# A Preferred Medium



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

I've heard a few times that composer's write their best works--whatever that means--for string quartet. Often, it's coming from someone...in a quartet. I would venture a pianist prefers _klavier-werke_, a soprano would choose choral, etc.

What do you all think? *Do you believe composer's generally write their best music for a particular genre?* Does it depend on the composer? Does it depend on the listener?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I think it depends on the composer but this also depends on the resources available to them in the time they write as well. Performers, commissions all effect what they write in and the development of their work.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Well, I don't seem to have much luck with threads as of late but...

I thought this was an interesting concept and I'll just add my two cents:

I do believe chamber music, in general, is where you'll find composers' best works. Of course, this doesn't play in practice throughout history (most obvious being Mahler, Wagner), but given a full repetoire of compositions by a composer, should he/she composed chamber music, I posit that is where their true talent shines.

For one, the range of instrumentation is limited both numerically and tonally, at least compared to, say, an orchestral, operatic, or choral work (though not necessarily always the latter). Dynamics can dramatically alter how one interprets a piece of music. While a quartet can certainly move up and down the decibel range, that violin isn't returning to the tonic with quite the same force (i.e. volume) as a french horn, piano, background timpani, or, mind you, eight violins would.

Moreover, the dynamics within an orchestra can easily drown out or metamorphose particular melodic lines -- thus making a once generic, simple theme appear complex and powerful.

In addition, within the chamber music genre, the ability to contrast melodic lines between instruments -- different keys, tempos, etc -- is necessarily limited given the intimacy of performing group (whatever that may be). The voices are more obvious, highlighting each instrument/melodic line in the work. The interplay of performers and themes becomes even more important, given the "clarity," if you will, of sound. Not only is a mistake made more obvious, but that dreaded "lack of inspiration" can become clear to the listener as well.

In general, chamber works require thematic subtlety and melodic intensity at once. They require a supreme talent to sound, well, just _good_. They can so easily be _dull_, slow, quiet given their limited scope -- things that are so easily defeated by adding instruments, dynamics, length. But the chamber genre does not do so.

None of that may have made sense, but I do believe it could partially answer why a piano trio feels more powerful than a symphony.

Though, I'm not hating on the latter!


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think there are areas where a composer is obviously more comfortable. Mozart found string quartets maybe to be a genre he worked at harder than piano concertos, for instance, and a theory could be that he was a theatre guy at heart so he preferred the big stage productions. Obviously, he was a bit of a dab hand at opera.

But he was also great at chamber music, and it's just that the string quartet, great as he was at it, was one where he made more corrections than others. This could also be put down to the obvious effort he put into the SQ's for Haydn, which are marvelous.

On the opposite side, his PC's are certainly a preferred medium, and so is opera. In fact, had he been asked to only compose opera and nothing else for the last ten years of his life, he'd have happily given us so much more opera...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Avey said:


> I do believe chamber music, in general, is where you'll find composers' best works. Of course, this doesn't play in practice throughout history (most obvious being Mahler, Wagner), but given a full repetoire of compositions by a composer, should he/she composed chamber music, I posit that is where their true talent shines.


This just sounds like your preference and you just ignore the point I made. Obviously chamber music will highlight some strengths, but other genres can highlight other strengths, and I don't think you consider that. Ultimately the individual composer and how their strengths are developed are more important than giving a universal hierarchy to genres. But if you are specifically interested in chamber music maybe you want to make a thread related to that.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

starry said:


> This just sounds like your preference and you just ignore the point I made. Obviously chamber music will highlight some strengths, but other genres can highlight other strengths, and I don't think you consider that. Ultimately the individual composer and how their strengths are developed are more important than giving a universal hierarchy to genres. But if you are specifically interested in chamber music maybe you want to make a thread related to that.


Well first, clearly chamber music is my preference; this is all opinion here.

Second, I don't know if I so much ignored your point than simply stated my opinion. I laid out some reasons why I feel that composers, generally, produce their best works within the chamber music genre. If I were to respond directly to your point: Yes, you're absolutely right that these external factors come into play. But it doesn't necessarily play into proposition; I still find chamber music best illustrates composers' talents.

And of course I didn't consider the strengths of other genres. Again I'm explaining my proposition, my opinion, not doing a walkthrough of why each and every genre could fit the proposed label.

But I'm happy if you disagree or have no opinion on the matter. I didn't start this thread to get people on my bandwagon -- _more chamber music!_ and all. I wanted to see if any others felt one particular genre brings out the best in composers, generally.


----------

