# Do You Consider String Quartet No. 11, Op. 95 "Serioso" as a "late" quartet?



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Do You Consider String Quartet No. 11, Op. 95 "Serioso" as a "late" quartet?*

Do You Consider String Quartet No. 11 in F minor, Op. 95 "Serioso" as a "late" quartet?

The more I listen to it, I do. It certainly foreshadows the character of the following "late" quartets, with its introspective, almost detached nature, as well as its use of fugal elements, and some choppy sounding rhythmic elements, reminiscent of the Grosse Fugue.
What do you think? I'm including it in my listening of the late quartets from now on. It's easy with this disc, which probably led me to this conclusion.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

You may be right. Certainly it's one of his better quartets. I would also call it the darkest of his quartets, I think, alongside Razumovsky 2. I see it as somewhat complementary to op.135 in that they both do big things with limited means, not to mention the shared F tonality. Better yet; the "Serioso" quartet caps off the Middle Quartets in the same way that op.135 caps off the Late Quartets: they both condense a lot of the key features and expressions of the quartets into a concise package.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It always makes me think of Haydn op 20/4, probably for no good reason. I think Haydn would have been familiar with the feel of the music, at home with it.

Smetana Quartet also classed it as late in their (very very good) recording for Supraphon. My own reasoning is that I like it, and I don't like the Rasumowskies, so it's in a different class from those! Maybe "transitional" - there's something about the Sturm und Drang quality of the music which sets it apart from the more clearly "late" quartets.


----------

