Poll
Question:
Which do you prefer?
Option 1: Chamber music (including music for solo piano or solo whatever)
Option 2: Symphonic music
Take a side! ;D
Chamber any time.
A tough one, but I'll take chamber.
It's been a progression: when I was younger and just discovering the repertoire, I always started with a composer's symphonic music and worked my way to songs, chamber music and piano pieces. Now I go for the latter by a large margin. One of the big reasons I prefer Brahms to Wagner, for instance, is that Brahms wrote chamber music. With Beethoven, I listen to the chamber music almost exclusively, although that's probably because I've committed the nine symphonies to memory.
The two overlap almost as often as they don't. I chose banana.
Chamber symphonies. :D
Quote from: Dana on October 14, 2009, 04:30:53 PM
The two overlap almost as often as they don't. I chose banana.
Brilliant! :)
This is a tough call. There are many symphonies that are truly magnificent, and I can't imagine the world without them, but when it comes to my own preferences, I have to say that chamber music wins out. There is something in the intimacy of the Brahms trio for clarinet, cello, and piano, or in Beethoven's string quartets, or Schubert's "Trout" quintet, or any number of other great chamber pieces, that I just don't experience in symphonies.
Quote from: secondwind on October 14, 2009, 06:19:00 PM
This is a tough call. There are many symphonies that are truly magnificent, and I can't imagine the world without them, but when it comes to my own preferences, I have to say that chamber music wins out. There is something in the intimacy of the Brahms trio for clarinet, cello, and piano, or in Beethoven's string quartets, or Schubert's "Trout" quintet, or any number of other great chamber pieces, that I just don't experience in symphonies.
Chamber is absolute music to me. No tricks, no theatrics just the music itself. Now orchestral music was written for entertainment only until somewhere in the 19th century when it really became a serious affair, and then it really catches up. I wouldn't expect most of Haydn's symphonies to have the gravity of one of his string quartets, but I do find that Brahms piano concertos match his piano quartets for example. :)
Quote from: secondwind on October 14, 2009, 06:19:00 PMThere is something in the intimacy of the Brahms trio for clarinet, cello, and piano, or in Beethoven's string quartets, or Schubert's "Trout" quintet, or any number of other great chamber pieces, that I just don't experience in symphonies.
How about the numerous woodwind trios in Shostakovich's 5th? Or the flute/oboe calls near the end of the 2nd movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony? :)
I love works from both types, but I chose symphonic merely because of the variety. Especially because you get not only symphonies, orchestral suites, tone poems, etc., but also CONCERTOS! I love the interaction, the fight of the instrument against the orchestra. :)
I generally prefer orchestral music as I find the sound richer/more interesting :).
Conor, I love your avatar (the Picasso)!
Quote from: corey on October 14, 2009, 08:58:21 PM
Conor, I love your avatar (the Picasso)!
Cheers corey! :D
I will not be voting any time soon, but just to be clear, does chamber music include keyboard (solo) works?
Quote from: opus106 on October 14, 2009, 09:04:08 PM...does chamber music include keyboard (solo) works?
I think that that would count as solo repertoire, rather than chamber repertoire. Nobody counts the Bach Cello Suites as chamber music, although it would count under the archaic definition of the word.
Quote from: Dana on October 14, 2009, 09:06:25 PM
I think that that would count as solo repertoire, rather than chamber repertoire. Nobody counts the Bach Cello Suites as chamber music, although it would count under the archaic definition of the word.
And so might the Brandenburgs. :) Just wanted to check with the poll master, for the inclusion of the solo repertoire could be an important factor. 0:)
You're right, of course. We shouldn't be rummaging through the OED. What's the verdict Diletante? :P
Quote from: Joe Barron on October 14, 2009, 04:00:31 PM
It's been a progression: when I was younger and just discovering the repertoire, I always started with a composer's symphonic music and worked my way to songs, chamber music and piano pieces.
Quote from: DavidW on October 14, 2009, 06:28:19 PM
Chamber is absolute music to me. No tricks, no theatrics just the music itself.
I can relate to these comments. For years I just ignored chamber music, not because I had some prejudice against it, but because I just liked the sound of a big orchestra. After I started branching out, I discovered that a lot of composers put their most interesting, rigorous and inspired ideas into the smaller forms. Chamber music doesn't give you a wall of sound or splashy effects to hide behind - if something isn't good, it shows.
Exploring chamber music also forced me to re-evaluate some composers. I didn't really understand Brahms' huge reputation when I knew only his orchestral music. Sure, it's good, but his chamber music is stellar. 0:)
Another aspect of chamber music that I like is the individual expressiveness of the musicians interacting with each other, something that is a lot rarer in symphonic music.
I was lucky that I met ChamberNut online when I started listening to this music. His enthusiasm for the genre rubbed off on me, although I can't claim to be as big a nut as he is. ;D
I love both, but I can say that where Classical and Early Romantic music is concerned, I prefer chamber music. The symphony doesn't get really interesting to me until the late 19th and, particularly, 20th century.
I won't be made to choose between the two.
The banana wins!
(http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/dancing.gif)
I could not do without either. Although the gap has narrowed a bit, I still prefer chamber music.
Otherwise I'd have to change my name! :D
When it comes to my two favorite composers, Beethoven & Brahms, I'd say 8 out of 10 times I'll listen to their chamber music, as opposed to symphonic.
Hearing a live performance up close of chamber music is an incredible experience! :)
Quote from: Dana on October 14, 2009, 09:32:03 PM
You're right, of course. We shouldn't be rummaging through the OED. What's the verdict Diletante? :P
I know that solo music isn't usually counted as chamber music, but since my intention was just to make a fun poll of "few instruments" vs "lots o' instruments", I'll include it in chamber. :)
Quote from: Diletante on October 15, 2009, 05:16:54 AM
I know that solo music isn't usually counted as chamber music, but since my intention was just to make a fun poll of "few instruments" vs "lots o' instruments", I'll include it in chamber. :)
Now George can vote! ;D
Hah! :)
Quote from: opus106 on October 14, 2009, 09:04:08 PM
I will not be voting any time soon, but just to be clear, does chamber music include keyboard (solo) works?
In music written before 1830 or so, solo piano was considered to be
hausmusik or chamber music. After that it was pretty much concert hall music. So in the Gurnian Period (which is the only one I base my votes on) it IS chamber music. :)
8)
Quote from: Diletante on October 15, 2009, 05:16:54 AM
I know that solo music isn't usually counted as chamber music, but since my intention was just to make a fun poll of "few instruments" vs "lots o' instruments", I'll include it in chamber. :)
The inclusion of the solo repertoire definitely gives chamber the upper-hand (Bach's in there ;D), but still it's neck-and-neck. I have moments of weakness where nothing from chamber music will give me the satisfaction of listening to a soaring string section or the majestic brass.
Impossible for me to choose between the two. It's like asking whether people love their fathers more than their mothers.
It's a false dichotomy if ever there was one.
Quote from: Superhorn on October 15, 2009, 11:13:08 AM
Impossible for me to choose between the two. It's like asking whether people love their fathers more than their mothers.
It's a false dichotomy if ever there was one.
You obviously haven't participated in GMG polls before. :P
Not really happy about clarinet unaccompanied being herded into "solo whatever" >:D 8)
Someone's written music for unaccompanied clarinet!
>:D
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 11:55:21 AM
Someone's written music for unaccompanied clarinet!
>:D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G5E6XC1YL._SS500_.jpg)
Great album cover, or
greatest album cover?
Quote from: corey on October 15, 2009, 07:12:28 PM
Great album cover, or greatest album cover?
That's CD full! Thanks. Are there ones that pre-date the 20th-century styles?
Quote from: Conor71 on October 14, 2009, 09:02:54 PM
Cheers corey! :D
corey, I like your avatar too - an inspired choice. Makes the landscape more interesting.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 15, 2009, 04:55:41 AM
Hearing a live performance up close of chamber music is an incredible experience! :)
Ain't it the truth? As an added bonus, chamber music audiences are (usually) a lot better behaved than symphonic/operatic ones.
I love 'em both, but chamber music was an easy choice for me.
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 11:55:21 AM
Someone's written music for unaccompanied clarinet!
Once more, without the net
Quote from: corey on October 15, 2009, 07:12:28 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G5E6XC1YL._SS500_.jpg)
Great album cover, or greatest album cover?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514q1roTpwL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: Anne on October 15, 2009, 10:14:13 PM
corey, I like your avatar too - an inspired choice. Makes the landscape more interesting.
Thank you. :D I might actually keep this one for longer than a week. ;)
Chamber music is more important to me, if I have to make a choice. I was hoping this day would never come. Dagnabbit. :-\ ;D
Now I understand that some people want us to make choices, but this is a really impossible one for me. ??? Both chamber and symphonic music have their beauties, and it's as pointless to compare them as to compare a supermodel with a great actor.
As a performer, I do love playing with a "crowd" of orchestral musicians, but the intimate interactions of chamber music are rewarding in a very different but equivalent way. The one advantage chamber music has is that it's easier to get a small group of good players together. ;D
Quote from: opus106 on October 14, 2009, 09:04:08 PM
I will not be voting any time soon, but just to be clear, does chamber music include keyboard (solo) works?
It does. At least according to the available poll responses. :) I would say that, perforce, chamber music would also include accompanied solos such as violin sonatas.
(http://www.stateofmindband.com/banarama_circa_1953.jpg)
Quote from: jochanaan on October 16, 2009, 12:58:56 PM
I would say that, perforce, chamber music would also include accompanied solos such as violin sonatas.
I thought that that was a given. :)
And what is the line between chamber and symphonic/orchestral? <10 = Chamber?
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 16, 2009, 07:09:03 PM
And what is the line between chamber and symphonic/orchestral? <10 = Chamber?
Ideally, it should be decided by the size of the chamber. :D
By the modern [OED] definition, I'd think it deals more with how the work is played rather than how many players are involved. In most symphonic music, and orchestral music in general, the musicians tend to play as teams of different (types of) instruments, rather than each individual musician having a "voice" of their own. [That's just the layman's take on the state of matters. A counter-example from the last decades of 20th century appearing in 3... 2... 1... .]
And, BTW, your limit of 10 would automatically push out the
Gran Partita to symphonic music. We don't want that to happen, do we? :)
Quote from: opus106 on October 16, 2009, 07:21:40 PM
And, BTW, your limit of 10 would automatically push out the Gran Partita to symphonic music. We don't want that to happen, do we? :)
Oooh, my beloved
Gran Partita! 0:) For some reason, I always thought of it as an 'orchestral' work? I know it's not technically such, but it has that 'feel' to me.
Allmusic Guide lists the Gran Partita as an orchestral work, FWIW, which probably isn't much. $:)
I'll wait for Gurn's reaction to that one, if any. ;)
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 16, 2009, 07:28:09 PM
Allmusic Guide lists the Gran Partita as an orchestral work, FWIW, which probably isn't much. $:)
Chamber music is generally played without a conductor; orchestral or symphonic music has someone out front waving a baton. The Gran Partita is performed both ways. Hmmmm. It must be a banana.
Quote from: secondwind on October 16, 2009, 07:58:19 PMChamber music is generally played without a conductor; orchestral or symphonic music has someone out front waving a baton.
EXCEPTION ALERT: Aaron Cassidy's string quartet - whoever has the part of least difficulty conducts the rest of the ensemble. The work is written in 4/4, but doesn't have a single discernible beat in it.
QUALIFIER: not actually interested in poking holes in generalizations, I just thought that that was nifty, even if the quartet isn't my cup of tea :)
Quote from: Dana on October 16, 2009, 10:39:58 PM
EXCEPTION ALERT: Aaron Cassidy's string quartet - whoever has the part of least difficulty conducts the rest of the ensemble. The work is written in 4/4, but doesn't have a single discernible beat in it.
QUALIFIER: not actually interested in poking holes in generalizations, I just thought that that was nifty, even if the quartet isn't my cup of tea :)
That sounds hard! Is there a warning? Not for the timid?
No warning, but there ought to be - I took a look at the sheet music, and there is very little that even the most practiced musicians would recognize. There's a lot of unconventional playing involved - as in players bowing the backs of their instruments, drawing their bows up and down the fingerboard rather than across it, players bowing on the scroll, players crunching their bow-hairs against the instruments, etc. It's the definition of esoteric music.
Quote from: Dana on October 17, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
No warning, but there ought to be - I took a look at the sheet music, and there is very little that even the most practiced musicians would recognize. There's a lot of unconventional playing involved - as in players bowing the backs of their instruments, drawing their bows up and down the fingerboard rather than across it, players bowing on the scroll, players crunching their bow-hairs against the instruments, etc. It's the definition of esoteric music.
Esotericism. Nothing more.
Carter's Mosaic (scored for soloist and seven accompanying players) I have seen conducted, both live and on DVD.
One or another of his quartets was famous (back when I was doing my doctorate) for 'requiring' that the players wear headphones to listen to a click track. I suppose those may be 'training wheels' and that as quartets learn the music better, they can just play . . . .
Quote from: opus106 on October 17, 2009, 10:08:22 PMEsotericism. Nothing more.
I tend to agree - check out the new thread (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,14937.0.html)
I've about a thousend CDs of chamber, and no more that 60
symphonic. So, to me the choice is obvious.
Voted chamber while being in an elated mood listening to Mozart's Eb piano quartet. ;D
Ah, VUI . . . .
So book me! :P
;)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 20, 2009, 07:55:55 AM
Ah, VUI . . . .
How do you think McCain/Palin got so many votes? :D
I don't think it's very pertinent to include solo repertoire in chamber music. As for the question itself, I'm not voting unless there's a Beethoven option.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2009, 06:45:40 AM
Carter's Mosaic (scored for soloist and seven accompanying players) I have seen conducted, both live and on DVD.
One or another of his quartets was famous (back when I was doing my doctorate) for 'requiring' that the players wear headphones to listen to a click track. I suppose those may be 'training wheels' and that as quartets learn the music better, they can just play . . . .
That was the No. 3, which breaks the quartet into two duos. It doesn't really "require" the click track. The Juilliard didn't use it for the premiere (though it did spend two rehearsals on the first four measures). It was the Composers Quartet, I believe, that found the click track a useful crutch. Not sure about the Pacifica or the Arditti.
I remember back around 1990 seeing the Juilliard perform Carter's first four quartets (at that time the complete cycle --- the fifth followed a few years later) at the Free Library of Philadelphia. About a third of the way into the Fourth, Robert Mann lost his place. Given the comlexity of the piece, he could not just jump back in at the beginning of the next measure, the way he would in a Haydn quartet. Instead, he stopped the other three and asked them to start over.
Anyone who loves opera/Wagnerian music dramas 0:) as much as I do MUST vote symphonic!! After all Verdi's, Wagner's, Puccini's and Richard Strauss' operas aren't your standard fiddle-dee-do fiddle-dee-dum pieces! NO??
marvin
I guess it's less a question of which I prefer, and more the reality of which type I play most on CD. Looked at THAT way, symphonic music easily comes out on top.
FK