[Wilson]

For myself I listen to chamber classicals much more than symphonic works. It is just a developed preference over the years, and I don't feel that one is lesser than the other.

From time to time I wonder if the listening equipment and my setup have affected my preference. I have a set of Magnepan loudspeakers in a relatively small home study/office room and the setting sounds good for vocals, solos, chamber and small jazz ensembles but less satisfying in its sonic imaging for large orchestral work. In my living room I have a good sound setup for large soundscape, but then I spend much more time every evening in my study working and reading with the music on.


Happy listening,
W

 

[Aman]

I'm more of a symphonic guy. I guess I just don't have enough experience in the classical genre to know many more of the superb works by the chamber crowd. For some reason, however, Beethoven just grabs me and places me much further into intimacy than any string quartet ever did. By the way, if you want to hear some really cool string quartet music, check out the group 'Ethel'. They do the most incredible stuff!

I am actually partial to classical guitar soloists, if that's your guys' thing

Overall, I had to go with symphonic on this one just because my classical collection consists of many more works by Beethoven and Handel than anything else.

 

[Masolino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman For some reason, however, Beethoven just grabs me and places me much further into intimacy than any string quartet ever did.

Even string quartets written by Beethoven?

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears 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...

Michael,

I can't presume to know what the general public prefers in terms of symphonic versus smaller ensemble music. I do know that movie sound tracks usually sell as well and probably better than Bach Cantatas. I think you miss the point I was trying to make, though. It's not the size of the ensemble playing so much as the complexity and degree of abstraction of the music that determines the appeal of a piece or music to the greater masses. Few people that I know, audiophiles included will sit through John Cage's Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano (chamber) while almost everyone will sit happily through Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto (orchestral). Similarly, more people preferred the music of Nelson Riddle (Big Band) in the mid 1950s than John Coltrane and Thelonius Monk (small jazz ensemble). As to whether movie music can stand on its own, I recommend that you listen to the recently released soundtrack score of Red River composed by Dmitri Tiomkin available from Naxos. Moviola, the music of John Barry was a best selling cd and that consisted of his incidental music for many movies including Out of Africa, Dances with Wolves and Chaplin. Similarly, John Williams has a greatest hits cd that includes his music from Star Wars, Hook, the Indiana Jones trilogy, Jaws and Jurassic Park.

Tchaikovsky's music is also a good example of crowd pleasing grand orchestral music, especially the 1812 Overture which is incredibly popular at this website. I have seen more threads dedicated to that one piece of music than anything else, certainly more than have been dedicated to any Schubert string trio. The point I am trying to make is that most people listening to music are not that concerned with the sound quality of music. They are not thinking that they prefer chamber music because it sounds better on their stereo than orchestral music or that they prefer Bach's Suites for Unaccompanied Cello because they sound better than the Nutcracker Suite. I think music that is accessible intellectually will be more popular, and the size of the ensemble playing has nothing to do with it.

Preferring a smaller ensemble to a larger ensemble is a personal preference that will have everything to do with the individual involved. Historically, the performance of music has moved from the small ensemble to the enlarged orchestra of the 20th century. Those who prefer more modern music to older forms of music may prefer orchestral to chamber music or not. That is up to the individual. For some any orchestral music will just have "too many notes," while for others there is rarely enough texture or orchestration to satisfy. The size of the ensemble does not reflect the complexity or sophistication of the music. The preference for one over the other merely reflects the taste of the listener.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wilson For myself I listen to chamber classicals much more than symphonic works. It is just a developed preference over the years, and I don't feel that one is lesser than the other. From time to time I wonder if the listening equipment and my setup have affected my preference. I have a set of Magnepan loudspeakers in a relatively small home study/office room and the setting sounds good for vocals, solos, chamber and small jazz ensembles but less satisfying in its sonic imaging for large orchestral work. Happy listening, W

The opposite side of this coin applies to me. I have Polk SDA SRSs which handle symphonic works so incredibly well that I always feel something is missing with headphones. Consequently, my 'phones are fed mostly chamber music and jazz. I'm sure the fact that I don't have to leave home has much to do with this, however. If I were trapped in an office I've no doubt that my hunger for symphonies would demand equal headphone time.

BTW, it's surprising--at least to me--to encounter such a skein of acrimony in a discussion about great music. An air of comity seems far more fitting.

 

[Spad]

Double post--my first after nearly four years.

 

[Michael G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael G. Michael, I can't presume to know what the general public prefers in terms of symphonic versus smaller ensemble music. I do know that movie sound tracks usually sell as well and probably better than Bach Cantatas... Most people listening to music are not that concerned with the sound quality of music... I think music that is accessible intellectually will be more popular, and the size of the ensemble playing has nothing to do with it... The size of the ensemble does not reflect the complexity or sophistication of the music... The preference for one over the other merely reflects the taste of the listener...

We probably won't ever agree on certain issues... I really don't presume to "know" what the public thinks either, but I will admit that I have some strong suspicions about what the public thinks from time to time, and I am not afraid to give my opinion about the general public's mindset based upon what my intuition tells me... Movie sound tracks may sell better than Bach Cantatas but what percentage of movie soundtracks sold are of the "symphonic" type, which are one of the two kinds of musical compositions that I presumed we were talking about here? To me, "symphonic music" and even "chamber music" usually denote mostly acoustical instrumentation and compositions with certain sorts of classical aspirations. Maybe the sales figures for "symphonic" and/or "chamber" style Movie Music do beat out Bach sales. If so, don't people tend to buy ANY music that they can associate with the memory of a cinematic experience? You almost have to leave musical tastes out of the picture in this case beacuse it's almost like the foreign tourist buying a travel souvenir here - is it THE MUSIC, or is it a memorandum of the trip that they are buying? Listened to for it's own sake, I still find a lot of movie music to be relatively deficient... While it is important that music be intellectually accessible, it is also important that it be sensually accessible. Sophistication and complexity are different issues, and don't think I'm trying to mix them up here. Small ensemble works are not (or, rarely) as SONICALLY complex as large ensemble works. The general public is used to music with smaller, simpler instrumental arrangements that are more akin to what we'll find in chamber music. Sound quality does matter to most people, although not in the hyper-conscious way that many of us audiophiles think that sound quality should matter to a person. Even on a lo-fi system, small ensemble music naturally brings a greater clarity of sound, and a higher degree of instrumental seperation with more easily identifiable sonic textures. On a lo-fi system, large ensemble music will not give them as much of that stuff. I think most people are used to hearing this sort of tonal clarity, instrumental seperation, and textural identification. They are more used to responding to the sound signature of the small ensemble.

 

[zhentil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears We probably won't ever agree on certain issues... I really don't presume to "know" what the public thinks either, but I will admit that I have some strong suspicions about what the public thinks from time to time, and I am not afraid to give my opinion about the general public's mindset based upon what my intuition tells me... Movie sound tracks may sell better than Bach Cantatas but what percentage of movie soundtracks sold are of the "symphonic" type, which are one of the two kinds of musical compositions that I presumed we were talking about here? To me, "symphonic music" and even "chamber music" usually denote mostly acoustical instrumentation and compositions with certain sorts of classical aspirations. Maybe the sales figures for "symphonic" and/or "chamber" style Movie Music do beat out Bach sales. If so, don't people tend to buy ANY music that they can associate with the memory of a cinematic experience? You almost have to leave musical tastes out of the picture in this case beacuse it's almost like the foreign tourist buying a travel souvenir here - is it THE MUSIC, or is it a memorandum of the trip that they are buying? Listened to for it's own sake, I still find a lot of movie music to be relatively deficient... While it is important that music be intellectually accessible, it is also important that it be sensually accessible. Sophistication and complexity are different issues, and don't think I'm trying to mix them up here. Small ensemble works are not (or, rarely) as SONICALLY complex as large ensemble works. The general public is used to music with smaller, simpler instrumental arrangements that are more akin to what we'll find in chamber music. Sound quality does matter to most people, although not in the hyper-conscious way that many of us audiophiles think that sound quality should matter to a person. Even on a lo-fi system, small ensemble music naturally brings a greater clarity of sound, and a higher degree of instrumental seperation with more easily identifiable sonic textures. On a lo-fi system, large ensemble music will not give them as much of that stuff. I think most people are used to hearing this sort of tonal clarity, instrumental seperation, and textural identification. They are more used to responding to the sound signature of the small ensemble.

Michael, I hate to say this, but you're betraying your ignorance. The reason that the general public enjoys movie music is two-fold: its simplicity and catchy melodies. From a music theory standpoint, the music of John Williams is simpler, making it easier for the classical novice to follow. It's "whistleable." To suggest that symphonic music is more complex simply because there are more instruments involved is, I'm guessing, not based on any knowledge of music theory nor, I would presume, any serious affinity for classical music. Think of the "voices" involved in a musical piece: the themes for Star Wars and Indiana Jones involve one simple melodic line, while string quartets have been described as "a conversation between four intelligent and witty persons." Four instruments pursuing four separate melodic (or unmelodic) lines, seemingly independent of one another but subtly interdependent based on the strict laws of harmonics. As Bunnyears says, it's all a matter of taste, and I myself love orchestral music. But I would recommend "digesting" Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, and then coming back and listing ONE orchestral piece that even approaches it in terms of complexity.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael G. Michael, I hate to say this, but you're betraying your ignorance. The reason that the general public enjoys movie music is two-fold: its simplicity and catchy melodies. From a music theory standpoint, the music of John Williams is simpler, making it easier for the classical novice to follow. It's "whistleable." To suggest that symphonic music is more complex simply because there are more instruments involved is, I'm guessing, not based on any knowledge of music theory nor, I would presume, any serious affinity for classical music. Think of the "voices" involved in a musical piece: the themes for Star Wars and Indiana Jones involve one simple melodic line, while string quartets have been described as "a conversation between four intelligent and witty persons." Four instruments pursuing four separate melodic (or unmelodic) lines, seemingly independent of one another but subtly interdependent based on the strict laws of harmonics. As Bunnyears says, it's all a matter of taste, and I myself love orchestral music. But I would recommend "digesting" Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, and then coming back and listing ONE orchestral piece that even approaches it in terms of complexity.

Concur!

 

[Michael G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael G. Michael, I hate to say this, but you're betraying your ignorance. The reason that the general public enjoys movie music is two-fold: its simplicity and catchy melodies. From a music theory standpoint, the music of John Williams is simpler, making it easier for the classical novice to follow. It's "whistleable." To suggest that symphonic music is more complex simply because there are more instruments involved is, I'm guessing, not based on any knowledge of music theory nor, I would presume, any serious affinity for classical music. Think of the "voices" involved in a musical piece: the themes for Star Wars and Indiana Jones involve one simple melodic line, while string quartets have been described as "a conversation between four intelligent and witty persons." Four instruments pursuing four separate melodic (or unmelodic) lines, seemingly independent of one another but subtly interdependent based on the strict laws of harmonics. As Bunnyears says, it's all a matter of taste, and I myself love orchestral music. But I would recommend "digesting" Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, and then coming back and listing ONE orchestral piece that even approaches it in terms of complexity.

Sorry if some of you misread me or simply disagree with me, but my main point is that symphonic music is "sonically" more complex than chamber music. And I'll say it again, I have opined that more instruments in a musical performance generally equals a more complex sound that is out of sync with what the general public wants to hear! That is a feasible argument for the case at hand. Can't understand me? Or perhaps, can't handle a different opinion than the one you hold to be true? And, I have stated that just because the public buys "symphonic" movie soundtrack recordings from time to time, it is not necessarily right to assume that they like symphonic music very much at all. I say they buy that music primarily because of it's function as a "souvenir" of the cinematic experience, and to me, that is not appreciating the music for what it is. Those are all just my opinions. I don't profess to be a musicologist, but I also don't think the opinions I've given forth so far qualify me as being "ignorant". My opinions do oppose your own a little bit, however...

 

[Bunnyears]

Michael,

Have you ever ripped a cd of symphonic music for an ipod with a variable bit rate? I have an ipod, and I've always been surprised that the files for classical music whether orchestral/symphonic or smaller ensemble are smaller than the files for my jazz and rock music. People have explained this to me by telling me that even though there are more instruments and/or the music is more "abstract" or "complex" in reality, it is far more organized and thus can be compressed into smaller files more efficiently. If you use that standard, then symphonic music is less sonically complex than a bad rock group which may not have all of their instruments tuned properly and a drummer with no sense of rhythm.

We could argue day and night about whether the masses prefer rock to symphonic music because it is less complex or because it is more complex. We could argue that more organized music is better than less organized music (ie. symphonic music is "more organized" than chamber music because there are more individual instruments), but the reality is that neither is going to be a big best seller unless it's got a catchy tune. Symphonic versions of Christmas Carols sell as well as (and probably better than) string quartet versions because everyone knows and loves Christmas carols and the listening experience is something they will understand and be familiar with. In order for you to really "prove" your thesis, you will have to give examples of the same music arranged either for symphony or chamber ensemble and then show that the smaller ensemble recording is more popular than the other. Will more people prefer The Boston Pops doing the music from South Pacific to a jazz ensemble doing the same music? Will people prefer a piano arrangement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 or the full orchestra version? This is just a wild guess, but I don't think so. But, according to your thesis this is what they would prefer.

The general public doesn't care whether there is one instrument or 100 instruments playing so long as they are all in tune and in sync so that the end result is comprehensible to them. And that has nothing to do with whether they love the music because they heard it first in a movie or not.

 

[Shosta]

Michael,
you are talking about 'audiophile', 'complex sonically', 'symphonic movie soundtrack'.
But when I read this thread I think in term of 'music lover', 'complex work', and 'great symphonies'.

And thinking in this terms i find that chamber music it's in general more complex than 'Symphonic music' (whatever this means). There is a lot of complex symphonic music (Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich, Messiaen,...), but if you count soundtracks, there is a lot of very simple symphonic music.
For chamber music I cannot find examples of simple music. (Music, not sound. At least under my concept of this kind of music). Since solo music to the canonical quartet, composers think chamber music as one way to 'invent', to 'investigate' new paths(Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Ligeti)

 

[Michael G.]

"Zhentil", "Bunnyears", "Shosta" (and everyone else too), thanks for contributing to this discussion. I respect your opinions, and I am in awe of your combined musical knowledge. I hope you see some merit in my opinions, but if not, so be it. Of course, I may be totally wrong about things. But having heard from you all so far, I still think what I think is true. Maybe I'll change my mind in another lifetime, after I've had more time to ponder my sins? It's been fun, though. See you later...

 

[Neko]

Haven't listened to enough to make an educated decision, but I do enjoy many of Beethoven's symphonies and first gen romantic symphonies (what where the fathers of Romantic compositions on?), but thats probably due to after learning his piano pieces (hmmm... piano sonata in C minor op.13

), I have found respect in his music.

But then again, that is just one composer.. but the mastery required to effectively utillise an orchesta of a symphony is what really blows me away, because when done properly you are immersed into a world achived by a 'team' of diverse instruments. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Chamber music, but when I listen to symphonies, sometimes I just can't help but laugh at some 'music' on the radio today

 

[Neko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears John Cage's Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano

Just had to quote this... god I love you John Cage =P (especially his 4'33"

, a piece I can honestly say that I have mastered!) But funnily enough, would you still classify it as chamber music? wouldn't it be exclusively a piano solo (dispite the fact he butchers a piano by stuffing foreign items between strings and the like)?