What is Beethoven's weakest opus

[Pastorale]

Well, if I have to choose it would be his early quartets. I don't know why, but I hate that sound of almost mozartian music. I don't know what's your opinion on this quarters, but I don't like them at all...

[gprengel]

I am astonished about the works which have been mentioned here. I do love "Wellington's Sieg" (especially the victory part), I definitivly love the Triple Concerto, Ruins of Athens and King Stephan, the Christ oratorio, "Elise", ...

What I dislike are "Der Glorreiche Augenblick" op. 136, most of the op. 18 quartetts and the String Trios or the piano variations op. 34 ....

[Peter]

I am astonished about the works which have been mentioned here. I do love "Wellington's Sieg" (especially the victory part), I definitivly love the Triple Concerto, Ruins of Athens and King Stephan, the Christ oratorio, "Elise", ...

What I dislike are "Der Glorreiche Augenblick" op. 136, most of the op. 18 quartetts and the String Trios or the piano variations op. 34 ....

Well I think we're getting away from the thread title - it isn't about personal likes or dislikes, rather the quality of the music. I also like the Ruins of Athens and King Stephen, but they're not in the same league as Egmont or Coriolanus. Nor is the triple concerto a match for any of the other Beethoven concertos, despite being highly enjoyable.

I'm surprised you're astonished at the works mentioned Gerd, as most musicologists have cited them as not first rate Beethoven. What surprises me is your choice of Op.18 and the string trios which are amongst the best of early Beethoven! My favourite of these works is Op.18/1 - I admit the others in the set don't greatly appeal, but they are still fine compositions.

[Michael]

Well, if I have to choose it would be his early quartets. I don't know why, but I hate that sound of almost mozartian music. I don't know what's your opinion on this quarters, but I don't like them at all...

I know I'm going a bit off topic here but I came to the early quartets a number of years after I had become familiar with the middle and late ones and - apart from No. 1 - I didn't like them either. However, Beethoven always needs time (in my case anyway) and I now find them - plus the string trios and the quintets - absolutely indispensable.

It is true that Beethoven's individual voice comes through only intermittently but I don't find them overtly Mozartian (apart from No. 5). If anything, I think he was trying to compete with Haydn at the time of composition. In any case, nearly all of Beethoven's work up to 1802 or so reflects the prevailing "classical" sound of the time - and almost everybody sounded like Haydn or Mozart (and vice versa).

The F major quartet, however, is the cream of the crop. Even the first version which he gave to his friend Amenda and then comprehensively revised, was already breaking new ground. He wisely put it first on the agenda but it is more likely that No. 3 was the first to be written - possibly even in Bonn. It's a beautiful work without any other pretentions than to please the ear (as is No. 2, nicknamed the "Compliments Quartet".)

However, in No. 4, you are in full C minor mode and, in the last movement of the last quartet of the set, you have a major breakthrough. Titled "La Malanconia", parts of it sound like late Beethoven with a very anguished opening which breaks out into a kind of manic waltz. Nothing much like it had been written before and I'm sure Haydn must have heard it with the same apprehension as he felt for the C minor piano trio seven or eight years before.

[Megan]

One piece comes to mind that I am not at all keen on is - Beethoven's Turkish March, Op. 113 . I realize I may be alone on this one.
Even a genius can have a bad hair day.

[Michael]

One piece comes to mind that I am not at all keen on is - Beethoven's Turkish March, Op. 113 . I realize I may be alone on this one.
Even a genius can have a bad hair day.

Yes - it is a bit annoying and repetitious, Megan. Although it started out as a set of piano variations and they show what can be done with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYeu6KAWLME




.

[Albert Gans]

I feared that the Choral Fantasy and the Triple Concerto would turn up in the list, and I strongly disagree with those choices. There are a few listed, like Christus am Ölberge or Wellington's Victory, which I can understand would turn up and can sense why.
The fact that the answers are so diverse indicates to me that there is no 'real' weakest work. Moreover, it seems to point to something that I always have thought is near to unique for Beethoven: that his music covers all tastes, feelings and areas of life and therefore each one of us, even as great admirers, can find plenty to love and at least a few things we do not consider our favourites.

[PaulD]

Since I started this thread and read your interesting posts, I asked myself again what I meant by "weakest opus". I think I meant weak in the sense of deficient orchestration or arrangements, lack in development or organisation of themes, etc. Mahler thought that the ninth needed re-orchestration and he did rearrange some segments. But was he right to do so? Should the integrity of a piece of music be left alone (let alone "covers" which are meant as giving another texture to a piece rather than fixing it). Or perhaps "covers" are intentional and acceptable ways for artists to fix what they don't like in a piece.

[Peter]

Since I started this thread and read your interesting posts, I asked myself again what I meant by "weakest opus". I think I meant weak in the sense of deficient orchestration or arrangements, lack in development or organisation of themes, etc. Mahler thought that the ninth needed re-orchestration and he did rearrange some segments. But was he right to do so? Should the integrity of a piece of music be left alone (let alone "covers" which are meant as giving another texture to a piece rather than fixing it). Or perhaps "covers" are intentional and acceptable ways for artists to fix what they don't like in a piece.

Yes I think as I mentioned previously that many of the responses have been about personal preferences rather than merits of the works themselves. I'm sure Beethoven would have been amongst the first to admit that Wellington's victory was not amongst his best works, but he himself had a soft spot for it because it achieved such success for him. He disparaged his early sonatas and I'm sure no one here would make the argument that in terms of musical achievement they match the late sonatas? To be frank the fugue finale of Op.106 has never greatly appealed to me, but I recognise that it's a much greater work than the finale of Op.2/1 for example which I enjoy more! Vaughan Williams's remark about his own 4th symphony comes to mind "I don't much like it, but it's what I meant!".

As for Mahler's retouchings, that is a different matter and no I don't think it is right to do that.

[PaulD]

Thanks Peter. I did not not Vaughan Williams' quote but it is spot on!

[Michael]

Just to cheer everybody up, I thought I'd mention the fact that "Wellington's Victory" was Beethoven's greatest success (financially at least) in his lifetime.

[PaulD]

Interesting how Wellington's victory has been bounced back and forth through this thread. Just to add my bit, I have a piano version played by Steven Beck Hess 97. So Beethoven tried to extend the success of the piece with a transcription for piano of his own (or perhaps popular demand justified it). The piano used on the CD has a Turkish drum attached to it so once in a while the pianist pushes a pedal and bang! comes the drum. I will comment no more....

[Peter]

Thanks Peter. I did not not Vaughan Williams' quote but it is spot on!

Yes and the 4th is generally regarded as his greatest symphony, though it certainly isn't my favourite VW - I much prefer the 5th. The same goes for Sibelius - his austere 4th is regarded as his finest, yet again I prefer the 5th! So this is the nub of the matter - what we prefer is not always equal to the quality of the music! I think we are often reluctant to admit that the fault lies with us, not the music - we tend to give up early on what is difficult. I really ought to revisit those works now and try to know them better.

There is no doubt in my mind that Beethoven's Wellinton is a weak work cobbled together to suit the occasion and it is in the same league as Tchaikovsky's 1812 (which I rather like and prefer to the Beethoven) - Tchaikovsky admitted the 1812 was a load of bombastic tosh, but it is good fun!
Commenting on Wellington's victory, Charles Rosen wrote that 'Beethoven's contribution lacks the serious pretentiousness or the incorporation of ideology of Mendelssohn's Reformation Symphony, or of Berlioz' Symphonie funèbre et triomphale, but it is only the less interesting for its modesty.'

[Michael]

At least Beethoven didn't make the mistake that Tchaikovsky made in the 1812. The Russian composer picked two main tunes to depict the opposing forces: "God Save the Tsar" and the "Marseillaise" but the latter tune has such power and force (in this kind of work) that it steals the show every time it appears.

Beethoven picked "God Save the King" for the British forces but very wisely steered clear of the "Marseillaise" for the French. Instead he gave them "Malbrouk s'en va-t-en guerre" (or, as we know it, "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow") and it never fails to give me a hilarious picture of the French troops skipping and mincing onto the field. It's even funnier in the piano version.
However, I agree that the "1812" Overture is a much better work in this genre.

[Sorrano]

We rarely hear any of the incidental music (like Egmont, for example), and I wonder about that needing to be on the list. The overture, specifically for Egmont, is top rate but the rest of the music?

As for the Choral Fantasy, it is a favorite of mine. However, I've heard some criticism of it (coming from music professionals) as a major work. Years ago I watched a performance of it with Rudolf Serkin and memory of the joy in his face as he played the piano part has never left me.