# Beethoven Opus 18 String Quartets



## Olias

I'm very partial to this set of string quartets and feel like they get overshadowed by the middle and late quartets. I'd like to know everyone's favorite of the set and perhaps discuss some of the individual pieces.

In Robert Greenberg's lecture series of all 16 of Beethoven's quartets, he outlines the styles in which Beethoven was trying to emulate for each quartet. Interestingly, his least favorite in the set is my most favorite (the c minor quartet).

Here is VERY basically how the quartets are viewed in the course.

#1 - Beethoven innovates on the traditional model
#2 - In Haydn's style
#3 - In formula classical era template
#4 - patchwork quartet of some earlier composed material
#5 - In Mozart's style
#6 - Beethoven innovates on the traditional model

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/string-quartets-of-beethoven.html

So which one do you like the best and why?


----------



## Olias

Over 70 views and no replies.....oh well, I guess no one is interested. Just ignore my lame attempt at a thread and move on.


----------



## Mandryka

It's not a lame attempt at a thread, it's just that if your attention is elsewhere, then it's hard to give all but the most superficial response. I like these quartets very much, certainly I like them more than the op 59 quartets. But I'm listening more to music by Elisabeth Jacquette de la Guerre than Ludwig van Beethoven right now, and so thinking about op 18s is a jolt about as welcome as a hair in your soup. Without listening to all six op 18s I couldn't say with any confidence why I like one over another, apart from mentioning performances I've heard which I've enjoyed, which is maybe not so interesting either for me to do or for you to read about.

I can mention one thing. I once met a guy who I thought was a bit of a fool, who said that in his opinion the op 18s contained pre echoes of the late quartets. This same person denied that Beethoven made any essential musical development, he thought that the seeds of the late music are there in the early music. I think to prove his point he pointed to La Malinconia in op 18/6 - but I may be misremembering.


----------



## hpowders

My favorite is the lovely, lilting A Major, No. 5.


----------



## fluteman

Olias said:


> I'm very partial to this set of string quartets and feel like they get overshadowed by the middle and late quartets. I'd like to know everyone's favorite of the set and perhaps discuss some of the individual pieces.
> 
> In Robert Greenberg's lecture series of all 16 of Beethoven's quartets, he outlines the styles in which Beethoven was trying to emulate for each quartet. Interestingly, his least favorite in the set is my most favorite (the c minor quartet).
> 
> Here is VERY basically how the quartets are viewed in the course.
> 
> #1 - Beethoven innovates on the traditional model
> #2 - In Haydn's style
> #3 - In formula classical era template
> #4 - patchwork quartet of some earlier composed material
> #5 - In Mozart's style
> #6 - Beethoven innovates on the traditional model
> 
> https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/string-quartets-of-beethoven.html
> 
> So which one do you like the best and why?


I don't know, but I think his publisher was wise to make the F-major no. 1, though it was not the first one composed chronologically, or so I've read. A formidable piece, unmistakably Beethoven.


----------



## Melvin

Quartet #4 in C minor is Robert Greenberg's least favorite or Beethoven's? Because it has always been my favorite and to me the one that stood out the most in this set. I haven't listened to these in a little while, but I used to listen to them frequently. I would like to re-examine these soon.



fluteman said:


> I don't know, but I think his publisher was wise to make the F-major no. 1, though it was not the first one composed chronologically, or so I've read. A formidable piece, unmistakably Beethoven.


In these early pieces published in sets under a single opus, the numbering is not usually in chronological order, but they are usually arranged in a way so that the formal/more conservative pieces are presented first, and the more experimental and innovative pieces are grouped in the latter half: In Opus 18, #1-3 and #4-6 are divided as such. Or for example in opus 1, the third and final trio in the set is piece that is the most daring and progressive, while the first two would safely please the publisher and the buyer.


----------



## Melvin

I like #4 because its the most Beethoveny


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Melvin said:


> I like #4 because its the most Beethoveny


Likewise. To my ears the C minor quartet anticipates the Rasumovsky Quartets, especially in it's almost "Russian" sounding last movement. Equally forward-looking, I feel, is Op. 18 No 5 in A, another huge favourite of mine.


----------



## Olias

For what its worth the order of composition for Opus 18 was 3 1 2 5 4 6


----------



## Olias

Melvin said:


> Quartet #4 in C minor is Robert Greenberg's least favorite or Beethoven's? Because it has always been my favorite and to me the one that stood out the most in this set. I haven't listened to these in a little while, but I used to listen to them frequently. I would like to re-examine these soon.


Yes, its one of the RARE times I've ever disagreed with Greenberg. He does lay out a good case for why the work is probably a hodgepodge of earlier compositions (especially the first two movements). Honestly, I don't care if it is "inferior" or not, I still like it a lot.


----------



## Quartetfore

I like them enough to have two complete sets,and several other recordings of the works. I think that the Op.18 is important because they are Beethoven`s final thoughts about the "Classical Style". i don`t pay attention to signs of what is to come in the later Quartets, I just enjoy them for what they are .


----------



## fluteman

Melvin said:


> Quartet #4 in C minor is Robert Greenberg's least favorite or Beethoven's? Because it has always been my favorite and to me the one that stood out the most in this set. I haven't listened to these in a little while, but I used to listen to them frequently. I would like to re-examine these soon.
> 
> In these early pieces published in sets under a single opus, the numbering is not usually in chronological order, but they are usually arranged in a way so that the formal/more conservative pieces are presented first, and the more experimental and innovative pieces are grouped in the latter half: In Opus 18, #1-3 and #4-6 are divided as such. Or for example in opus 1, the third and final trio in the set is piece that is the most daring and progressive, while the first two would safely please the publisher and the buyer.


The op. 1 no. 3 Trio is very high on my list of favorites. It was interesting to read about the conservative-to-progressive approach you mentioned. I read that the F major was chosen as no. 1 because it was the longest, though no. 5 is about the same length. I think all six, though obviously very much based on Haydn's approach, progress far beyond Haydn, even at his most daring. The C minor quartet (no. 4) is to me an especially dramatic departure from Haydn into the kind of material one hears in all the rest of the quartets, even the final ones. So the conservative-to-progressive idea you discuss does make sense.


----------



## Beet131

I've always loved String Quartet No. 1 in F Major, especially for its beautifully lyrical and emotional second movement Adagio Affettuoso Ed Appassionato. That Beethoven wanted to create the setting from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet makes it especially appealing to me. I also really enjoy the fourth movement Allegro.

A very close second choice of the six is No. 3 in D Major.


----------



## Triplets

I voted for 2. I like them all, actually but lately I’ve been listening to Haydn Op.20 Quartets and This Beethoven work seems to recall those pieces


----------



## ProudSquire

I'm only familiar with the C minor quartet from this set, which I like quite a lot. I find it highly enjoyable and bursting with frevor and energy. I just listend to the A major quartet, which was also a delight. I'll definitely have to explore this set a bit more in order to appreciate it. Good thing I have many recordings available, perhaps The Takács Quartet is where I'll start.


----------



## KenOC

The big-name quartets pretty much all do a fine job with the Op. 18. The Takacs of course are a fine place to start. Worth watching out for the Petersen Quartet and, for period instruments, the Smithson.


----------



## Melvin

That is interesting, that #4 is a "hodgepodge" of earlier material: I did not know that, but this makes sense. Maybe from the analytical ears of Greenberg there could be structural problems that he may dislike. Obviously if you're patching together fragments like this it's tough to avoid some continuity errors. Still I've never taken any of this into account and I love the piece for its intensity and caprice. I also like particularly the counterpoint rounds in the second movement.



Triplets said:


> I voted for 2. I like them all, actually but lately I've been listening to Haydn Op.20 Quartets and This Beethoven work seems to recall those pieces


I love Haydn's opus 20 set as well: melodic and structural perfection... perhaps the most instructive set for Mozart's and Beethoven's classical quartets.

I love the period instrument recordings of op. 20 done by Quatour Mosaïques; they also recorded Beethoven's op. 18. It's a great way to hear these quartets with the warmth of the period instruments they were written for.

Op. 18 truly is Beethoven's last statement on the Classical style, and I do believe most scholars place it as the final crowning work of Beethoven's early period.


----------



## KenOC

Some interesting background: Prince Lobkowitz commissioned sets of six string quartets from both Haydn and Beethoven at about the same time, ca 1798. Beethoven delivered his in two sets of three each to the publisher Mollo in 1801. Haydn, already suffering from the malady that ended his composing career, was able to complete only two, published as his Op. 77. A third, incomplete, was published as his Op. 103 in 1803.

An early 1801 notice on Beethoven's first three in the AMZ: "Among the new works being published here, excellent works by Beethoven stand out. Three quartets serve as sufficient proof of his art. However, they have to be played very often and very well since they are very difficult to execute and by no means popular."​


----------



## Merl

At the moment no.5. No doubt that will change by tomorrow / next week.


----------



## jegreenwood

KenOC said:


> The big-name quartets pretty much all do a fine job with the Op. 18. The Takacs of course are a fine place to start. Worth watching out for the Petersen Quartet and, for period instruments, the Smithson.


I bought the Smithson set quite a while back (1980s I think) when CD choices for chamber music were not extensive. I had never heard the recording or, for that matter, heard of the group. It turned out to be wonderful purchase. I recently bought the Takacs cycle, which I haven't listened to enough times to draw conclusions, and I have several other cycles. But for the Op. 18 quartets the Smithsons are my favorites.

Great sound too.


----------



## Quartetfore

KenOC said:


> The big-name quartets pretty much all do a fine job with the Op. 18. The Takacs of course are a fine place to start. Worth watching out for the Petersen Quartet and, for period instruments, the Smithson.


Interesting that you mention the Peterson Quartett. they made some very fine recordings during the 1980`s and 90`s. I still have their Beethoven and Schubert recordings. I am not sure if they are still active, if so not with the original members,


----------



## wkasimer

KenOC said:


> The big-name quartets pretty much all do a fine job with the Op. 18. The Takacs of course are a fine place to start. Worth watching out for the Petersen Quartet and, for period instruments, the Smithson.


As good as the Smithson quartet is in Op. 18 (and they are very, very good), the Turner Quartet is even better, if you can find their set:

View attachment 102579


----------



## KenOC

KenOC said:


> ...Haydn, already suffering from the malady that ended his composing career, was able to complete only two, published as his Op. 77.


Another explanation I've seen was that Haydn didn't welcome the inevitable comparison of his works with Beethoven's, which he sensed were becoming more popular than his own. But I've never seen this idea supported by any evidence.


----------



## EdwardBast

I like #3 best. It was the first one he composed. I also like #5 a lot.


----------



## Mandryka

EdwardBast said:


> I also like #5 a lot.


Always makes me think of the last three Mozart quartets, the andante cantabile. I heard Hagen Qt. play op 18/3 and 5 together in a concert and they released a CD with the two of them, very good I think.


----------



## Olias

EdwardBast said:


> I also like #5 a lot.


Especially that theme and variations movement.


----------



## GeorgeMcW

I've been listening to the Jerusalem Quartet recordings of the Op 18 quartets, and rather like them.


----------



## Merl

Merl said:


> At the moment no.5. No doubt that will change by tomorrow / next week.


I told you I'd change my mind. Now it's no.4 and no.1. Recordings-wise there's so many good versions of the early quartets. Vegh, Emerson, Takacs, Alban Berg.....very few duffers of these great works. I love the Takacs account of No.4 best at the moment. Just a wonderful set, all round.


----------



## endelbendel

i too noticed that the opening to no. 1 seems to preview the sound and spirit of the late ones.


----------



## PeterF

I would need to play all six Op.18 quartets to pick my favorite as I like them all. In many ways they are my favorite Beethoven String Quartets. Perhaps the reason I tend to generally prefer them is that I am a very very strong lover of Haydn’s string quartets, and Mozart’s as well.
The versions by the Smetana Quartet and Quartetto Italiano are current favorites. Though the versions by Suske, Mosaiques, and Gewandhaus are also good ones.


----------



## RogerWaters

Robert Greenberg is drunk if he thinks #s 2 and 3 are better than 4.


----------



## Kreisler jr

No, he is right. #4 is clearly the weakest, with only the 2nd movement being up to standards (and I don't think this one fits well with the rest of the piece). I'd even say it is most uneven of his 5 early c minor works (op.1/3, op.9/3, op.10/1, op.13). 

The first movement has similar "pathos gestures" as op.13 but this works much better in a piano sonata, it's not very quartet-like part writing, rather melody+accompagniment. The finale is even more four square than the finale of op.13 and again the playfulness works better with piano and the minuet is o.k. but not much more and can hardly save the day. It's a decent piece but clearly the one Beethoven quartet I could do without.

My clear favorite is #1, and #4 the least. #3 second to last (although I have come to appreciate this more) and the others in between. #6 is interesting but trying a little to hard with the strange "malinconia" finale and I find the first movement a bit light, #5 is very good but maybe a bit too indebted to Mozart's K 464, #2 is the most comical and I like it a lot but it is also a bit silly with the first movement some kind of Haydn parody.


----------



## RogerWaters

Well, it looks like the majority in the poll, who favour #4 over all the others, don't perceive what is apparently 'clear'.


----------



## hammeredklavier

always reminded me of


----------



## Kreisler jr

The comparably low estimation of #4 is pretty clear in the scholarly consensus since at least the early 20th century (and as long as scholarly and critical writing was still "rating" works as greater or lesser), so Greenberg is basically reflecting this consensus, I guess.
The "primitive" features of the outer movements (it would be hard to find a similarly schematic "old style" rondo in other Beethoven, even in Haydn this is rare) even led to misdating the piece back to the Bonn years around 1790. Maybe some of the material goes back to Bonn but overall it seems now that it was clearly not the earliest of op.18, the earliest composed was #3 but a new finale was added later and the first version of #1 (that has survived because Beethoven gave it to his friend Amenda). 

It's true that this is not shared by all listeners and maybe players as #4 seems rather frequently recorded, maybe because of c minor Beethoven drama.


----------



## Olias

To be fair, I should point out that most of Greenberg's criticism deals with the first movement. I think he's just railing against the perceived "aura of angst" because of the C minor tonal center that people assign value to just because of future works. When we know that the movement was written before the Heiligenstadt Testament and thus precedes Beethoven's self proclaimed "new path" it just seems the pretentiousness of assigning Beethoven's transformation as a composer to a pre-1802 work seems unfounded, and thus gets Dr Greenberg a little riled up.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Statistically, the "c minor" is more of an early Beethoven thing. With the exception of the 5th symphony and the last piano sonata (and the choral fantasy that is not really in the dramatic way of c minor) all the c minor pieces were composed before 1802, before the Heiligenstadt testament (not sure for the 3rd piano concerto and the op.30/2 sonata but both were probably finished before autumn 1802). 
As 3 collections (opp.1, 9 and 10) and one weighty single opus, the Pathetique sonata have works in c minor, it is hardly surprising to find a c minor quartet in op.18 as it really seems to have been Beethoven's favorite (minor) key at that time.

It might have been in Kerman's book on the quartets but I have once read the idea that the the second half, the quartets 4-6 were either an indication of "crisis" or that Beethoven entered a more experimental mode. Although the somewhat Mozartian #5 does not fit so well with this idea, it clearly fits #6 and #5 also shifts the weight to the second half of the quartet with the long variations and the elaborate polyphonic finale (as in the "model" K 464). Some people think that #4 with the dominating first violin in the outer movements might have been a take on "quatuor concertant" (but I don't find it concert-like enough for that, compared to other Beethoven works that clearly show concert-like features, such as op.2/3 or the Kreutzer sonata). 
I really like the 2nd movement which is as good as the similar piece in the 1st symphony but especially with the pathetic c minor of the first movement I don't think such a scherzando instead of a more lyrical slow movement fits very well overall. The piece works best when taken fast and wild (the "non tanto" must be understood as referring to cut time, in 4 beats to a bar, "non tanto" would be too slow, I think).
Anyway, I think the c minor string trio from op.9 is a far better and underrated piece.


----------



## JohnP

I like #2 the most--and that's a lot!--and then #1; #4 is my least favorite. I must be drunk. I happen to have listened to quite a few recordings of these quartets in the past couple of weeks. I love the Borodin Quartet and then the Belcea.


----------



## Olias

JohnP said:


> I like #2 the most--and that's a lot!


I love 18/2 a lot as well. It's essentially Beethoven channeling Haydn which in my book is a win/win.


----------

