[Yikes]

I listen to WCRB in Boston. WCRB is a decent classical station; my one objection is that they play entirely too much chamber music. Personally I’m not much of a chamber music fan.

I believe that I know why they do it; chamber music pieces tend to be shorter so they can get more commercials in. I would have no problem with a radio station putting commercials between a symphonies movements.

So if you had a choice between listening to Chamber Music or Symphonic Music which would it be?

 

[gratefulshrink]

I realize I'm probably in the minority, but I generally enjoy chamber music over symphonic. My reason is that symphonic can be too much -- too many "voices"/parts, so that it gets hard for me to focus. Chamber music, OTOH, allows the listener to focus in more clearly on the instruments (and the virtuosity of the performers). My favorite subgenres of chamber are string quartet, and solo works for piano or cello.

As a compromise between the two, I enjoy concertos, which allow for intrumental solo passages.

A second compromise is the "chamber symphony" -- a work for a scaled-down orchestra.

 

[Michael G.]

Chamber music is more intimate, less grandiose, and is more akin to fast food than a multi-course dinner. Like miniatures which can be held in the palm of your hand, chamber music can be surveyed, assimilated, and judged relatively quickly - better to suit the modern temperament. It is hard to get people to listen carefully for very long any more, as too many people are adrenaline junkies. Chamber music is much less complicated than symphonic music to record well and to play back efficiently. For the audiophile, this means that chamber music is much easier to reproduce with lifelike fidelity, in the average-sized home listening room. It is probably easier for the composer and the musician to maintain artistic expressiveness in shorter, smaller musical performances just as it is easier for most poets to express "pure poetry" in short runs.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael G. Chamber music is more intimate, less grandiose, and is more akin to fast food than a multi-course dinner. Like miniatures which can be held in the palm of your hand, chamber music can be surveyed, assimilated, and judged relatively quickly - better to suit the modern temperament. It is hard to get people to listen carefully for very long any more, as too many people are adrenaline junkies. Chamber music is much less complicated than symphonic music to record well and to play back efficiently. For the audiophile, this means that chamber music is much easier to reproduce with lifelike fidelity, in the average-sized home listening room. It is probably easier for the composer and the musician to maintain artistic expressiveness in shorter, smaller musical performances just as it is easier for most poets to express "pure poetry" in short runs.

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.

 

[Bunnyears]

Sometimes I don't understand what the hey anyone is arguing about! Chamber music is not akin to the "fast food" of classical music! That would be like arguing that all wine is like ripple compared to whiskey! Chamber music by definition is music that was written for performance in smaller rooms as opposed to orchestral music composed for large halls or churches. You should also be aware that until the 18th century, chamber music was composed for serious music lovers (secular) as opposed to the grander forms which were written either for religious purposes to be heard in the larger spaces of Churches, or for princely court functions (Purcell's Funeral music for Queen Mary, Handel's Water Music or Music for Royal Fireworks comes to mind or any of the music of Rameau and Couperin composed for the Court entertainments of Louis XIV). Thus, much of the music written by J.S. Bach, including the Brandenburg Concertos (composed for and dedicated to the uncle of Frederick the Great, the Margrave of Brandenburg) is "chamber music"-- music composed to be performed in the more intimate setting of a palace room! Much of Mozart's work is also going to be classified as "chamber music" as well, including his symphonies which were composed for the 18th century orchestra which was much smaller than the modern symphony orchestra and performed in palace rooms. You should also be aware that until Beethoven composed the Symphony No. 3 (Eroica), orchestras rarely played really "loud" sforzando, hence Haydn's "Surprise" symphony's surprise is a sudden, very loud (for the time) musical note. It was considered very radical for the time and even shocking. In this day of expanded symphony orchestras and over amplified music, we lose sight of the fact that the ability to generate a truly loud sound from an instrument or orchestra was a technological breakthrough in the 18th century and early 19th century as well as a shift in musical esthetics.

Now, if you want to stigmatize music composed for quartets, quintets, septets of instruments and solo instrumental music than please consider this: Beethoven's most sophisticated and advanced music includes his late string quartets, his late piano sonatas (especially the Hammerklavier) as well as the Symphony No. 9. To equate his Grosse Fuge with Macdonald's is pure stupidity born of ignorance.

Now, a quick look at WCRB's http://natrix.wcrb.com/cgi-bin/univ/univ.pl?page=playlist.html&station=wcrb shows that includes Mozart divertimentos and serenades, Haydn symphonies, Gluck, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre (very halloween), CPE Bach Symphony, and demonstrates a nice balance between symphonic and chamber works! Before you start complaining, perhaps your problem is not the preponderance of Chamber music but a preponderance of classical period and late baroque music (symphonies in the "Gallant" style of CPE Bach for instance), or what is termed "light classical." If you hunger for Mahler, Wagner and Bruckner, then get some of their recordings. Those works, because of their length are rarely aired except at night, and frequently only in excerpts (for instance the Adagio from Mahler's 5th symphony seems to come up quite a bit). Using the search button here you will find very long and active threads dealing with these composers. Otherwise, try searching for other fm stations more to your taste.

Because you haven't heard chamber music that appeals to you, I would suggest that you start listening to more chamber music, especially the string quartets of Shostakovich (try Emerson Quartet), Beethoven's late string quartets (Takasc quartet has an excellent set as does the Emerson Quartet), String Quintet in C by Schubert (Alban Berg Quartet with Rostropovich), Mozart's Divertimento K563 (YoYo Ma, Kremer, Kashkashian have a budget friendly recording) -- a trio that is incredibly dense and complex, for starters. After you've listened to something like that, then come back and support your thesis that Chamber Music is just "fast food" classical. Btw, let's not forget the piano music by Chopin which is as complex, chromatic and brilliant as any symphony or for that matter Bach's Goldberg Variations. I'd rather have fast food by Bach than a lot of full 9 course dinners by other composers.

 

[Masonjar]

I definately prefer Symphonic. I definately prefer Symphonies to any other kind of Symphonic music, though I do like other orchestral works like Tone Poems, Overtures and Symphonic Dances. All the Ravel stuff too. But I haven't really found myself being pulled towards concertos, there are a few that I really like.. the Rach 2nd and 3rd piano for instance, but for the most part, I feel like concertos are too busy - one too many personalities at work.. I guess it comes down to the fact that I really don't like the solo playing all that much. Maybe it's the "single vision" of the pure symphonic music that really excites me.

I just like all the colors and the dynamics. Chamber for the most part just doesn't hold my interest. Not enough changes in texture and color. And I don't generally find the music as interesting. Now there are notable exceptions.. I love the Shostakovich string quartets. Awesome. Just 4 musicians going at it. And there's also a good amount of solo piano music that I like as well. But that's really it. Probably 95% of my classical collection consists of symphonic works.

-jar

 

[gratefulshrink]

I see an interesting dichotomy developing here.

As bunnyears pointed out, there is a basic confusion in terminology/defintion which is also complicating matters, in that much of what might be currently considered symphonic is acutally chamber.

I think we can agree that prototypical chamber music is the string quartet, while prototypical symphonic muisc might be a Brahms symhony.

If we start from there, I know there is a sharp division in what people enjoy. Using Michael G.'s analogy, I would actually say the opposite, that symphonic music is fast food, in that it is more known to the masses (like Beethoven's 5th), and it is "served up" so often. In contrast, an intricate string quartet (like late Beethoven or maybe Bartok), to me is something rarer to hear, and there is perhaps more to savor (like a multi-course dinner).

Of course, there are somewhat boring chamber pieces (that are overplayed), as well as some very challenging symphonic works, so my argument ultimately breaks down.

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.

 

[omedon]

I prefer Concertos, I don't know if that fits into chamber music or not.

I find symphanies are often very self-indulgent for the conducters. They are very grandoise and overly dramatic. I don't want to hear the end of the world when I pop in a CD. I like concerto's because the focus is on the musicians, I prefer listening to virtuoso performances where single notes can send me to the stratosphere.

This is something I have recently discovered about my tastes and it goes for all types of music. To me simpler is better, listening to large overly complicated productions often makes for anxiety ridden music.

 

[Nepenthe]

Is WCRB an FM station? I would suggest that one of the digital music vendors would have much better variety, sound quality, and fewer (if any) commercials. I'm pretty sure there are multiple classical stations that are accessible.

[size=xx-small]My two cents is that the symphonic/instrumental music I love to listen to falls into one of three categories, and none of those are part of the above.
--modern film scores, such as those by Danny Elfman and John Williams
--musicals, such as Les Miz
--videogame soundtracks, such as the recorded public performances straight from Japan or the symphonic pieces from OCRemix.org (which are mostly synthetic but which nonetheless feature some of the most amazing tunesmanship and musicality I've ever heard)[/size]

 

[Yikes]

I in no way implied that Chamber music was like McDonalds. I am the first to admit that I have a predilection for late romantic thru the first half of the 20th century symphonic music. Perhaps a better poll would have been:

What size ensemble classical music do you prefer?

A)Large scale (Symphony Orchestra and possibly including a choir)
B)Small scale (solo, duos, quartets, quintets, and such)


I do have a decent collection of classical music, which consists of 80% large-scale symphonic style recordings. I sleep with WCRB on and it seems that every time I wake up it’s to some Bach piece.

Bunnyears is very knowledgeable about classical music, and for the most part he has me pegged. I do own many recordings of Shostakovich, Schubert and many 20th century string quartets.

In reality I’m not a fan of what I refer to as Ancient Music. The older the music the less likely it is that I’ll like it. I’m not a fan of Bach, but you won’t find me referring to his music as Fast Food.

 

[fewtch]

Definitely symphonic, but I like both. The intimate atmosphere of 'chamber music' is nice, and the sweeping expanse of symphonic is wonderful.

 

[AsuAmo76]

I voted for symphonic, but when I was young I definitely prefered the chumber music (Vivaldi, Paganini, Sarasete

) .....

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yikes I in no way implied that Chamber music was like McDonalds. I am the first to admit that I have a predilection for late romantic thru the first half of the 20th century symphonic music. Perhaps a better poll would have been: What size ensemble classical music do you prefer? A)Large scale (Symphony Orchestra and possibly including a choir) B)Small scale (solo, duos, quartets, quintets, and such) I do have a decent collection of classical music, which consists of 80% large-scale symphonic style recordings. I sleep with WCRB on and it seems that every time I wake up it’s to some Bach piece. Bunnyears is very knowledgeable about classical music, and for the most part he has me pegged. I do own many recordings of Shostakovich, Schubert and many 20th century string quartets. In reality I’m not a fan of what I refer to as Ancient Music. The older the music the less likely it is that I’ll like it. I’m not a fan of Bach, but you won’t find me referring to his music as Fast Food.

Yikes,

My answer in part was addressed to the other comments in the thread which included Michael G's comment, "Chamber music is more intimate, less grandiose, and is more akin to fast food than a multi-course dinner."

The old saw, "there's no arguing taste" really comes into play here. Obviously anyone is entitled to prefer whatever type of music they want. My main objection is that too often I hear other forms of music denigrated purely because someone doesn't care for it! I know someone who disrespects opera because he thinks that Joni Mitchell and Billy Holiday are better singers than any woman who can sing opera! And similarly, I know plenty of people who hate rap because they think the musical universe begins and ends with John Coltrane and Thelonius Monk. It's the lack of tolerance that I find so very upsetting and the refusal to even consider other forms of music that one initially dislikes. My tastes in music are pretty omniverous, but it still took me the better part of a year to appreciate the works of George Crumb who is now one of my favorite composers. If music has greatness, then it's always going to be worth the effort to listen and learn to appreciate it. Btw, I'm not saying that all music is great; there's too much commercial crap that always seems to be played in elevators, car radios and my neighbors' stereos at top volume. hehe.

Edit: Btw, the Bunny is a Lady.

 

[EdipisReks]

i prefer listening to orchestral music, but i prefer playing chamber music.

 

[atomic]

I'm not voting because I can't decide. I too prefer playing chamber music, but I like listening to both chamber and symphonic music, and I also love a good flashy concerto.