I have a theory that classical music fans divide into those that like
chamber music, and those who like symphonic music.  I myself am a chamber
music lover, what I like about chamber music is it's intimacy, it's
clarity (I can here themes clearly) and it's density (complexity with
simple means). Secondly I like concertos which to me have many of the
virtues of chamber music. I tend find symphonic music (esp. after
classical era) bombastic and hard to take though I do like some individual
pieces like Berlioz Symphony Fantastique. Opera I don't like in the least
bit, although I *might* be able to sit thorough a Mozart opera as the
melodies are quite stunning, but sitting still for hours would be a
challenage for me. :-)

Some factors that I think influence my love of chamber music include that
I came to classical music after hearing jazz & rock, so small ensables
are more familiar to me than performences by large groups (I don't as a
rule like big band music either).  My age being at 30 a relatively young
classical music listener perhaps I will come to like symphonic music more
as I get older?

Perhaps this theory also is B.S.?  Do you like chamber music, symphonic,
opera, or all or some of the above?  Please explain why.

 

24 responses total.

Si gustibus non diputandum est.

Je ne parle pas latin.

"There is no disputing taste."

Or "There's no arguing with Gus."  (And I believe it's "*De* gustibus" and
"disputandum", FWIW.)

My own preference is for music from the periods when chamber music was the
norm, and the texture of the small ensemble - grainier, each instrument
distinctly heard - is part of that.  Nonetheless, I like a **lot** of
symphonic music very well, and there are within the symphonic repertoire many
great works which use the smoothed-out texture of a large orchestra to
advantage.  It's kind of like asking whether I like steak better than ice
cream (in contrast to asking for a preference between (say) Mendelssohn and
Brahms, which would be like comparing strawberry ice cream with butter
pecan).

Well, one can have both.  I pick the small ensembles in order to
get more challenging and prominent parts.  I turn my attention to the
radio for large symphonic works and let my daydreams run their course.

More often than not, when I reach into the CD collection for something to
play, I end up choosing a sonata, trio, quartet, or small chamber piece. 
That makes up the biggest chunk of what I purchase.  I guess I'd never
stopped to think of why this is so but I tend to agree with davel's
observations.  I also like one-person stage productions, small dinner
parties, and intimate conversations.  Maybe that's the bottom line, that
small groups tend to produce more intimate music. 

My favorite place to attend a concert in Ann Arbor is not Hill, it's the
apse at the Art Museum.  Kerrytown Concert House used to be my favorite
but they seem to have defected to Jazz over there. ;-) 

Certainly, if I had to pick between the two, I'd choose symphonic music.  But
I feel every form of music has its own merits and ideal setting(s), even
Country & Western...  :-)

I also see the merits of both...my favorites include works like 'rite of
spring' for a quite large orchestra, and also a good number of string
quartets, or even solo pieces.  It's a matter of what I'm looking for -- you
can't get the richness of 'rite of spring' out of a solo piano, nor can you
get teh clarity of a solo piano out of a full orchestra, but that should go
without saying.

I like just about anything as long as it's good. I don't really like a lot
of the modern stuff, because it is not very melodious. 
I think my favorite composer would have to be Bach. I can't think of any one
pice, but I think Bach is just about my favorite composer.

I suggest finding an old recording of: The eight movement Haffner Serenade
by Wolfgang A Mozart (not the Haffner Symphony which is only 4 movements) as
performed by The Berlin Philaharmonic under Herbert Von Karajian (Deutsche
Grammaphon) or as performed by the Boston Symphony under Sieji Ozawa. Great
Performances!

Well, my personal preferance happens to fall to choral music, but if I was
forced to choose between symphonic and chamber, I would choose syphonic.  I
really like the large, sweeping movements it can take...

I enjoy listening to symphonic *and* chamber work, but when it comes to
performing I prefer chamber groups, both as a cellist and when I used to do
a lot of singing. String quartets and chamber orchestras are my favorite, and
I think that my preferance is due to being able to communicate easily with
the other members of the group while performing. Leading my section in a
symphony orchestra also offers communication with other section leaders, but
there are so many people with who you can't communicate that it rather looses
it's effect, in my opinion.

I suppose, since I'm a bass player, my preference for symphonic music is only
natural-- there are only a few major chamber works for the bass-- Schubert's
"Trout" Quintet, Dvorak's Quintet, and the Beethoven Septet.  But symphonic
works with great bass parts are easy to find from about the classical era and
on.  So as a performer, I love being in the orchestra.... as far as I'm
concerned, a good orchestra communicates within itself.... if the basses and
the celli need to be communicating for some reason, then that's where my
attention goes, if I'm plying with the low brass, my attention goes there...
if I need to pay attention to the violins, then my attention goes there.  If
its a good night, and everyone is on, then there isnothing to compare (for
me at least) to playing with a large orchestra.  
        As a singer, I tend to perfer smaller groups, but this could be because
of the type of music I like to sing, and I like to listen to-- I lovce motets
and madrigals, and generally music from before 1650.... as far as orchestra
music goes, I tend to like 19th century music the best.

Well, I'm a pianist, so I've never really played orchestrally.  And most
likely never will, being as solo parts will go to others more skilled than
I, at least in the near future.  But, there's _loads_ of good chamber music,
of course, so I'm happy enough.

This is just my opinion.I was of the opinion that classical music exists only
in a hanfu of countries.India itself has to styles-Hindusthani and Carnatic.I
think China,Thailand,Eqypt have a history of classical music.Is the western
classical music home to only a few countries or all of the European countries?

All European countries, with different styles arising here and there, as
classical music evolved. I am not sure whether there was ever the same
exploration of musical possibilities for instrumental groups as occurred
throughout Europe, in Asian, African or South American countries. There
has always been musical forms everywhere, but I don't know that music
evolved as rapidly elsewhere.

It really depends, I think, on what you mean by "Classical music".  

The stuff we discuss in this conference.   ;)

Vishnu, as you can tell, most of the discussions so far have been 
about the European classical tradition.  If you'd like to start 
an item about Indian classical music I'm sure many here would be
interested in reading about it, even if we have little to say about 
it, and perhaps a discussion might begin among Grexers from India.
 
Europe is small enough, and composers and musicians have been 
mobile enough, that most of us would consider the European 
classical tradition to be fairly unified.  This has led to the 
fallacy that "music is a universal language;" that works in 
Europe but not worldwide.

There are conductors of American symphonies with Indian origins, but I
have never heard any music by Indian composers not of the European
classical tradition performed. Is Indian "classical" music really
"traditional"  music, or is there a different evolving instrumental
repertory? 

Re #19: Item 25 in this conference is about non-western classical
music.

From rereading Item 25 I would conclude that Indian classical music is
"traditional" and is not currently evolving as rapidly as European
classical music has since the Reformation. But, give European a couple of
more thousand years, like India has had, and maybe it won't be doing much
evolving. 

Guys,to be frank,I dont understand the term evolving.I think like anywhere
else in the world,there are the super-tradionalists who willn not swerve from
the path their gurus laid out for them and there are the 'innovators' who
experiment(not necessarily fusion music) but may not be aprreciated by
hardcore music lovers.Indian classical music is very distinct from its other
Asian,European and African counterparts.I have seen interesting research being
done in ..oops,on the effect of classical music on the human mind and there
are some hospitals here in India who use music therapy to cure their patients.
This apart,I dont know if western music has a concept of the tal(a system of
monitoring the beat,thats the nearest I can express this word).
Actually there are a lot of questions I am pondering about.How did classical
music the world over evolve?Did it take off from the folk music?But then (I
dont know about the other classical systems),if I continuously,or for a
prolonged period of time listemn to Indian classical music<i can say with some
degree of certainty that this is tradional and this is experimental music.So
I think classical music requires a deeper level of appreciation than rock or
folk music.Anyway,enough of my views for now.Bye.

I think tal was mentioned in the item on nonwestern classical traditions. 
If we could continue the discussion there it would be easier to find.  I would
certainly be interested to continue it.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss