Composers at their best in Chamber Music?

[FBerwald]

I wouldn't say strictly that he was only bes in chamber music ... more like an all rounder but the "American" - Quartet Op. 96 and Quintet Op. 97, the Violin Sonatina Op. 100 and Piano Quintet "Dumky"Op.81 would show Dvorak as a master .. There are certainly lots of others to chose from his vast Chamber output.

Some others I would nominate are -

Coleridge-Taylor - Clarinet Quintet,
Louise Farrenc  - Nonette (..and many others...)
Bruch - Octet, String Quartet No. 1, etc,
Glazunov (Horribly neglected) - String Quartet No. 3 in G major 'Slavonic', String Quartet No. 5 in D minor, String Quartet No. 7
                                                  in C major 'Homage to the Past', String Quintet in A major, etc
Alan Hovhaness - The Garden of Adonis - Suite for Flute and Harp, 'Spirit of Trees' Sonata for Harp and Guitar and MANY more!!!,
Reynaldo Hahn - Sonata in C major for violin & piano, Piano Quintet,
Saint-Saëns - Sonatas for wind instruments, etc,
...................................................

[Alan Howe]

I think this thread is in danger of getting off-topic. I'm not really interested in good, but neglected chamber music here (although that is a fascinating topic in itself, of course); what I am trying to uncover is whether there is a category of composers whose best work is arguably their chamber music. Hence Fuchs - and Rheinberger seems to me to fit here too, as perhaps do Gernsheim (although we don't know his violin concertos and his symphonies are very fine - much superior to those of Fuchs or Rheinberger, for example) and Taneyev (although his 4th is one of the great unsung symphonies).

[febnyc]

Well, frankly, if you're going to vouch for V-L's quartets, how about Nikolai Myaskovsky's?  Although I'm not familiar with all of them, I'm sure Amphissa has probably heard them all.  I don't know if they outshine his other works, but they are a considerable achievement to be sure.

I have all the Miaskovsky Quartets - and agree that they are a "considerable achievement" indeed.  However, I prefer the Villa-Lobos because of their variety and life.  They simply appeal to me more.  And, yes, I think these are the best of V-L's output - even considering the Chôros and the kaleidoscopic Piano Concertos.  Some of his Symphonies are OK - but some are sorta dull.  Simply one opinion.

[edurban]

"...Can it be said that the unsung status of some of the best neglected composers is attributable to the fact that their best music is not orchestral, or operatic, or even choral, but chamber and instrumental?..."

I would say absolutely so, Alan.  The "masterwork repertory" since Beethoven has been weighted in favor of big heaven-storming works for the largest available forces (naturally there are exceptions.)  Sometimes being a specialist in this area helps an unsung...look at the Mahler revival.  I'm betting, though, that if Mahler had been a chamber music specialist, he'd still be a niche composer today, revered by the few...

David

[Mark Thomas]

Agreed, there' s no two ways about it: orchestral music, and especially symphonies and concertos, is the thing on which reputations are built.

[Kriton]

"...Can it be said that the unsung status of some of the best neglected composers is attributable to the fact that their best music is not orchestral, or operatic, or even choral, but chamber and instrumental?..."

I would say absolutely so, Alan.  The "masterwork repertory" since Beethoven has been weighted in favor of big heaven-storming works for the largest available forces (naturally there are exceptions.)  Sometimes being a specialist in this area helps an unsung...look at the Mahler revival.  I'm betting, though, that if Mahler had been a chamber music specialist, he'd still be a niche composer today, revered by the few...

David

Very well said - chamber music is not really for the masses. They prefer either a grand musical drama (opera), the overwhelming sound of a large symphony orchestra or the one-hero shows at the piano - wasn't Liszt largely responsible for pulling music for solo piano out of the chamber atmosphere? We contribute to this by letting everyone - from piano soloists to symphony orchestras - perform in large concert halls, but saving the chamber music for more chamber-like surroundings.

I feel music for just a couple of instruments, chamber music, will always belong to a small elite (within the elite that is the whole of the classical music enthusiasts, nowadays) that doesn't necessarily need (I don't say: like!) lots of brass to convey a feeling of monumentality - or simply to be entertained. Insert famous Goethe quote on string quartet here... For me, chamber music will always constitute the peak of art, culture and indeed, civilisation as a whole as measured by our delightfully decadent, European standards.

That is not to say I don't love a good Mahler (or a good Raff, for that matter) every now and again!

[Kriton]

Agreed, there' s no two ways about it: orchestral music, and especially symphonies and concertos, is the thing on which reputations are built.

Quatsch.

Wagner, Rossini, Verdi, Puccini? Operas were until rather recently the thing on which reputations are built.

Chopin, Liszt? Both wrote 2 piano concertos (horrible in their own way) but their reputation rests mainly on a body of solo works.

They all belong to the most famous of composers...

[febnyc]

I agree with what seems to be the prevailing sentiment here that it is the grand gesture - the orchestral music - which determines a composer's reputation.  Today, especially, bigger and more outrageous seems to be what the hoi polloi are seeking.  I used to be an inveterate goer to Broadway musicals.  No more - why?  Because, in pandering to the mass tastes, these productions have become loud beyond belief, and the singers all want to out scream the next one.  Subtlety is a thing of the past, and not only in music.  So much today is in-your-face entertainment or news or sport. 

And therefore chamber music, a relatively delicate and, in comparison to other forms, for the most part subdued art, is overwhelmed by all the racket around us.  Perhaps it takes maturity to appreciate chamber works; to seek out its hidden virtues and to contemplate the understated qualities it presents to us.

The salon has morphed into the sound stage.  The delicacy of a quartet has been englufed by the mega-amplifier.  Cacophony surrounds us - in the streets, in film, on the stage and on television.  To listen to a String Quartet is to escape the din of contemporary living.

[febnyc]

Back to the subject - and another nomination:  Karol Szymanowski.

I never took to his Symphonies or even his relatively popular Violin Concertos.  But his two String Quartets really are excellent.  They're dense, taut and electric.  For me, this Polish composer is best represented by these chamber works (and, also, by his solo piano pieces).

[Mark Thomas]

Quatsch.

I feel crushed.

My remark was made in the context of the previous posts comparing composers whose reputations come from their orchestral music with those who wrote excellent chamber music, but who are less well known. Opera didn't come into it, but I suppose one could argue that it is a species of orchestral music if one wanted to ..... not that I can be bothered.

As for Chopin and Liszt, why, they're the "exceptions that prove the rule".

[Delicious Manager]

An argument could be made for Shostakovich. Although some of his larger-scale works are extremely fine (symphonies 1, 4, 8, 10 and 13, Violin Concerto No 1, Cello Concerto No 1, The Execution of Stepan Razin and the score for the 1964 film Hamlet being the finest, in my opinion), it was in his chamber music that he allowed himself his most personal utterances. His 15 string quartets are far more consistent in quality than the symphonies (of which there are some very second-rate examples). If you add-in the two piano trios, the piano quintet, the two pieces for string octet Op 11 and the violin sonata (I can't vote for the cello sonata, as I feel it's a great deal less good than his other chamber music), you have a very strong body of work indeed.

[Pengelli]

In defence of 'Hovhaness'. Not sure that I quite agree there. While some of his large scale works,and particularly his symphonies,do have a tendency to 'go on a bit',I think that some of his smaller and less abstract orchestral music is extremely effective. Also,some of his concerto's. The fundamental problem with Hovhaness is that the East/ West  idiom & techniques that he was using are,by their own specific nature, fundamentally non symphonic. While I do think that Hovhaness was a genuine,and still 'unsung' original & that what he was trying to do was,in it's own way, commendable,it is unfortunate that, fifty odd symphonies later,he had failed to recognise this!  Still, kudo's to Hovhaness for trying.
Hope this doesn't interrupt the thread.

[Pengelli]

Actually,I did! Apologies. I do agree with the comments about Shostakovich. His string quartets in particular seem to achieve everything the symphonies seem to set out to do.  They certainly impress me far more than the symphonies,some of which seem a tad bombastic, and very possibly overrated. Okay,Shostakovich wasn't a Hovhaness, (see above!), but some of them do go on a bit,(yawn!).

[Alan Howe]

I think the point about Chopin and Liszt is that, between them, they wrote almost no chamber music. They fit in the category of heroic performer-composers and are therefore in actual fact much closer to those who made their names through their orchestral/operatic compositions. Theirs was arguably still the music of the grand Romantic gesture.

BTW I agree with Mark: the story of Romantic-period opera is one of greater and greater orchestral participation and sophistication. Many have argued that Wagner's Ring is actually an enormous symphony...

[Peter1953]

A composer who comes to mind is Kiel. I love his well-crafted, subtle chamber music. On the other hand, the only orchestral work I know is his PC, which never impressed me much.

Is it tricky to mention Draeseke? For the past few days I'm getting overwhelmed by some of his chamber music. What a most delightful Cello Sonata. A winner. And the string quartets and quintets are ever so beautiful. Is his orchestral work less interesting and (especially) intimate than his chamber music? His first 3 symphonies, above all the Sinfonia Tragica, are beautiful. But I find his chamber music so very intimate, and that's precisely what makes it so catchy for me.
Alan, you are an expert on Draeseke's music. Do you recognize something of my listening experience?