[Bunnyears]

Chamber music for this discussion, anyway! Btw, chamber music is really just music composed for a smaller room or hall, that is solo instrumentals or ensembles that are smaller than conventional orchestras. Certainly Chopin's works for solo pianos qualify so why not Cage or Crumb? Obviously, the work shouldn't be performed on a supersized concert grand in a small room or else everyone's ears will be seriously at risk.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears 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.

It's also:

(A) There's less high frequency content with acoustic instruments than with synths, distorted guitars, etc. The MP3 format in particular was never designed to go over 16KHz/128kbps, and anything higher takes drastically more bandwidth than the rest of the spectrum due to technical reasons. Basically, encoding 16KHz-21KHz is a hack on the original specs.

(2) The music is quieter overall. Quieter passages = less bits needed to represent them. Loud/overcompressed rock and pop takes a lot of bits.

 

[Bunnyears]

Whatever the reasons, classical whether chamber or expanded orchestral as with mahler encodes in a smaller file than rock. Rock is also a smaller ensemble but I can't believe that it's more popular only because it's a smaller ensemble.

 

[Oistrakh]

I really enjoy chamber music much more than symphonic... I am never bored in chamber music performances, and I am often bored in symphonic performances, even if played by world's best symphonies (unless I am playing in the orchestra of course lol!).

 

[gilency]

Man, thats a hard question to answer....It all depends.....Just MP3'd all of Beethoven's symphonies (I love them all), but I am listening to a Mozart Flute quartet right now and for now is the right music. On the other hand, nothing like Bach's violin partitas played by Sergiou Luca when the time is right....do I have to choose? is there an all of the above answer? haha...is wonderful to have choices...

 

[FalconP]

A recent article in NY Times already predicts the result of this poll, and says why.

For me, I always cherish chamber music more, for its intimacy, and the more transparent flow of musical ideas.

 

[barroquehead]

I agree with the person who said this was more of an argument about barroque or classic... I do prefer barroque. And chamber. Maybe the fact that I preferred symphonies when I was a teenager (I am 34 now) may clarify the issue?

 

[diogenes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spad /img/forum/go_quote.gif Double post--my first after nearly four years.

Off topic:
Well, that is why I did not recall seeing your avatar before.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by diogenes /img/forum/go_quote.gif Off topic: Well, that is why I did not recall seeing your avatar before.

You do realize you're quoting a post from 2005, right?

 

[DavidMahler]

I love both........but classical music is essentially defined by the symphony. At least the classical period is defined by the Symphony. Overall I think the greatest composers had their greatest impact in the symphonic genre. Those who attempted the symphony anyway. I'm kinda biased, as Mahler really is known for just a few things outside the symphony

 

[Facade19]

I am sucker for tone poems, but then again how many tone poems did Faure complete?

 

[Assorted]

Not much symphonies in my era is there

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masonjar /img/forum/go_quote.gif I definately prefer Symphonic. I definately prefer Symphonies to any other kind of Symphonic music

x2

I certainly prefer orchestral music, and specifically symphonies, as symphonic form demands a lot more from a composer than just impressive sound. (Recall the famous Mahler/Sibelius conversation in which Sibelius admired the formal limitations of the symphony where as Mahler said a symphony must embrace the world - one problem I have with Mahler is his lack of discipline.) Of concertos, I like piano and cello works, because I like their tonal qualities as opposed to the shrillness of the violin for instance, and because these tend to be more profound.

In chamber music, I most like solo piano, and enjoy some cello/piano works. Chamber music for me brings out an unpleasant exhibitionism in string performers - they too often chew the music up rather than attempting restraint. Also, as I said above, violin soloists are generally too shrill for me to comfortably listen to.
I do plan to explore the Beethoven late quartets, as I've been very impressed by what I've heard, but as yet I simply haven't had the time.

 

[eyeresist]

oops

 

[Tyson]

To follow the original formulation, to me symphonic music is more like italian pasta, meaty, with rich, creamy sauce. Chamber music is more like Sashimi, with Wasabi and soy sauce. Both are very different experiences but rewarding in their own right.