[ArtMusic]

I voted I enjoy both equally. I do know there are listeners who prefer one over the other. Either way it allows the composer to express his/her creativity in vastly different ways. It is not small feat to compose well in either. You can take a Haydn symphony and arrange it for a string quintet and notice this scaled down version is not quite as exuberant as the original orchestral version. This goes to show that a composer's original creativity speaks best. So it can depend on the music and I enjoy both.

 

[ArtMusic]

This is actually weird for me, because I've always enjoyed large orchestral works, I didn't care at all about chamber music, but lately something changed after I heard Mozart's quartets for Haydn (which I had never heard). I am actually finding chamber music more interesting than symphonies. Symphonies are starting to ... bore me. Expecially romantic ones. I know, I know, I'm crazy, I am saying blasphemies, but lately that's what I've been experiencing.

With chamber music, the insightful composer must know how to write carefully for each instrument and let each instrument "sing" as if communicating with one another in conversation or song. With large scale orchestral works especially the Romantic symphonies, it offers the composers the ability to sound very loud and very forceful at times to impress in this way. I can see why the Romantic symphonies might bore you. In either way, it is good to explore both and find one that especially pleases you. Quality music does wonders this way.

 

[ArtMusic]

Only large orchestra (or solo piano) - chamber music tends to bore me to death.

Which works do you enjoy? Your post is exactly why I wanted to explore this. I know of people who only listen to large scale orchestral and find chamber music boring.

 

[ArtMusic]

As once a classical music radio host , I preferred broadcasting chamber music recordings understanding the limitations of most audio equipment . Listening live in a concert hall is a different acoustic feeling - all can be fine . In a crazy space sometimes only a soloist can best make sense .

Good point. I find radio listening on large scale music very unpleasant for some reason because of the signal or maybe because of the speaker. But that's got nothing to do with the music, obviously.

 

[ArtMusic]

This is one of the greatest chamber works. It was perhaps the first example of pre-Romantic chamber music and it certainly set the standard for such ensembles for centuries to follow.

 

[ArtMusic]

Do you have more of these? I'm in heaven.

Of course, one of the greatest composers who ever lived wrote more:

 

[ArtMusic]

Chamber music and solo piano exclusively. I actually do not care for orchestral music, except for those composers who treat the orchestra as a group of chamber ensembles.

So you do not care for symphonies, concertos and the like?

 

[ArtMusic]

I don't prefer chamber music per se but it turns out that many/most of my favorite composers wrote more of it than orchestral music, especially if one takes into account that a lot of baroque "orchestral" music is closer to chamber ensemble (~6-12 players) than modern orchestra.

Who are your favorite composers?

 

[ArtMusic]

No preference. It depends on the music materials and the musical language of the composer.

Yes, both genres exhibit masterpieces by various composers. It's good fun listening to them.

 

[ArtMusic]

Maybe I should have mentioned it: Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, Chopin, Dvorak, Handel, Bartok, Mahler, Mendelssohn....
Many of them have very good orchestral music, others very little or it is dwarved by their solo/chamber (Schumann, Schubert). My favorite mostly orchestral composers are probably Mahler, Bruckner and Wagner, but in general I am not the biggest fan of late romantic/early modern orchestral music (although of course there are some pieces I like a lot). And in some cases, such as Shostakovich I prefer the chamber music (but this might be a special case as his symphonies are very diverse and uneven, the concertos are mostly as consistently good as the chamber works).

Generally, I far more centered on composers than genres.

Yes, you have already mentioned the Top 5 in my list. I too, am more centered on composers than genres. Great composers tend to never fail to impress whatever the genre they indulge their creativity in. When Handel could be bothered to write orchestral music, he excelled even though that was not his vocation; perfect example.

 

[ArtMusic]

It`s not very easy to deceive the listener in chamber, not easy to bombast your way through it. Music is all there, no need for a mediator. I probably listen orchestral music more in an average day but when I`m feeling down or in need, I seek solace in chamber music. I consider the best examples of the orchestral music such as Mahler Symphonies as Gods and I worship them in my own way whereas I regard the best specimens of chamber music such as those by Brahms as close friends, lovers or beloved family members to whom I feel a genuine affinity. In accordance with this analogy, I`d say I prefer chamber music by a significant margin...

Many approach Brahms that way, for he was better with his chamber music than with his large scale orchestral music.

 

[ArtMusic]

Here is a solo "chamber music", well in fact it is performed in a cathedral.

Organ: Arp Schnitger, ca. 1700

 

[ArtMusic]

Which composers treat the orchestra as a group of chamber ensembles? Ravel and Debussy?

There are many examples of using a concertino string trio within a concerto grosso. Corelli and Handel for example wrote perfected and masterful examples of this in their respective opus 6 sets, both were published and widely distributed. They were the earliest masters at utilizing this.

 

[ArtMusic]

^Yes, I agree. That is correct. The concertino is an offspring from the trio sonata ensemble merged with a large ensemble for the Baroque orchestra (whatever the size, as this could also vary from court to court). At the premiere of Handel's La Resurrezione, the masterpiece was written by the 23 year old, it featured a gigantic orchestra with about 40 string players (as records show) and yet the opening sinfonia had the illustrious Arcangelo Correlli leading the solo:

 

[ArtMusic]

What do you all think of this?: as someone who enjoys classical music alongside many other idioms, what draws me to classical music is a certain kind of engagement with harmonies/melodies/counterpoint that I don't often find elsewhere. Orchestral music often takes these foundations and adds to them timbral/textural/dynamic exploration, which in the context of classical music I mostly don't care about, because I can listen to electroacoustic, ambient, noise, and other electronic musics in which the sonic vistas of timbre, texture and dynamics are orders of magnitude more wide-open than anything that can be done with an orchestra. Therefore I find myself strongly drawn towards chamber music.

Well very put and I can see a different perspective that I agree with. The small ensemble works and even solo works demand a clear interplay of the voices. Orchestral music do often take the foundations and add the qualities you wrote. That's why some consider say the Romantic large scale symphonies to sound bombastic as times. Similarly, if you listen to piano transcriptions of large scale works, you might feel it is a little "water downed". Listen to Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's epic symphonies for piano and you might see this. With chamber music, many composers turn out better at writing for this because they can control the voices clearer without being tempted to add the extra timbre, dynamic exploration etc. such as Brahms with his chamber music.

 

[ArtMusic]

^Yes, indeed it goes without saying the early chamber orchestras are magnificent. Obviously the orchestra had to start somewhere, it wasn't going to be a 100 musicians strong band from day one.