[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

A thread specifically for new music fans. Because seeing large scale premieres is much less common than small scale premieres I would be interested to know if one is generally preferred over the other. New orchestral works and operas are very exciting, but I think there is a very different atmosphere in a chamber music concert or solo recital that features new pieces.



Large scale I suppose would include operas, choral music, orchestral music and very large ensembles or many performers in some multimedia piece in which music is a big part.

Small scale would include solo and chamber music, few instrumentalists.

Picking both options in the poll just means "both," so there is no category for it.

 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

oh dang I forgot to make the poll multiple choice!

 

[ArtMusic]

A new large grand epic piece.

 

[science]

My fantasy alter-ego, the drop-dead sexy billionaire playboy (the main difference between him and me is the money), only commissions large scale works.

 

[ptr]

Multiple choice would have been better! I'd say both and any form in between!! :tiphat:

/ptr

 

[SimonNZ]

I've had more success and enjoyment/excitement from new chamber/ensemble works. I'm not sure why that might be.

Open to all other forms, of course, but I have noted that statistical anomaly in success/failure ratio.

 

[Andolink]

Size doesn't matter.

 

[Mahlerian]

Both. If the music's good, the medium is only a part of that.

 

[Fagotterdammerung]

While I am happy to see both, I seem to see a lot more imagination in the chamber premiers than orchestral ones I've seen lately. I'm not sure why, but there just seems to be less retread of familiar ideas.

I'm also someone usually focused on timbre. I'm much more likely to go see a wind quintet, a harp or horn trio, etc. than a string quartet or solo piano recital. With orchestras the level of imagination varies to the point where I may get interesting timbres - or I may not.

 

[arpeggio]

It's not important how big it is, it's what you do with it. :devil:

 

[Ukko]

Oops. When I read 'large scale' I associated it with duration, not forces. Just talking forces, it doesn't matter to me.

[Jeez. Haven't had a drink yet, either.]

 

[Simon Moon]

I am about 50/50 between small and large scale. With a bit of preference toward large scale, only because there is quite a bit less large scale modern works being performed.

 

[SeptimalTritone]

OMG guys small scale music is far far better. There's so much more intimacy and expressiveness. This holds from Bach to Lachenmann.

Here are some outstanding examples of small scale 21st century pieces:

 

[PetrB]

While I am happy to see both, I seem to see a lot more imagination in the chamber premiers than orchestral ones I've seen lately. I'm not sure why, but there just seems to be less retread of familiar ideas.

I'm also someone usually focused on timbre. I'm much more likely to go see a wind quintet, a harp or horn trio, etc. than a string quartet or solo piano recital. With orchestras the level of imagination varies to the point where I may get interesting timbres - or I may not.

The reason I think that the larger symphonic works tend to be, as you said and I find, often on the duller side is due I think in large part to the conservatism of the various boards of directors who are a large determining factor there.

The smaller ensembles are often self-regulating, and there you get more direct musician's choice (and the risk-taking that goes along with those choices) and those tend to be more adventurous.

As far as which genre, you don't give epic ideas to a chamber ensemble they can not pull off, and you don't slap string quartet ideas onto a symphonic piece, though the latter has the option, like one finds in Mahler and many other composers, of writing which encompasses the range from full force tutti to a handful of players within one piece.

On the pragmatic front, as far as the younger composer who has yet to make the larger reputation and finding willing players and a real opportunity for a work to be performed, the chamber music is the way to go -- another reason why you may find a larger variety of more adventurous music there.

I like both, each for what they are. I do have a personal tic, often finding piano + 1 or ensembles of less than four instruments (may be mixed or homogenous) getting dull to my ear pretty quickly.

 

[isorhythm]

I generally like small-scale pieces more than large-scale, but I answered large-scale in the poll because I don't think I've ever, in my whole life, heard a brand-new large-scale work performed! I would like to someday. There is something to be said for epic.

 

[Weston]

I also picked large scale thinking in terms of length, forgetting for a second it might refer to how many aircraft are employed.

Now I'm thinking smaller scale might work better for introducing composers. It's more intimate as has been stated. But the cool thing is with new music it doesn't have to be a traditional size at all. 13 musicians works fine

 

[PetrB]

OMG guys small scale music is far far better. There's so much more intimacy and expressiveness. This holds from Bach to Lachenmann.

Here are some outstanding examples of small scale 21st century pieces:

Thank you much for the links.

However, I do play the field, and the ideas suitable for the forces involved is why I love all of it.
The intimacy of chamber music is often lost in current live performance, the economics of so many seats at so much cost per has too much chamber music being played in halls the capacity of which is far over 400 people. I love it when there is chamber music in a venue that seats 400, or ideally, less. That is when the player-to-audience ratio makes it truly intimate. [This may be a 'very American problem,' i.e. few good halls of smaller size, where there are such things still in use in Europe.]

But a chamber orchestra, full orchestra, with ideas realized directly and well for just that number of players -- all more than good