebody pointed out that Beethoven had a very productive year in 1806 - and asked whether Mozart had similar, and it lead to where we are now.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Not sure how this special thread celebrating Beethoven's great QT turned into a custard pie fight - let's try and get back to the topic.


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> FYI, only Razumovsky 1 was finished in 1806.


Wiki has all three written in 1806. The three were reviewed in the AMZ in 1807 and published as a set in 1808. The review is worth quoting:

"Three new, very long and difficult Beethoven string quartets … are attracting the attention of all connoisseurs. The conception is profound and the construction excellent, but they are not easily comprehended -- with the possible exception of the Third in C major, which cannot but appeal to intelligent lovers of music because of its originality, melody, and harmonic power."


----------



## Gallus

Beethoven's late string quartets are the pinnacle of music to me.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> Wiki has all three written in 1806. The three were reviewed in the AMZ in 1807 and published as a set in 1808.


That might be right, not totally sure, I was basing on this article on Beethoven's middle period quartets by Nicholas Mathew, also author of a couple of books on Beethoven ("Political Beethoven", "The Invention of Beethoven and Rossini: Historiography, Criticism, Analysis"):

http://cypressquartet.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CSQ-BMSQ-Liner-Notes.pdf

"The first of the three String Quartets Op. 59 was completed in 1806, the year after
Beethoven's unprecedentedly gigantic Eroica Symphony received its public premiere..."


----------



## Eusebius12

I don't see what's so abstruse about the late quartets in general and op. 131 in particular. The idiom is different. How would post Schoenberg then sound to most people? To me the late quartets are perfectly intelligible, not populist by any means, advanced, totally original and individual, but totally rooted in the art music tradition that Beethoven received. Each one is an incredibly satisfying musical cosmos. I suppose I have also grown up with the late piano sonatas, not too different in idiom, but few really seem to overfuss about them. These are great works also. I know that the Razumovsky quartets caused a great stir when they were published. surprising as that now seems.
Listen without preconceptions.


----------



## DaveM

stomanek said:


> I wouldnt say so - Beethoven has quite a considerable number of compositions dating pre 1800 when he was in his 20s. He composed a lot. Brahms waited until he was in his 40s before his 1st sy.


Please re-read my post. The point was not that Beethoven composed very few early works.


----------



## KenOC

Eusebius12 said:


> ...I suppose I have also grown up with the late piano sonatas, not too different in idiom, but few really seem to overfuss about them. These are great works also.


I probably listen to the late piano sonatas more than the late quartets. I wonder if anybody else feels the same.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> I probably listen to the late piano sonatas more than the late quartets. I wonder if anybody else feels the same.


I used to play them a lot in the 90's, more than the quartets actually, mostly Pollini's fabulous set. They used to bring me into ecstasy like no other piano music, specially 2 of my very favorite movements, op. 109 3rd and op. 111 2nd. They (the whole set) were the greatest sonatas for me back then (before it was the Appasionata and Waldstein).


----------



## Larkenfield

Beethoven... what a guy. His inner hearing must have extended out past Pluto.


----------



## derin684

Woodduck said:


> I would turn this around and say that, IMHO, the Bartok quartets are the only ones that can compete, as a set, with Beethoven's - but still lose the competition.


Well... You might be right, it's all a matter of taste after all. I remember being greatly influenced by Beethoven's late work, but Bartok's quartets have a special place for me.


----------



## Euler

Amazing indeed--a bottomless mine of riches. Words can only trivialise Op. 131, so I'll be wilfully trivial... my five fave fun frolics where old misery guts shows his sense of whimsy:

- 4th movement, after the cadenzas when the theme returns, the 1st violin and cello make a hilarious drunken babel (link). What on earth?!

- End of the scherzo, all four instruments impersonate mice by bowing gently over the bridge (link). A little eerie? More than a little amusing.

- In fact the entire scherzo makes me smile with its faux-bungling modulations, confused pauses and petulant pizzicato.

- 3rd movement, Beethoven creates a cockeyed effect by snipping an 'inevitable' note. Later publishers added the missing note. In most recordings the 2nd violin plays a B3 to complete the phrase, but it's played Beethoven's way here (link) at 9:46

- The 'sprint finish' at the very end. v1-viola play weary half-notes while v2-cello jabber impatient eighth-notes. Finally they wait for their friends and everything comes together, before the cello dashes off again and the other instruments give rapid chase. A wonderfully individual climax (link)


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> I probably listen to the late piano sonatas more than the late quartets. I wonder if anybody else feels the same.


Yes, I do. For me the sonatas are the core of Beethoven's work in all periods of his life.


----------



## millionrainbows

My favorite late quartet is the Op. 135 in F. I like the way it is playful, with abrupt changes. I especially like the way he turns a diminished seventh into a dominant flat-nine by changing the root. At 18:30....


----------



## Pat Fairlea

KenOC said:


> I probably listen to the late piano sonatas more than the late quartets. I wonder if anybody else feels the same.


Yes, me too. Sonatas from Op.90 onwards. I must listen more to the late 4tets as well.


----------



## MarkW

KenOC said:


> I probably listen to the late piano sonatas more than the late quartets. I wonder if anybody else feels the same.


Opp. 109, 111, 127, the Eroica, and the Fourth Piano Cto. are probably my most frequently played Beethoven works.


----------



## Eusebius12

jdec said:


> I used to play them a lot in the 90's, more than the quartets actually, mostly Pollini's fabulous set. They used to bring me into ecstasy like no other piano music, specially 2 of my very favorite movements, op. 109 3rd and op. 111 2nd. They (the whole set) were the greatest sonatas for me back then (before it was the Appasionata and Waldstein).


I find Pollini a tad dry though


----------



## Eusebius12

MarkW said:


> Opp. 109, 111, 127, the Eroica, and the Fourth Piano Cto. are probably my most frequently played Beethoven works.


Interesting, probably the only time I've encountered op.127 nominated as someone's favourite Beethoven qt.


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> Interesting, probably the only time I've encountered op.127 nominated as someone's favourite Beethoven qt.


I think it was my favorite, back when I had a favorite. I still find it as wonderful as the rest.The slow movement is a marvel of long-breathed lyricism of a sort some people say that Beethoven didn't do well. I say piffle.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I think it was my favorite, back when I had a favorite. I still find it as wonderful as the rest.The slow movement is a marvel of long-breathed lyricism of a sort some people say that Beethoven didn't do well. I say piffle.


I'll vote for Op. 127 too, not just the slow movement but the first and last as well. I find the scherzo a bit parched, though, like the scherzo of Op. 131.


----------



## Triplets

The Razumovskys have always been my favorites. They strike the perfect balance between entertainment and profundity and are really daring harmonically


----------



## EdwardBast

Since we are talking of preferences now: Op. 132 is my favorite of the late quartets. Op. 131 is maybe third or fourth — a bit of a dog's breakfast to me.  I like them more tightly unified.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Since we are talking of preferences now: Op. 132 is my favorite of the late quartets. *Op. 131 is maybe third or fourth - a bit of a dog's breakfast to me. * I like them more tightly unified.


So - you took the words right out of my mouth - it's not just me then.

maybe I should explore some of the others after all.


----------



## Tallisman

stomanek said:


> So - you took the words right out of my mouth - it's not just me then.
> 
> maybe I should explore some of the others after all.


Yes, the 12th, 13th, 15th, and 16th are more immediately cohesive


----------



## Mandryka

the one I think is a dogs breakfast is op 130. I think op 131 is totally coherent.


----------



## Heck148

Woodduck said:


> We see here a paradox of authentic genius: a shocking originality that makes most music, even great music, written before and since sound conventional, but at the same time a comprehensive mastery of the composer's musical heritage that makes the "innovations" of much modern music seem like shooting in the dark.


Yes, an amazing work for sure, one of the greatest of all musical compositions, IMO....I particularly love Beethoven's late 4tets, #s 13, 15, and esp #14....Beethoven of course, pushed the musical forms to the limit in his works, - symphonic, solo, 4tets, all...#14 almost seems more like a "Fantasia", very nearly a "stream of consciousness" type of composition, as you point out, taking us on a wild ride of expression, drama and passion...yet, Beethoven retains enough traditional structure to make the work attainable to the listener....there are certainly large, substantial movements in the work, connected by these shorter, connecting movements which take us all over the map...it is indeed a fascinating, most forward-looking work...
I got to know this work right after graduation from conservatory - a good friend of mine was taking an advanced graduate course on musical analysis, and Op. 131 was a main subject of study....we had so many great wine-drinking, listening sessions, in which he'd relay his latest discoveries regarding the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, structural facets of this magnificent opus...I've always loved this work, and return to it often, as it always reveals something new to me, regardless of how many times I've heard it previously.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mandryka said:


> the one I think is a dogs breakfast is op 130. I think op 131 is totally coherent.


So that's two for op 131 being a dogs brekkie against one.


----------



## Bluecrab

Heck148 said:


> Yes, an amazing work for sure...


Nice post. We'll have the privilege of hearing it live on Sept. 30 (Shanghai String Quartet), along with his SQs 4 and 8. Really looking forward to it.


----------



## KenOC

Re dogs' breakfasts: Joseph Kerman, in his book on Beethoven's quartets, says that the Op. 130 is the most disassociated while the Op. 131 is the most integrated.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> the one I think is a dogs breakfast is op 130. I think op 131 is totally coherent.


Likewise. Op.130 is the only one that's never come together for me, although I like everything in it, with or without the _Grosse Fuge._ Reminds me of Ned Rorem on _Carmen_: "I like everything about _Carmen_ except it."


----------



## KenOC

This has inspired me to listen to the Op. 130. Colorado Quartet. A very good reading with some unusual touches.


----------



## KenOC

Just finished listening to the Op. 130 (replacement finale). One thing that struck me was how little of it owed anything to music that had come before, either Beethoven’s or anybody else’s. This music was all new; and since it had so little effect on music that followed, even via imitation, it’s still new. As Beethoven said of one of these quartets, “Thankfully, there’s less lack of fancy than ever before.”

Another is Beethoven’s marvelous fluency in writing. Sometimes you get the feeling that his successes were gained only through long struggle. This music (whatever the truth of the matter) sounds as if it flowed out of him as easily as we imagine was the case with Mozart. But certainly there was a lot of work involved; Cooper estimates that the late quartets, at least the first four which are the longer ones, took about six months each to complete.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> So that's two for op 131 being a dogs brekkie against one.


No, everyone disagrees with what I said.  And they may be right. I mean not just the people on TC - everyone!

I'd say that Op. 130 is more unified - that is, more of a piece and coherent in moods throughout. But Op. 131 is better. And its finale really does tie it together by harking back to the opening fugue.

I'd recommend trying Op. 132. Or Op. 95 which, if not late, is at least late-middle and perhaps more congenial to someone whose reference point is Mozart.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> I'd recommend trying Op. 132. Or Op. 95 which, if not late, is at least late-middle and perhaps more congenial to someone whose reference point is Mozart.


I may have mentioned earlier that my wife, after a play-off, preferred the Op. 132 to the Op. 131. I personally find the 2nd movement of the Op. 132 to be dry and tedious, but the rest is great. And the Op. 95 is truly superb -- Beethoven takes no prisoners here! Listen to that 2nd movement...


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> I think it was my favorite, back when I had a favorite. I still find it as wonderful as the rest.The slow movement is a marvel of long-breathed lyricism of a sort some people say that Beethoven didn't do well. I say piffle.


It is a great work, but I prefer the 4 other late quartets to it. I just find them more interesting. But the Eb is just as searching and contemplative as the others. There are no obvious weaknesses in it.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> This has inspired me to listen to the Op. 130. Colorado Quartet. A very good reading with some unusual touches.


In the process of downloading it now. The $0.99 (99 cents) gave me pause for awhile. Had to revisit the budget, do cheap fast food for a few days, but managed to make it work.

I already have two sets of the Beethoven SQs on CDs, but this Amazon set comes on mp3s ready to load on my iPhone -much less work than ripping CDs and naming music files.

Thanks for the info Ken.


----------



## Eusebius12

EdwardBast said:


> Since we are talking of preferences now: Op. 132 is my favorite of the late quartets. Op. 131 is maybe third or fourth - a bit of a dog's breakfast to me.  I like them more tightly unified.


Op.132 has the awesome heilige dankgesang, but also a fairly irritating scherzo. These are my favourite and least favourite movements amongst the late quartets. Op.131 I find glorious as a whole, searching, quixotic, mysterious. The Bb is my next favourite (it was beethoven's favourite also). The cavatina is one of the most beautiful things ever penned. I prefer the grosse fuge to end, the replacement always seems to easy listening by comparison, yet it is still tautly constructed. It isn't weak. The f major is a strange piece, even amongst its companions. F major sometimes brought out a weird side of Beethoven (cf the Piano sonata no.22). Fascinating nonetheless. Not likely to herald a turning point in Beethoven's style (as some commentators have suggested) more likely imo a jeu d'esprit of Beethoven's humourous nature.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> In the process of downloading it now. The $0.99 (99 cents) gave me pause for awhile. Had to revisit the budget, do cheap fast food for a few days, but managed to make it work.
> 
> I already have two sets of the Beethoven SQs on CDs, but these come on mp3s ready to load on my iPhone -much less work than ripping CDs and naming music files.
> 
> Thanks for the info Ken.


I'm sure you'll like it. And if the expense stresses your budget, hey … your mother's operation can be put off another month, no?


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> I may have mentioned earlier that my wife, after a play-off, preferred the Op. 132 to the Op. 131. I personally find the 2nd movement of the Op. 132 to be dry and tedious, but the rest is great. And the Op. 95 is truly superb -- Beethoven takes no prisoners here! Listen to that 2nd movement...


Yes I agree that the op.132 is very great, and that second movement is annoying! But it is very Beethovenian, in my view. I wouldn't want to be without it. And op.95 is truly transitional, just as op.90 is amongst the piano sonatas. Powerful, but not as elaborate as things were to become.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Likewise. Op.130 is the only one that's never come together for me, although I like everything in it, with or without the _Grosse Fuge._ Reminds me of Ned Rorem on _Carmen_: "I like everything about _Carmen_ except it."


I forgot that Bizet had written a Grosse Fuge for Carmen. No wonder the Gais Parisiens baulked at it


----------



## EdwardBast

Eusebius12 said:


> Op.132 has the awesome heilige dankgesang, but also a fairly irritating scherzo. These are my favourite and least favourite movements amongst the late quartets. Op.131 I find glorious as a whole, searching, quixotic, mysterious. The Bb is my next favourite (it was beethoven's favourite also). The cavatina is one of the most beautiful things ever penned. I prefer the grosse fuge to end, the replacement always seems to easy listening by comparison, yet it is still tautly constructed. It isn't weak. The f major is a strange piece, even amongst its companions. F major sometimes brought out a weird side of Beethoven (cf the Piano sonata no.22). Fascinating nonetheless. Not likely to herald a turning point in Beethoven's style (as some commentators have suggested) more likely imo *a jeu d'esprit of Beethoven's humourous nature.*


I agree. I've always heard Opus 135 as a predominantly comic work, the slow movement a poignant contrast elevating the lighthearted spirit of the whole. There are so many funny rhythmic tricks and so much mercurial misdirection in the first movement - and the scherzo. The angst of the finale's introduction and its reprise midway in the movement are there to be mocked and given the kiss-off. I think the quartet is magnificent throughout, like the Opus 54 sonata. Works like these, by their contrast with their more serious or dark contemporaries, elevate the whole body of work immeasurably. I rate this one as highly as the other late quartets.


----------



## Mandryka

Eusebius12 said:


> Yes I agree that the op.132 is very great, and that second movement is annoying! But it is very Beethovenian, in my view. I wouldn't want to be without it. And op.95 is truly transitional, just as op.90 is amongst the piano sonatas. Powerful, but not as elaborate as things were to become.


Well I want to be without the second movement. When I was at university there was a grade "alpha gamma" - that's what I'd give op 132. Nothing mediocre, no beta.


----------



## isorhythm

Gonna have to disagree strongly about that Op. 132 second movement - to me it has this kind of childish music box-like quality that is essential to the piece, and leads perfectly into the third movement, in a way I can't quite explain.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I agree. I've always heard Opus 135 as a predominantly comic work, the slow movement a poignant contrast elevating the lighthearted spirit of the whole. There are so many funny rhythmic tricks and so much mercurial misdirection in the first movement - and the scherzo. The angst of the finale's introduction and its reprise midway in the movement are there to be mocked and given the kiss-off. I think the quartet is magnificent throughout, like the Opus 54 sonata. Works like these, by their contrast with their more serious or dark contemporaries, elevate the whole body of work immeasurably. I rate this one as highly as the other late quartets.


I never thought of it that way. I knew it was "witty," so I guess that's it. I called it "hide and seek" or playful, and it's that, too. I think humour belongs in music.


----------



## Sid James

KenOC said:


> My wife was playing Beethoven's C-sharp minor quartet Op. 131, and I was listening on the edge of my seat. It struck me as quite amazing - how one person could single-handedly move music from late Mozart and Haydn to this in the span of 30 years. A whole new world and a far different one, one that continues to be our world today.
> 
> Nothing else to add, just wanted to register my amazement.


Absolutely, an amazing piece, and it would still be among the most challenging pieces for a string quartet to play. No break for the musicians, this was unprecedented at the time. Having said that my favourite of the cycle is Op. 132, nowadays I just find Op. 131 too heavy.

You and your wife, as well as others here, would probably enjoy the movie *"A Late Quartet"* which has Op. 131 as its centerpiece. Its about the near breakup and reformation of a string quartet group. It gives a glimpse of the personal rivalries and strain on relationships and family that musicians face today. Some great performances by Christopher Walken, Catherine Keener and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman.

I like a quote from the film alluding to the technical difficulties of Op. 131: "It has seven movements and they're all connected. For us, it means playing without pause, no resting, no tuning. Our instruments must in time go out of tune each in its own quite different way. Was he maybe trying to point out some cohesion, some unity between random acts of life? What are we supposed to do, stop or struggle to continuously adjust to each other up to the end even if we are out of tune? I don't know."


----------



## Luchesi

A few years ago I bought

https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-St...96&sr=8-1&keywords=claudio+colombo+beethoven 

inexpensive

Beethoven: Late String Quartets Transcribed for Piano Four Hands
Claudio Colombo


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eusebius12 said:


> Yes I agree that the op.132 is very great, *and that second movement is annoying*! But it is very Beethovenian, in my view. I wouldn't want to be without it. And op.95 is truly transitional, just as op.90 is amongst the piano sonatas. Powerful, but not as elaborate as things were to become.


seems there is no consensus with Beethove's late quartets. What is an amazing thing to one listener is a dogs breakfast to another - what is a sublime 2nd mvt to one is annoying to another.


----------



## Mandryka

stomanek said:


> seems there is no consensus with Beethove's late quartets. What is an amazing thing to one listener is a dogs breakfast to another - what is a sublime 2nd mvt to one is annoying to another.


Who thinks that op 132/ii is sublime?

_A dogs breakfast_ was a bad choice of phrase for me -- I imagined it meant an incoherent rag bag, but apparently it means something which is a poor piece of work. What I would suggest is that each movement of op 130 is fine, but the whole is not as good as the parts, as it were.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mandryka said:


> Who thinks that op 132/ii is sublime?
> 
> _A dogs breakfast_ was a bad choice of phrase for me -- I imagined it meant an incoherent rag bag, but apparently it means something which is a poor piece of work. What I would suggest is that each movement of op 130 is fine, but the whole is not as good as the parts, as it were.


There does seem to be a consensus of opinion about chamber masterworks of Mozart and Schubert - K563, K516 for example - and in Schubert's case the great quintet in C - not easy to find disagreements among those who are sympathetic to these composers.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> seems there is no consensus with Beethove's late quartets. What is an amazing thing to one listener is a dogs breakfast to another - what is a sublime 2nd mvt to one is annoying to another.


Let's face it any revolutionary masterpiece will divide opinion. I know people who don't like the Diabelli Variations and find them boring


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Let's face it any revolutionary masterpiece will divide opinion. I know people who don't like the Diabelli Variations and find them boring


The eroica doesnt - seems to be universally admired.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> *The eroica doesnt* - seems to be universally admired.


It did at the time


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> It did at the time


Imagine a young person who's only heard pop music trying to listen to the Eroica or Diabelli Variations.

Brain pain? Boring? Aggravating?

They could follow Diabelli sonatas


----------



## philoctetes

Well, the main 1st mvmt theme is not my favorite, so i have to get through that to enjoy the rest. But the rest is primo. I also like the piano variations.


----------



## MarkW

stomanek said:


> The eroica doesnt - seems to be universally admired.


It's on my personal list of greatest symphonies ever written. But I can see why it wouldn't be on everybody's.


----------



## Luchesi

MarkW said:


> It's on my personal list of greatest symphonies ever written. But I can see why it wouldn't be on everybody's.


It's interesting to watch the young Glenn Gould reading to us about these variations and the symphony. It's interesting to watch his face as he's playing. He always seems to look like this when he's playing. I don't think it's just something he does for the camera... I don't think he could play without getting so close to the emotive phrases.


----------



## janxharris

Oh good Lord - just revisited the OP piece - wow...and after repeatedly feeling so indifferent...just so beautiful.

Why does some music hide it's light under a bushel?


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Oh good Lord - just revisited the OP piece - wow...and after repeatedly feeling so indifferent...just so beautiful. Why does some music hide it's light under a bushel?


some music is not immediately accessible, Beethoven late quartets certainly belong to this category. Another example are Hindemith's string quartets which at first sound strange, but after you digest them, they are almost as great as the Beethoven quartets. Or Scriabin piano sonatas. 
the Op. 131 is a strange piece of music. I wonder what it is supposed to depict, if anything. When hearing it couple of days ago, my association was that it might be autobigrafical. Something similar like Smetana's From My Life. The first movement is melancholic childhood, the middle movements some peripeties of life, the last movement is full of fear of approaching death and the Grosse Fugue the madness of old age and death.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> some music is not immediately accessible, Beethoven late quartets certainly belong to this category. Another example are Hindemith's string quartets which at first sound strange, but after you digest them, they are almost as great as the Beethoven quartets. Or Scriabin piano sonatas.
> the Op. 131 is a strange piece of music. I wonder what it is supposed to depict, if anything. When hearing it couple of days ago, my association was that it might be autobigrafical. Something similar like Smetana's From My Life. The first movement is melancholic childhood, the middle movements some peripeties of life, the last movement is full of fear of approaching death and the Grosse Fugue the madness of old age and death.


Are you referring to the op. 131 or the op. 130 from which the Grosse Fugue originates?


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Are you referring to the op. 131 or the op. 130 from which the Grosse Fugue originates?


I meant and listened to op131. My mistake with Die Grosse Fugue. It is part of op130


----------



## EdwardBast

philoctetes said:


> Well, the main 1st mvmt theme is not my favorite, so i have to get through that to enjoy the rest. But the rest is primo. I also like the piano variations.


The principal theme of the first movement, which is over 40 measures long, contains in proto form everything important in the movement. So I'm sure if you listen carefully enough you can learn to dislike the whole thing.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> The eroica doesnt - seems to be universally admired.





DavidA said:


> It did at the time


The Eroica evidently had its detractors, who went so far as to distribute angry pamphlets in the streets. From an 1806 AMZ review: "…and it is certain-all connoisseurs' voices that the reviewer has heard agree, if not the authors of certain leaflets!-it is certain, I say, that this symphony is one of the most original, sublime, and profound products that music has to show for itself."


----------



## MarkW

Well, this thread prompted me to go on an Opus 131 binge, which I've been on for a couple of days. (By explanation, I've only listened to it a couple of times, but it's been going around and around in my head.). Every time that happens, the same thing occurs: As wonderfully pathos laden and searching as the bookend first and last movements are, the place where my mind settles over and over is the variations, in which I wallow joyously for hours at a time. I actually always find myself thinking that this is the creative heart of the quartet. The opening fugue is a good introduction, but by the finale I sort of lose interest and listen perfunctorilly. Doesn't make the work any less great -- just affects its center of gravity. Strange but true.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> It did at the time


And this is true of many works now considered part of the canon in modern times.

I meant that in todays world - among those people who take a serious interest in classical music - it is not easy to find any criticism of the eroica. Where as we have seen people in this thread divided over whether op131 is really as wonderful a piece as some claim.


----------



## KenOC

MarkW said:


> ...As wonderfully pathos laden and searching as the bookend first and last movements are, the place where my mind settles over and over is the variations, in which I wallow joyously for hours at a time. I actually always find myself thinking that this is the creative heart of the quartet.


Certainly the variations movements are the high points in several late Beethoven works. He wrote these as nobody has been able to since. The variations in the Op. 109 and 111 piano sonatas and the Op. 127, 132, and 131 quartets are pinnacles. The Op. 135 I would place at a more modest level...but it ain't chopped liver.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> And this is true of many works now considered part of the canon in modern times.
> 
> I meant that in todays world - among those people who take a serious interest in classical music - it is not easy to find any criticism of the eroica. Where as we have seen people in this thread divided over whether op131 is really as wonderful a piece as some claim.


Yes, but seen a certain way, the fact that the question is still debated and worth debating might suggest a legacy even more enduring than the Eroica.



KenOC said:


> Certainly the variations movements are the high points in several late Beethoven works. He wrote these as nobody has been able to since. The variations in the Op. 109 and 111 piano sonatas and the Op. 127, 132, and 131 quartets are pinnacles. *The Op. 135 I would place at a more modest level*...but it ain't chopped liver.


Guess it depends on how one feels about variations in general. I'll take modesty every time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> I can't think of any early works of Beethoven that sound weak or thin whereas I find that a number of Mozart's do. Compare the earliest piano sonatas and concertos of Mozart with Beethoven's. Likewise and even moreso, the early symphonies. Also, the earliest vocal works of Mozart were rather formulaic, if not boring.


Are you sure you've seriously listened to them enough? In early Mozart, it's actually the vocal works that has some serious merit, more than the symphonies. Litaniae de venerabili in E flat major K243 written at 19 is one of such works of the variety that has been greatly neglected by the mainstream classical community. 
For example this massive double fugue, Pignus futurae gloriae shows a culmination of skills he had been building up to that point from studying the works of his father and other Salzburg masters.
(btw I didn't notice there was this thread going on back then, hopefully it's not too late to reply)


----------



## Xisten267

Mandryka said:


> Who thinks that op 132/ii is sublime?


I do. That middle section from it for me looks like something from another, highter and better, plane of existence. It always moves me when I listen to it. In it's entirety, Op. 132 for me is amongst the greatest pieces of music I know.

Perhaps my divergence with other members here is due to the performance. I have Op. 132 with Amadeus, Kodály, Melos and Prazak string quartets, and the latter for me is the undisputted master of this piece from these four.


----------



## Xisten267

KenOC said:


> Rankings from another site:
> 
> Beethoven string quartet cycles:
> 1 - Takacs
> 2 - Alban Berg (late 70s/early 80s)
> 3 - Cleveland (Telarc)
> 4 - Italiano (Decca)
> 5 - Emerson
> 6 - Tokyo (Harmonia Mundi)
> 7 - Gewandhaus
> 8 - Fine Arts
> 9 - Tokyo (RCA)
> 10 - Kodaly (Naxos) (tie)
> 10 - Melos (DG) (tie)


I still don't know many of these cycles, including the very famous and recommended Takacs and Alban Berg. My bad.

I copied these recommendations as a future listening guide for me. Thanks for them.


----------



## jdec

Allerius said:


> I do. That middle section from it for me looks like something from another, highter and better, plane of existence. It always moves me when I listen to it. In it's entirety, Op. 132 for me is amongst the greatest pieces of music I know.


I suspect you and Mandryka meant "op 132/*iii*" instead of "op 132/*ii*"?


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> I suspect you and Mandryka meant "op 132/*iii*" instead of "op 132/*ii*"?


Answering for Allerius: The "musette trio" from the middle of Op. 132/ii is a great relief from the sterility of the outer sections and is always welcome!


----------



## Xisten267

KenOC said:


> Answering for Allerius: The "musette trio" from the middle of Op. 132/ii is a great relief from the sterility of the outer sections and is always welcome!


In my opinion, the contrast between the outer sections and the trio is deliberate and increases the effect of the latter. The hungriest you are, the most tasteful a good meal you eat will seem to be. This sense of relief occurs to me also, but not because the beginning is not good, but actually due to the trio being much better (IMHO).


----------



## Xisten267

jdec said:


> I suspect you and Mandryka meant "op 132/*iii*" instead of "op 132/*ii*"?


I meant op. 132/ii.


----------



## Xisten267

Allerius said:


> *In my opinion, the contrast between the outer sections and the trio is deliberate and increases the effect of the latter.* The hungriest you are, the most tasteful a good meal you eat will seem to be. This sense of relief occurs to me also, but not because the beginning is not good, but actually due to the trio being much better (IMHO).


I think that this effect could also be seen in other Beethoven pieces, for example in the transition from the second to third movements of the Les Adieux sonata. The second movement is deliberately made a bit tepid (IMO) so that the transition to the third causes a greater impact on the listener.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Allerius said:


> I think that this effect could also be seen in other Beethoven pieces, for example in the transition from the second to third movements of the Les Adieux sonata. The second movement is deliberately made a bit tepid (IMO) so that the transition to the third causes a greater impact on the listener.


I don't think "tepid" or "better / worse" are good descriptions, but I totally see the point you're trying to make.


----------



## Mandryka

jdec said:


> I suspect you and Mandryka meant "op 132/*iii*" instead of "op 132/*ii*"?


Well I don't know what I meant, but if you listen to the op 132 here, the op 132/ii is indeed sublime! I promise you, I know your sceptical, try it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you sure you've seriously listened to them enough? In early Mozart, it's actually the vocal works that has some serious merit, more than the symphonies. Litaniae de venerabili in E flat major K243 written at 19 is one of such works of the variety that has been greatly neglected by the mainstream classical community.
> For example this massive double fugue, Pignus futurae gloriae shows a culmination of skills he had been building up to that point from studying the works of his father and other Salzburg masters.
> (btw I didn't notice there was this thread going on back then, hopefully it's not too late to reply)


I agree with that - to my ears the early masses and operas are a class or two ahead of the symphonies serenades etc. Mozart even as a child seemed to flourish beyond his years when composing for voice.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> I agree with that - to my ears the early masses and operas are a class or two ahead of the symphonies serenades etc. Mozart even as a child seemed to flourish beyond his years when composing for voice.


I think Mozart was in his deepest nature a singer. Maybe it's partly the Italian influence via J. C. Bach. The unfurling of song, almost vocal and operatic, pervades even his instrumental music. It's really clear when you set him alongside Haydn and Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows

So make up your minds, is it this one or Op. 127?


----------



## Larkenfield

“If only the whole world could feel the power of harmony.”
—Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Just because.


----------



## Xisten267

millionrainbows said:


> So make up your minds, is it this one or Op. 127?


In my opinion the two are marvels of human creation, and I love the fact that I can hear to both.


----------



## Luchesi

Fritz Kobus said:


> Playing a recording of, or actually playing it on a piano (assuming there can be a piano transcription of such)?


Claudio Colombo has recorded the late quartets piano 4 hands


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

KenOC said:


> My wife was playing Beethoven's C-sharp minor quartet Op. 131, and I was listening on the edge of my seat. It struck me as quite amazing - how one person could single-handedly move music from late Mozart and Haydn to this in the span of 30 years. A whole new world and a far different one, one that continues to be our world today.
> 
> Nothing else to add, just wanted to register my amazement.


Are we still talking about this one?

The thread prompted me to listen to my recordings of the Colorado String Quartet and Yale Quartet . Yes quite an amazing piece of music.

I prefer the Yale one


----------

