# Beethoven's Chamber Music



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Travesty of travesties, I realised this morning that I have _never_ listened to _any_ of Beethoven's chamber music with the sole exception of the early clarinet trio.

Whoops.

You guys know my Brahmsian tastes - any suggestions on where to start?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Piano trios and cello sonatas, I'd say, and the late string quartet. I like the sonata recordings by Barenboim with du Pré and, in the case of the trios, Zukerman, but I'm by no means an expert. I've also heard the Hagen Quartett playing some of the quartets and the Große-Fuge, which I like a lot.

Overall I much prefer Beethoven's solo piano/chamber music over his orchestral works.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

I agree with all of Crudblud's suggestions...I'm personally a big fan of his 15th/16th string quartets, cello sonata in d major, and ghost trio to name a few. I would say you can't go terribly wrong with most of it though


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

I'd say the best starting points are the Razumovsky Quartets (#7-9).


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Ghost & Archduke Piano Trios, String Quartets, Op. 18.

A couple of suggested recs...


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Travesty of travesties, I realised this morning that I have _never_ listened to _any_ of Beethoven's chamber music with the sole exception of the early clarinet trio.


Haha, until I got to the last two words of this sentence, I was going to recommend the clarinet trio! I love it. Partly because I have fond memories of sightreading it with new friends back when I was just getting used to my new college.

But, other things - I love the Archduke trio and I really love the Op. 130 quartet, especially the cavatina movement.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The string quartets - any and all of them. Same deal with the sonatas for piano and cello, with the awareness that they do not resemble Brahms', or anyone other than Beethoven; the 'piano and cello designation is significant. I suggest avoiding the piano trios and violin sonatas for as long as your acquaintances will allow you. The Opus 1 string trios are... early. The Opus 20 Septet was very popular in its day, for good reason.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Ahhh,...this reminds me of how much I wish Glenn had recorded the Kreutzer with Yehudi


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

I'd also suggest his String Quartets - from the Razumovsky to his Late ones each is unique and beautiful. The late ones especially are the most romantic ones if you are looking for at least some similarities between Beethoven and Brahms. 
I didn't listen much to his early chamber works, I guess it's because they are still of the classical era, which I am not very fond of.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

the string quartet of course. just like watching thriller movie, don't spoil yourself by jumping into his late quartets before listening the earlier one.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

jurianbai said:


> the string quartet of course. just like watching thriller movie, don't spoil yourself by jumping into his late quartets before listening the earlier one.


Why? 
The late quartets instantly became a favourite of mine, while I still don't like the early ones.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

As LvB was on the cusp of what we now know to be two distinct musical eras I think it's more fun to sample his many chamber works in chronological stages, so allow me to suggest some of the early output. 

To be honest, if you are dipping your toe rather than plunging straight in then the early quartets are a bit much to digest in one go, bearing in mind there are six of them under the same opus no. - I think two or maybe three at the most would do to begin with before reverting back to them. Overall, I'd say a nice place to start would be his two cello sonatas op. 5, some of the op. 18 quartets as mentioned, his septet (for three wind, four strings) op. 20 and the two violin sonatas ops. 23 & 24. That takes you up to about 1801, which is near enough the cut-off date of his early years.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The famous things, esp. the ones with names, are the ones I got into first. From the middle period. Eg. Razumovsky quartets, the "harp" quartet, the "ghost" and "archduke" trios, the violin sonatas "kreutzer" & "spring."

Of course you can start any place you like.

Of the three B's, Beethoven & Brahms grab me the most, so there must be some commonality between them. But I'm also getting into some of J.S.Bach's things now.

Beethoven's late quartets are the pinnacle of his output in many ways. I see them as one complete work, most scholars do too. So it's a good idea to listen to them together without too long time elapsing between the first listens. Although I didn't do that, but once I got a full cycle, fitting onto 3 disc set, so not hugely expensive, I really got the full payload of these masterworks. Interesting correspondences between them, eg. the original end of the Op. 130 was the_ Grosse Fuge _Op. 133, and the beginning of the next quartet in the cycle, Op. 131, is a fugue too.

Only thing is his cello sonatas, they bore me so far, like watching paint dry, but I may try again with them later.

I agree his early_ Septet _is great too, looking back to the Classical Era, very "echt" Viennese.

& there are also, don't forget, larger scale chamber works, eg. for chamber orchestra. Eg. _The Creatures of Prometheus_, one of his best from his early period...


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

jurianbai said:


> the string quartet of course. just like watching thriller movie, don't spoil yourself by jumping into his late quartets before listening the earlier one.


I agree, when I first started listening to the String Quartets I started at the beginning and listened all the way to the end. I think it contributed greatly to my appreciation of them.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I've gotten into the string quartets by the late ones first. Still need to listen to the earlier ones properly. Guess I'll have to dig into them in chronological order some time.

Meanwhile, that's what I've been doing with the piano sonatas. Got all the way up to 15 so far, and they've been thoroughly enjoyable.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Chrythes said:


> Why?
> The late quartets instantly became a favourite of mine, while I still don't like the early ones.


That's because you "don't like the Classical period". Your sentiment is not universally shared.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

jurianbai said:


> the string quartet of course. just like watching thriller movie, don't spoil yourself by jumping into his late quartets before listening the earlier one.


I was daunted for years about gobbledigook saying the late quartets where "sublime" and "like climbing Everest" (a former member here called Bach didn't help with that kind of thing). Once I actually heard them, it didn't take long to warm to them. Some people are systematic, some are not. I'm in the latter category. For years, I only knew his "harp" quartet well. Then I got the Op. 130 & 133 quartets on one disc. Took me a while to "get" them better or deeper, but getting the whole set of all of the late quartets is what made me see the big picture with them. There are so many connections between them.

Imo, it's more important to listen to all the late quartets than to necessarily know in-depth all or most the quartets that came before them. The late quartets are basically one work, they're one united body of work. The nearest comparison I can think of now is Mahler's _Wunderhorn symphonies_, his first four...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I was daunted for years about gobbledigook saying the late quartets where "sublime" and "like climbing Everest" (a former member here called Bach didn't help with that kind of thing). Once I actually heard them, it didn't take long to warm to them. Some people are systematic, some are not. I'm in the latter category. For years, I only knew his "harp" quartet well. Then I got the Op. 130 & 133 quartets on one disc. Took me a while to "get" them better or deeper, but getting the whole set of all of the late quartets is what made me see the big picture with them. There are so many connections between them.
> 
> Imo, it's more important to listen to all the late quartets than to necessarily know in-depth all or most the quartets that came before them. The late quartets are basically one work, they're one united body of work. The nearest comparison I can think of now is Mahler's _Wunderhorn symphonies_, his first four...


Looks like _jurianbai_'s warning should be heeded; you have obviously 'spoiled yourself'.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Well, "there's more than one way to skin a cat" as they say.

Anyway, Polednice is more into late 19th century Romanticism as I understand - eg. Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak. The middle and late string quartets of Beethoven would probably be more to his taste based on that. I'm just guessing, but it's a fair bet, don't you think?...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ^^Well, "there's more than one way to skin a cat" as they say.
> 
> Anyway, Polednice is more into late 19th century Romanticism as I understand - eg. Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak. The middle and late string quartets of Beethoven would probably be more to his taste based on that. I'm just guessing, but it's a fair bet, don't you think?...


The late quartets are pretty much a special case, designed for a special purpose. The Rasoumovsky set may be considered proto-Romantic, but they don't have the necessary 'feel' of the Romantic, I think. They are by the Beethoven of the 5th Symphony.

I've got to stick with what feels right to me, and that's that the SQs are like a lot of Beethoven's music - it works better if you have a notion how he got there.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's because you "don't like the Classical period". Your sentiment is not universally shared.


And I thought I was the universe...

I never said I didn't like the Classical period, I just don't find it interesting, at least for now. I started with Bach and skipped a whole era to start again from the Romantic period. 
I must have missed the comparison to a "thriller movie". 
It might actually be interesting to go from the beginning to end listening to his string quartets. I've only done this with this symphonies and the "evolution" was pretty amazing.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm going to throw out an unusual choice that meets the criteria. Beethoven wrote a very beautiful and grossly underplayed Horn Sonata Op 17. Its very well known among horn players and in some ways has a similar feel to that of Brahms' Horn Trio Op 40. Give that a try, especially if its played on a period instrument natural horn. Great stuff.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

Chrythes said:


> Why?
> The late quartets instantly became a favourite of mine, while I still don't like the early ones.


logically if you listen from beginning through the last it will give you a chronological listening. and give you a feeling you are upgrading the music, especially interesting for Beethoven.

For me, Beethoven earlier string quartets are very easy listening, straightforward pieces. very good even to introduce somebody who haven't listen to this genre a lot. they are not "utterly civilized" ala Haydn' / Mozart' but also not very tense and dramatical as his late pieces.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

Sid James said:


> I was daunted for years about gobbledigook saying the late quartets where "sublime" and "like climbing Everest" (a former member here called Bach didn't help with that kind of thing). Once I actually heard them, it didn't take long to warm to them. Some people are systematic, some are not. I'm in the latter category........


yeah, I am very chronological in listening. The most extreme was when I came to Haydn's complete set. Once I get that Kodaly I stop listening the "top ten Haydn' SQ" and started from Op.1. Some thing with Mozart, Beethoven is obviously great process, and to almost all SQ I listening. There were only two notable composer where I am not doing this pattern, that are Schubert and Dvorak.

I also take more time to listen Beethoven's late quartet. There were a poll about Grobe Fugu thread and in 2008 I opted "Not understand..". Now, it is obviously musical piece to me. To get this, one need to based their listening by background information, and also discussion here.

I am going to re-post (maybe the third time here..) about lecturer on Beethoven SQ no.15, watch it:





and there are also very touching scene in Copying Beethoven movie where he dictated the quartet and explained, verbally about it. I will find and post the movie later, if there are up in youtube.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Apart from member Olias, you guys need to take a serious listen at Beethoven's other chamber music, especially his wind music, not just his string quartets.

I thought you folks are always about "listening balance"?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Apart from member Olias, you guys need to take a serious listen at Beethoven's other chamber music, especially his wind music, not just his string quartets.
> 
> I thought you folks are always about "listening balance"?


Mostly early stuff, mostly pre-Vienna. Mozart's is more accomplished.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

I am not really connect between Beethoven and wind instruments, rarely listen and knew about his wind output. But here one of it I listen to, Wind Quintet in Eb, op.16, for Piano, Horn, clarinet , oboe and Basson.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Poley, there's a good cross-section of Beethoven's chamber works in the music library of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum - which I believe you are familiar with...

I confess not having read the thread in detail... My favourite Beethoven chamber work is his early *sonata for horn and piano in F major, op. 17 *- sometimes it is rendered in cello and piano form. The opus number suggests it is contemnporary to his first symphony and piano concerto; the original horn version is somewhere between classical and lyrical to my ears anyway. Definitely a hidden treasure in the Beethoven catalog!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

There are a few works from Beethoven's chamber output which were given anomalously high opus numbers:

op. 71 - Wind Sextet (1796) 
op 81b - Sextet for 2 Horns & String Quartet (1795)
op. 87 - Trio for Two Oboes & Cor anglais (1795)
op. 103 - Wind Octet (1792)
op. 121a - 'Kakadu' Piano Trio (1803)

I'm not saying approach with caution by any means but anyone hearing them without knowing the actual composition timeline may wonder why they don't sound like they have any of Beethoven's middle-to-late period DNA all over them.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> There are a few works from Beethoven's chamber output which were given anomalously high opus numbers:
> 
> op. 71 - Wind Sextet (1796)
> op 81b - Sextet for 2 Horns & String Quartet (1795)
> ...


I've played the Op 71 sextet as a hornist before. It is very "classical" sounding and was written while LvB was still in Bonn but its still a cleverly written and enjoyable piece.


----------



## markgarm (Dec 18, 2011)

See if you don't love the early quartets played by the Fine Arts Quartet on Lyrinx .


----------



## humanbean (Mar 5, 2011)

Some of his early chamber music is quite excellent. While you can definitely pick out the Mozart/Haydn influence, it also has his own characteristics as well. One particular composition I absolutely love is his String Trio No. 1, Op. 3. The first movement is quite good, maybe not as complex as his middle-late period stuff, but certainly as beautiful in my opinion. The performance by Zurich String Trio is excellent:


----------



## Eviticus (Dec 8, 2011)

Vaneyes said:


> Ghost & Archduke Piano Trios, String Quartets, Op. 18.
> 
> A couple of suggested recs...


I have these recording too. I remember being really excited about listening to the ghost trio but have never been able to quite get in to it. However the Archduke is amongst the best trios ive heard.

Definately re-iterate about the Rasumovsky quartets and the serioso quartet. I much prefer these quartets over his late and more challenging quartets (with the exception of the final alegro of No.14 which i think is my favourite string quartet movement).


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

Really all of Beethovens Chamber Music is outstanding - listen to as much as possible IMO. I started with the String Quartets, Piano Trios and Violin Sonatas all brilliant works and worth exploring every single one!.
I also like the less famous Chamber Music such as the String Trios and String Quintets - enjoy you are in for a treat if it is your first time listening to all of these works!


----------

