[Yikes]

Wouldn't a concerto be considered Symphonic? It consists of a symphony orchestra and an additional soloist. Some of my very favoriten pieces are concertos.

 

[Michael G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I agree with much of what you say, but I also think you should qualify some of your statements, as most of the chamber pieces I listen to are the same length (or longer) than let's say the average symphonic piece. I am referring to Beethoven's mid and late string quartets, many of which run between 30 and 40 minutes, or something like Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier or Suites for solo instruments, which can run a couple of hours.

Clarifications: First of all, when I say that chamber music is "...more akin to fast food...", I do not mean to imply that it is necessarily an inferior, more superficial, or even "short" musical art form. In context, my intent was to imply that chamber music is the smaller, less complex, handier, more quickly assimilated, etc.., of the two art forms being discussed. I'm not sure what to make of people's impatience at times, but for now I'll say the "fast food mentality" really does exist. If so, it would stand to reason that simplicity of form might be more appealling to more people than a "harder to digest" form would be. So, it's too bad the general public is way more familiar with symphonic classical than they are with chamber classical. They're so tired of the complex sounds of masses of violins and horns playing in unison, and basically they have come to think that "classical music" is akin to some kind of elevator music for the tuxedoe crowd. That is part of the reason "classical" music is so unpopular nowadays. If they only knew how diverse classical music forms really are! And radio stations need to get away from being stuck in the 18th and 19th centuries. There are just too many interesting "classical" works from the 16th, 17th, 20th, and 21st centuries to ignore. I play a little loosely with the term "classical music". And so, I'm willing to bet that increased public exposure to chamber works from all ages would increase the fanbase for classical music in general. Also, while it is true that most chamber works are "miniatures" (compared to a symphony), of course not all chamber works are short works. But if you were to count the majority of "chamber works" composed in the last four (+) centuries you would find that most chamber works are indeed shorter in duration than the symphonies created within the same time period.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael G. Clarifications: First of all, when I say that chamber music is "...more akin to fast food...", I do not mean to imply that it is necessarily an inferior, more superficial, or even "short" musical art form. In context, my intent was to imply that chamber music is the smaller, less complex, handier, more quickly assimilated, etc.., of the two art forms being discussed.

I've never found the Goldberg Variations smaller, less complex, handier or more quickly assimilated than Tchaikovsky or Mahler for that matter! In fact, the late string quartets of Beethoven or any of the string quartets of Shostakovich are infinitely difficult to comprehend in their entirety. Chamber music can be as dense, as complex, and as nuanced as any orchestral piece, and in fact, you will find composers use the chamber forms for their most advanced music! Try comparing two works of art such as Michelangelo's Last Judgement fresco in the Sistine Chapel and Roger van der Weyden's Deposition from the Cross in the Prado. Although one work is teaming with figures in complex patterns and is much greater in scale, the other has all of the complexity and impact while being smaller, and in ways less dense (fewer figures). The complexity of the composition of the smaller work at first seems far less than the greater work but after thoughtful viewing one can see that each work is equally great and perhaps even more monumental in composition. Similarly, the great baroque or classical chamber work is as difficult to comprehend completely as any late romantic symphonic poem. They are different, and as to that, "Vive la Difference!" Each is as important and worthy of time. It is only personal taste that draws one to either or both works of art.
Quote:

I'm not sure what to make of people's impatience at times, but for now I'll say the "fast food mentality" really does exist. If so, it would stand to reason that simplicity of form might be more appealling to more people than a "harder to digest" form would be. So, it's too bad the general public is way more familiar with symphonic classical than they are with chamber classical. They're so tired of the complex sounds of masses of violins and horns playing in unison, and basically they have come to think that "classical music" is akin to some kind of elevator music for the tuxedoe crowd. That is part of the reason "classical" music is so unpopular nowadays. If they only knew how diverse classical music forms really are!

Well, most of the music I hear in elevators seems to be orchestral versions of pop songs and movie themes lately. Oh, and as always the ubiquitous Vivaldi Four Seasons. I don't know why everyone wants to spoil Vivaldi for humanity by looping it in restaurants and waiting rooms, but there it is, a classic has become cliché through overuse -- just like Michelangelo's creation of Adam which has adorned the opening credits of countless movies, greeting cards, and novel covers. As to complex symphonic sounds, it would be interesting to note that the last time I went to a concert hall, the tuxedoed crowd loved the Rachmaninov 2nd Piano Concerto but left at intermission just before the Shostakovich 15th. A few months later, a less dressed up crowd stayed through a chamber recital that included Mozart, Beethoven and Shostakovich's sonatas for piano and violin which was far more complex and dense than the previous mentioned concert.
Quote:

And radio stations need to get away from being stuck in the 18th and 19th centuries. There are just too many interesting "classical" works from the 16th, 17th, 20th, and 21st centuries to ignore. I play a little loosely with the term "classical music". And so, I'm willing to bet that increased public exposure to chamber works from all ages would increase the fanbase for classical music in general. Also, while it is true that most chamber works are "miniatures" (compared to a symphony), of course not all chamber works are short works. But if you were to count the majority of "chamber works" composed in the last four (+) centuries you would find that most chamber works are indeed shorter in duration than the symphonies created within the same time period.

Radio stations play music that they feel the most people will listen to. That's why I travel with an ipod filled with the music I prefer. I doubt that I will get the recording of the Brandenburgs that I love or Bruckner's 5th on the radio. Does that mean that I don't listen to radio? No. In fact, my last recording of Ralph Vaughn William's Lark Ascending was provoked by hearing a new recording on the radio as was a purchase of Le Nozze di Figaro.

I'm not sure that you are right about chamber works being shorter! Certainly Mahler's symphonies are longer than almost any other works composed but the length of symphonic works is really a function of the period in which they were composed. I know from my own readings that Beethoven's symphonies were considered risky because they were so "long." They were also radical departures from the music of the past century (Mozart and Haydn come to mind), and similarly Bruckner and Mahler were considered too long when compared to Brahms. The Shostakovich sonata for piano and violin was as long as most symphonies and if you listen to Crumb's Makrocosmos (a work for amplified piano) it is easily as long as any work by Mahler.

If you want a real idea of how the length of the symphony has changed over time, just realize that when the cd was first designed, the wife of the head of SONY consulted Herbert von Karajan whom she idolized. HvK recommended that a cd should be long enough to hold all of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and the result was the 78 minute cd. Next time, hopefully they will consult someone who uses Mahler's symphonies for examples.

A last word, fanbase for classical music is always going to be small just as the audience for artfilms or serious fiction is smaller than the audience for potboiler mysteries, pulp fiction or any product designed for mass appeal. That's something I'm not going to worry about or even attempt to change.

 

[Masonjar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I think that people respond emotionally to different forms of classical music, and that symphonic music grabs you, whereas chamber music slowly draws you in. IMHO, of course.

People respond differently to different types of music because people are different. Not because of any generic quality that symphonic or chamber music has. For some people, a Mahler symphony grabs them immedately, for others, it takes years to draw them in. It's a listener thing, it's not a formal thing. I take exception to any statement that symphonic music is somehow less complex or worthy than chamber music. Just because you like one form over the other doen't make that form better.

-jar

 

[Shosta]

I voted for Chamber music. I find that one of the best ways to follow the 'evolution' of music since XVIII century is the string quartet. Since Haydn to Ligeti. It's the more abstract and pure music (for me, at least).
I'm with Bunnyears. I suscribe each of her words.
Chamber music is for 'gourmets' (Ligeti strings quartets and last quartets of Shostakovich are good examples)

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masonjar I take exception to any statement that symphonic music is somehow less complex or worthy than chamber music. -jar

I don't think I made such a statement.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shosta I voted for Chamber music. I find that one of the best ways to follow the 'evolution' of music since XVIII century is the string quartet. Since Haydn to Ligeti. It's the more abstract and pure music (for me, at least). I'm with Bunnyears. I suscribe each of her words. Chamber music is for 'gourmets' (Ligeti strings quartets and last quartets of Shostakovich are good examples)

I hope I haven't given anyone the idea that I prefer chamber music to symphonic music! In fact, I don't make a distinction between the two at all. As far as I am concerned great music is great music, and that applies whether there is one instrument playing or one thousand instruments playing! How could one ever hope to say that a Bach Cantata is less valuable than this Goldberg Variations? Is a Beethoven string quartet more important than his Fifth Symphony? If music is great it stands on its own merits and distinctions like chamber music, classic period, baroque, are as meaningless as saying that Michelangelo's Last Judgement fresco is greater than his Pietá!

I love Mahler and Bach, Beethoven and Shostakovich, Berlioz and Schütz, Crumb and Bruckner, and Chopin and Schoenberg, opera, symphony, instrumental and string quartet, octet, whatever! If the music is of good quality and it stimulates the correct centers in my brain I will love it, and if I have to work a bit before I get it, then I love it a little more.

 

[Michael G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears I've never found the Goldberg Variations smaller, less complex, handier or more quickly assimilated than Tchaikovsky or Mahler for that matter! In fact, the late string quartets of Beethoven or any of the string quartets of Shostakovich are infinitely difficult to comprehend in their entirety. Chamber music can be as dense, as complex, and as nuanced as any orchestral piece, and in fact, you will find composers use the chamber forms for their most advanced music! A last word, fanbase for classical music is always going to be small just as the audience for artfilms or serious fiction is smaller than the audience for potboiler mysteries, pulp fiction or any product designed for mass appeal. That's something I'm not going to worry about or even attempt to change.

I still think that smaller perfomances are more attuned to today's popular consciousness. They are more likely to be listened to, not because of ultimate simplicity, but because the parts are easier for the ear/brain to focus on, delineate, and (eventually) understand. Small works are easier to reproduce on a sound system, and that also helps the cause of understanding. The modern ear likes firm outlines and compactness, I believe. Get people to listen first, and the understanding will (hopefully) follow. I think that we should not give up trying to make "classical" music more accessible to the public. The tides are turning all the time.

 

[Shosta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears In fact, I don't make a distinction between the two at all.

Now, I suscribe again!

EDIT: BTW, this weekend I was drinking a cup of wine in a bar and a trio of street musicians were playing jazz. And I said to my wife that any acoustic music, played fine, sounds fantastic in direct performance. Better than the best 'artificial rig'.
In the end, i think that a good perfomance of Opera, Symphony, Chamber, Solo, Jazz, Baroque, ... it's always a rewarding experience.

 

[daycart1]

Hard to pick, of course, because of the great works on each side. I spend more time with chamber music.....

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael G. I still think that smaller perfomances are more attuned to today's popular consciousness. They are more likely to be listened to, not because of ultimate simplicity, but because the parts are easier for the ear/brain to focus on, delineate, and (eventually) understand. Small works are easier to reproduce on a sound system, and that also helps the cause of understanding. The modern ear likes firm outlines and compactness, I believe. Get people to listen first, and the understanding will (hopefully) follow. I think that we should not give up trying to make "classical" music more accessible to the public. The tides are turning all the time.

I neither know nor care to know what today's popular consciousness is more attuned to. What I do know from my own personal experience is that one of the hardest instruments to record accurately and then play back accurately (ie. with lifelike sound that is undistorted) is probably the piano. I don't think anything is smaller than a piano playing alone.

When you talk about "smaller" works being easier for the public to comprehend, what exactly are you referring to? Listen to any of the movie music that has been composed in the last 50 years or so and you will find complex orchestrations of very simple themes that are incredibly easy for the majority of people to grasp. Examples such as the incidental music from Witness, Out of Africa and Hook quickly come to mind. Also Lawrence of Arabia (extremely complex orchestrations of vaguely middle-eastern melodies) and Dr. Zhivago. Clearly, symphonic music is not harder for the public to understand or else orchestras such as the Boston Pops would have long since ceased to exist. Is movie music easier to reproduce on most sound systems? Well, that is hardly a point of argument to the average person who is very happy with their itunes at at a low bitrate listened to with the incredibly awful earbuds that came in the box. Sound reproduction is hardly even an issue for all of those people who gobble up Sony Dream home theater systems and Bose Wave radios either. If you are going to expect that the general public prefers chamber works because they sound in some way "easier" to understand then I think you are far off the mark.

If we go back to the earliest observation about classical radio preferring to program classical period (18th century) and baroque period music rather than the longer orchestral works of late 19th and early 20th century composers such as Bruckner, Mahler and Strauss then I think you are missing the point about radio programming. Radios program music in short bursts because they have to support themselves with commercials that are interspersed at seemingly random moments. This means that shorter pieces will be preferred. How many times have I tuned in and heard on the first movement of a sonata? Or just one Chopin ballade from a recording of all 4? It becomes more difficult with works by Mahler, who would program just a movement of a symphony? How happy would anyone be just hearing the Urlicht from the M2? Certainly the Mahler that is most frequently heard on the radio (and in movies for that matter) is his Adagio from the M5. That is almost becoming as much of a cliché as the Vivaldi. Similarly, I always hear the first movement from Beethoven's Symphony no. 5. The rest is left unplayed probably because they need to fit in a commercial or perhaps it's time for weather and news. What I object to is the assumption that the reason that you hear more fragments of baroque and classical pieces is because they are easier to listen to because they lack complexity rather than because it is just easier music to program because of the way the music and the media are structured.

 

[PSmith08]

Frankly, I think that it is a monumental waste in time to argue symphonic versus chamber. However, I think the question here is between the Baroque and Romantic. I am grossly understating the situation, but I tend to think of the Baroque as the age of chamber works and the Romantic as the era of sprawling symphonic works.
There are masterpieces in each idiom, and it is foolish to try to assert superiority. My taste tends toward Wagner first and foremost, with Mahler, Bruckner, and Beethoven falling back from that. However, that doesn't mean that I cannot listen to the Goldbergs (in Gould's '81 performance, of course

) without falling into apoplexy. In fact, I rather like the Goldberg Variations.

There is no sense trying to establish some sort of system to my tastes. I would consider my music collection incomplete without Monteverdi's Vespers, Handel's Water Music, and Götterdämmerung.

 

[saint.panda]

My favourite works are symphonic but I find chamber music to be particularly special with headphones.

And just a slight correction: I think that's Alban Berg with Heinrich Schiff and Emerson with Rostropovich doing Schubert's Quintet in C.

 

[Yikes]

It’s not a contest between the differing styles of music. It’s just a stupid poll that I put up. It was, and is never my intent to create acrimony.

You’ll never hear me say that large scale Romantic music is better than smaller scale Chamber or Baroque music. You will hear me state that I prefer a certain type, not that one is better.

 

[Michael G.]

When you talk about "smaller" works being easier for the public to comprehend, what exactly are you referring to? Listen to any of the movie music that has been composed in the last 50 years or so and you will find complex orchestrations of very simple themes that are incredibly easy for the majority of people to grasp... Sound reproduction is hardly even an issue for all of those people who gobble up Sony Dream home theater systems and Bose Wave radios either. If you are going to expect that the general public prefers chamber works because they sound in some way "easier" to understand then I think you are far off the mark...
[REPLY=Michael G.]Sound reproduction does have something to do with why "smaller" works will be easier for people to understand. Smaller works are generally easier for any sound system to unravel in a realistic fashion, and I believe that high(er) degrees of sensual realism can and will charm the senses of even the most dedicated Philistine listeners. I do think that fact contributes to the reasons why, even to the non-audiophile, the smallest recorded works will usually be the easiest ones to become interested in. Other (related) reasons why the general public might prefer chamber music has to do with the high degree of intelligibility, intimacy, directness, and clarity of expression that the small ensemble sound offers the radio listener... Concerning Movie Music: Symphonic "movie music" has been popular not because the public prefers symphonic music, but because this music just so happened to be an integral part of Cinema, the favorite form of entertainment in modern times. Composers of symphonic movie music have, at times, used the complex sound of large scale orhestrations to express dramatic themes, but it must be remembered that without that widescreen in front of peoples faces no one would bother listening very much at all. To me, even the best movie music can be too "programmatic" and it loses much of it's power when it's heard by itself, divorced from it's visual co-themes. When we must resort to the purer type of listening, chamber music will probably be the best for the majority of radio fans. Remember that (Montovani and the like being the exceptions) most of the pop music bands from the last century are of the small (but often very loud) musical ensemble variety. Solos, Duets, Trios, Quartets, Quintets, etc... The "small" group sound is what we're most used to hearing...