It often strikes me that certain composers - usually unsungs - are at their best in their chamber music. One such who occurs to me is Robert Fuchs: did he write anything quite as sublime as the opening movement of his 1st Piano Quartet?
Have friends any other candidates in this category?
Absolutely - tons of 'em. Just a few:
Théodore Dubois
Arthur Foote
George Whitefield Chadwick
Heitor Villa-Lobos (on the strength of his marvelous String Quartets)
Robert Volkmann
Sergei Taneyev
PS - Agree about the Fuchs Piano Quartet
Villa-Lobos? Perhaps the SQs are unsung...well, maybe he is frightfully underperformed for such an important composer.
Well, yes, Villa-Lobos. I wonder when was the last time a work of his was performed somewhere? I couldn't say. In all my years of concert-going I've never heard one live.
Anyway, I believe his 17 String Quartets rival those of Shostakovich for a body of 20th century chamber works.
Hmmm - maybe I would add to the list Guy Ropartz. While his symphonies are wonderful, the six string quartets probably interest me more. I love their smell of the sea and the Brittany coast.
In my honest and strong but subjective opinion, Rheinberger...
Eric
Quote from: febnyc on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 01:24
Hmmm - maybe I would add to the list Guy Ropartz. While his symphonies are wonderful, the six string quartets probably interest me more. I love their smell of the sea and the Brittany coast.
I've only heard the 6th so far, but it's terrific.
Eric
The Villa-Lobos string quartets are wonderful but the best of V-L? Better than the non-chamber choros' & Bachianas Brasileiras', and the ballets...? Perhaps you admire the concentration and economy of the quartets (two words that admitedly seldom pop up in a discussion of the V-L oeuvre), but really, someone who has only heard the quartets has a very limited and misleading picture of who V-L was. The sprawl, orchestral excess and overreaching are part of the man and artist. Of course, those are not qualities dear to everyone's heart, as they are to mine.
For myself, I would second Rheinberger, and add Thuille and Gernsheim.
David
Quote from: edurban on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 02:55
The Villa-Lobos string quartets are wonderful but the best of V-L? Better than the non-chamber choros' & Bachianas Brasileiras', and the ballets...? Perhaps you admire the concentration and economy of the quartets (two words that admitedly seldom pop up in a discussion of the V-L oeuvre), but really, someone who has only heard the quartets has a very limited and misleading picture of who V-L was. The sprawl, orchestral excess and overreaching are part of the man and artist. Of course, those are not qualities dear to everyone's heart, as they are to mine.
For myself, I would second Rheinberger, and add Thuille and Gernsheim.
David
Hard to say about some of these?- more is available to hear now, even if now out of 'print' again, by e.g. Rheinberger (though more in some branches of his output than others; not even overtures, I think, to Rheinberger's several operas have been recorded) than from others (very little by Gernsheim at all so far I think- of an output of 100-odd works with opus no., an increasing amount of chamber music and five- six, possibly, including live broadcasts??- orchestral and concertante works have been, to my knowledge, recently revived- maybe a few more... I don't recall or even know exactly :) ) So having seen certain choral works (e.g. the Scene, "Agrippina", from 1881, around the 2nd symphony) by Gernsheim only in score, and voice/chorus/piano score at that (usually the scores at IMSLP...), I couldn't say how they fit in quality :)
Eric
The four Gernsheim symphonies can be heard in surprisingly fine performances on Arte Nova (considering that G. was hardly even a blip on the radar when they were recorded) and the cello concerto excellently done on Hyperion. Very nice pieces all, but oh, those piano quintets and quartets!!! Absolutely masterful. Equal, I feel, to any contemporary works in the same forms, something which (with all due respect and affection) cannot be said of the Gernsheim orchestral works so far recorded. IMO.
David
I consider both the Stenhammar and the Bloch string quartets to be neglected high points of the literature, though I wouldn't suggest their best works in other genres are inferior.
Quote from: febnyc on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 01:21
Well, yes, Villa-Lobos. I wonder when was the last time a work of his was performed somewhere? I couldn't say. In all my years of concert-going I've never heard one live.
Anyway, I believe his 17 String Quartets rival those of Shostakovich for a body of 20th century chamber works.
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.
Raff. Often the work in other genres of a composer who is tagged a "symphonist" is pretty much disregarded despite the fact that symphonies, even eleven of them, make up only a very small proportion of his output. So it has always been with Raff, at least outside the hallowed halls of this forum. For me, Raff is at his consistent best in his chamber music. To have produced such uniformly inspired sets as the four piano trios, five violin sonatas and two piano quartets is a huge achievement. Only the eight string quartets display the variability of quality within and between works which is, in my opinion, the hallmark of his symphonic cycle. His single contributions to the genres of String Octet and Sextet, Piano Quintet and Cello Sonata together with the pioneering Sinfonietta for ten winds match this high standard. Indeed, the Piano Quintet is arguably his best work in any genre.
Thanks for all these thoughts. So here's a follow-up question: 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?
Cyril Scott. The Chandos and Naxos cd's of his chamber music and instrumental music have had more play time in my cd player than any of the cd's of orchestral music. He seemed to express himself more eloquently in those mediums. There is a clarity and lightness that is missing from his orchestral music,and a far greater range of expression.
I would,also place it above his piano music,which passes the time very well, but,the sonata aside,tends to be somewhat forgettable.
I hope some of the enterprising small labels out there record more.
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,
...................................................
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).
Quote from: JimL on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 07:06
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.
"...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
Agreed, there' s no two ways about it: orchestral music, and especially symphonies and concertos, is the thing on which reputations are built.
Quote from: edurban on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 13:40
"...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!
Quote from: Mark Thomas on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 13:56
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...
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.
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).
QuoteQuatsch.
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".
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.
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.
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!).
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...
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?
A minority of one, I suspect, but one of my favorites in Martucci's......but then I'm a sucker for a lovely melody.....
I agree that Kiel fits the profile. Draeseke, although he wrote a number of chamber music masterpieces, seems to me much more of an all-round composer. And I would say that his supreme masterpiece is the 3rd Symphony. Nevertheless, I am not surprised, Peter, that you have been so taken by his chamber music - and, if pushed, I might choose a work from that genre if asked to select just one to take to my desert island...
Quote from: jerfilm on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 18:03
A minority of one, I suspect, but one of my favorites in Martucci's......but then I'm a sucker for a lovely melody.....
Not really a minority of one - I, too, love Martucci's melodies.
But I'd rank his Piano Concertos equally with his lovely chamber works.
Quote from: febnyc on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 18:54
Quote from: jerfilm on Wednesday 08 September 2010, 18:03
A minority of one, I suspect, but one of my favorites in Martucci's......but then I'm a sucker for a lovely melody.....
Not really a minority of one - I, too, love Martucci's melodies.
But I'd rank his Piano Concertos equally with his lovely chamber works.
Me too. And the two symphonies, especially No.2. Therefore, in my view, Martucci doesn't really fit the profile.
BTW, to return to Friedrich Kiel, his Cello Sonata in G minor - actually his own transcription of his Viola Sonata - is sublime. It seems to me that cellists have far more material from which to choose than is often supposed!
Though not unsung, Gabriel Fauré comes to mind as a good test subject for Alan's follow-up hypothesis. He excelled at chamber music but has a marginal place in the orchestral repertory. Is GF less famous (I won't say 'well regarded') than symphonists Franck or Saint-Saens, who also wrote their share of chamber music?
Even so, Faure's three most popular works by FAR as his Pavane (orchestra), Requiem (voices, chorus, and small orchestra), and Pelleas and Melisande (orchestra, though the sceclliane was originally a chamber piece for cello).
And Frank wrote one symphony, Saint-Saens only one of any sungness. The later of course has a VERY popular chamber work -- Carnival of the Animals -- though granted it's usually played with orchestra-sized strings instead of one to a part.
I would say that, were it not for his Requiem, Fauré wouldn't be anything like as well known as he is. His reputation would rest largely on his chamber music, which in my opinion does represent his supreme achievement as a composer. Nevertheless, he is not an unsung...
Saint-Saëns was surely an all-rounder, as was Franck.
My vote would to to Taneyev and Smetana, most of all. Smetana I find pretty insufferable as a symphonist, but almost all of his chamber pieces are superb. With Taneyev there isn't much I don't like, but I certainly prefer his piano quintet and piano quartets above anything else.
Glinka - With the exception of Ruslan and Lyudmila overture, I believe he's best at chamber especially the Grand Sextet, the unfinished Viola sonata
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 09 September 2010, 09:33
I would say that, were it not for his Requiem, Fauré wouldn't be anything like as well known as he is. His reputation would rest largely on his chamber music, which in my opinion does represent his supreme achievement as a composer. Nevertheless, he is not an unsung...
No, indeed he isn't - what about his songs?!...
At the risk of going slightly off topic (or am I?), if you like Fauré's songs, you have to listen to those by Duparc. Simply ravishing!
Didn't Duparc die young? If so, did he leave any chamber music?
He actually lived to a ripe old age of 85, dying in 1933. However, he had to stop composing in 1885 at the young age of 37 due to a brain condition known as neurasthenia, which rendered Duparc incapable ofcomposing anything ever again (tragic!). He was not a prolific composer during these early years and so left only a few works, nearly entirely songs. The only chamber music he left was a Flute Sonata.
Quote from: ahinton on Thursday 09 September 2010, 14:05
Quote from: Alan Howe on Thursday 09 September 2010, 09:33
I would say that, were it not for his Requiem, Fauré wouldn't be anything like as well known as he is. His reputation would rest largely on his chamber music, which in my opinion does represent his supreme achievement as a composer. Nevertheless, he is not an unsung...
No, indeed he isn't - what about his songs?!...
Oops - quite forgot about those! Yes, he's a song-composer of the first rank, of course.
Everyone's heard of Faure,but I think some of his chamber music & instrumental music gets less attention than it deserves. I love all his orchestral music & would prefer to listen to it than the more gaudy brilliance & 'pop' tunes of Ravel,any day! But there certainly is a consensus of opinion around that his chamber & instrumental music is better.
Quote from: Delicious Manager on Thursday 09 September 2010, 17:12
He actually lived to a ripe old age of 85, dying in 1933. However, he had to stop composing in 1885 at the young age of 37 due to a brain condition known as neurasthenia, which rendered Duparc incapable ofcomposing anything ever again (tragic!). He was not a prolific composer during these early years and so left only a few works, nearly entirely songs. The only chamber music he left was a Flute Sonata.
?
Duparc apparently left a cello sonata from 1867 that's been recorded, and some orchestral music (a work inspired by Lenore, for example) in addition to his songs, but not much in all, agreed. Did not know there was also a flute sonata too.
Eric