# Do you want to do a TC top chamber?



## Pieck

We're the only sub-forum without this game-project
What do you think?
We can also do top SQs instead


----------



## Art Rock

I'm game to play along.


----------



## Pieck

It was supposed to be a poll, oh well.
BTW, nice going with the Brahms Clarinet Quintet :tiphat:


----------



## Delicious Manager

I'd throw-in the Enescu String Octet - simply outstanding.


----------



## peeyaj

Schubert's *String Quintet in C major, D.956*.. To me, the greatest chamber music ever written...

Disagree???


----------



## Delicious Manager

peeyaj said:


> Schubert's *String Quintet in C major, D.956*.. To me, the greatest chamber music ever written...
> 
> Disagree???


It's certainly 'up there'. Have you heard the Enescu Octet?


----------



## emiellucifuge

I think it should be done with each genre separate.

One for String quartets,

one for Wind ensembles,

one for PIano trios,

etc..


----------



## Art Rock

peeyaj said:


> Schubert's *String Quintet in C major, D.956*.. To me, the greatest chamber music ever written...
> 
> Disagree???


It's in my top2. The other one being Brhams' CQ.


----------



## Pieck

emiellucifuge said:


> I think it should be done with each genre separate.
> 
> One for String quartets,
> 
> one for Wind ensembles,
> 
> one for PIano trios,
> 
> etc..


But how much Wind ensembles does one know?

I cant say I know more than 15 PTs, so I think we should unite them to general top 100 chamber works


----------



## emiellucifuge

But IMO the forms are too different for valid comparison.

As are the criteria we use when we evaluate works of each type.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I agree with emiellucifuge - clumping all the different chamber genres together is not good. How about:

String quartets (a huge genre in its own right)
Chamber works with piano (which are not sonatas - unless we include sonatas?) such as Piano trios, quartets, quintets, etc (up to Carnival of the Animals)
Chamber works for strings which are NOT string quartets (ie trios, quintets, sextets, septets, octets, etc)
Works involving wind (this would include wind ensemble AND mixed string/wind ensembles without piano)

That's only four neat categories.


----------



## jurianbai

for string quartet I can list quite a number of them. string quintet as well. a little bit in piano,wind form. if this is done, i hope to see most exclusively chamber member to join in. it should be separate at least for string quartet, otherwise in chamber works, then we talking from Bach's solo violins , harp, guitar, winds works, piano works (the chopin and scriabin alone will enough to fill ... ;P ), and whatever combos that ever existed. 

this is not a symphony.

btw, i really don't have any idea how to do justice on this, at this moment.


----------



## Quartetfore

What ever form it takes, it`s always interesting.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I think solo instrumental works should be omitted as they are not strictly 'chamber' works (being for only one instrument and, therefore 'instrumental' works). We also have to decide whether of not to include sonatas, in which case I think that is another large section of its own.


----------



## Nix

I disagree. I don't think the average classical listener is familiar with 25 piano trios or wind ensembles, let alone 100. And knowing 100 string quartets itself is pushing it. Chamber music in general shares the quality of being a more intimate form of expression, the instruments are only a small factor... after all did we separate the TC 100 Symphonies between Chamber Orchestra, Symphony Orchestra, and Choral? 

I would however not include solo writing, as the dynamic of a single player performing, as opposed to a just a few, is very different. So keep it to 2 or more players, and of course no lieder (that would be a different list). Just my thoughts.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Does it have to be 100 items in the list? This is obviously a more specialised area. Perhaps the number should be smaller (25? 30? 50?).


----------



## tdc

I'd have to agree that it would get difficult to rate a large number of works if things got too specific. But either way I would probably paricipate.


----------



## Pieck

We can do 50 of each but I think the categories will be 
1. String ensembles (Dous, trios, quartets, quintets, sextets, septets, octets, string orchestras [kidding])
2.Sonatas (NOT SOLO PIANO, violin, viola, cello, double bass, winds, brass)
3.Piano + 2 thing and more (Trios, Quartets, Quintets, Sextets, Septets)
4. Winds ensembles or Wind (or more) + something

The last two can be lesser than 50 if it will be too hard

Agreed?


----------



## Webernite

Is it really worth doing a top 50 list of wind ensembles? I mean, maybe if we get _really_ bored, but...


----------



## Pieck

Webernite said:


> Is it really worth doing a top 50 list of wind ensembles? I mean, maybe if we get _really_ bored, but...


arent Brahms, Weber, Mozart Clarinet Quintets worth mentioning? or Brahms Clarinet Trio, or Beethoven Septet (Actually I dont like this one) and so on


----------



## Webernite

They're worth mentioning on _some_ list, but I don't think they deserve a list of their own. (Also: Why does nobody ever mention the Schubert Octet? It's a gigantic and complex work, very much underrated.)


----------



## jurianbai

i imagine something like tc 100 symphony where the list also thread for promoting lesser known pieces. haydn alone got 70+ sq (maybe about 10 for his best), beethoven can input about 10+, mozart, so decide the number and it will dictate whether it is only a 'standard' list or.... unique TC list.


----------



## Pieck

will everyone agree to start with string ensembles?


----------



## Webernite

OK, I'm in. 

:tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock

String ensembles is fine.


----------



## toucan

emiellucifuge said:


> I think it should be done with each genre separate.


yes!



> One for String quartets,
> 
> one for Wind ensembles,
> 
> one for PIano trios,
> 
> etc..


How about anything for strings alone (quartets, quintets, octets for strings, etc) in one category?
+ Anything with wind and/or brass instrument (thus ranging from Mozart Serenades and the various clarinet quintets & trios + piano and wind ensembles, as the winds are what gives those distinctive flair)
And then the pieces for piano and strings.

100 hundred seems too much in any case


----------



## Weston

Two interesting major genre lists going on simultaneously? I'll have to discipline myself to just read one of them and participate in the other. Maybe I'd better bow out of this one. However I can't wait to see where the Grosse Fuge ranks.


----------



## Pieck

Weston said:


> Two interesting major genre lists going on simultaneously? I'll have to discipline myself to just read one of them and participate in the other. Maybe I'd better bow out of this one. However I can't wait to see where the Grosse Fuge ranks.


Make the effort, it's not that hard.

I think for string ensembles (trio dous quartets quintets and so on) we'll make it top 50? ok? or more? less? I think we can find 50 pretty easilly


----------



## Quartetfore

50 quartets is a good number to use. I don`t see how you are going to find 50 string quintets, 20 or so is just about right. I think that you might have to lump piano trios, quartets, quintets and so on together. I have 67 recordings of piano trios, and while they are enjoyable to hear I doubt if that more then 10-15 could be called "great". I do have recordings of about 180 string quartets, so I know that area. In any case, count me in.


----------



## Delicious Manager

So, just to make it clear: we're starting with a 'Top 50' of strings-only chamber ensembles, right? That probably means everything between a string duo and a string nonet (I don't think there are any string dectets).

OK, I'm in!


----------



## Pieck

quartetfore said:


> 50 quartets is a good number to use. I don`t see how you are going to find 50 string quintets, 20 or so is just about right. I think that you might have to lump piano trios, quartets, quintets and so on together. I have 67 recordings of piano trios, and while they are enjoyable to hear I doubt if that more then 10-15 could be called "great". I do have recordings of about 180 string quartets, so I know that area. In any case, count me in.


not just quartet but any chamber string ensemble (string only)


----------



## Quartetfore

*Top 10*

In no special order. Haydn Op76#3 Beethoven Op59#1 Beethoven Op127 Beethoven Op 130 Schubert #14 Mendelssohn Op80 Dvorak Op96 Dvorak Op106 Borodin #2 Ravel Debussy Schostakovich #8 Bartok #4 It looks like I have 13 in my top 10--I never could count:lol: Add to the list Schuberts String Quintet, Mozart K 515 and Brahms 2nd String Quintet.


----------



## Webernite

quartetfore said:


> In no special order. Haydn Op76#3 Beethoven Op59#1 Beethoven Op127 Beethoven Op 130 Schubert #14 Mendelssohn Op80 Dvorak Op96 Dvorak Op106 Borodin #2 Ravel Debussy Schostakovich #8 Bartok #4 It looks like I have 13 in my top 10--I never could count:lol: Add to the list Schuberts String Quintet, Mozart K 515 and Brahms 2nd String Quintet.


You're probably looking for this thread.


----------



## Quartetfore

Right, I did post on the wrong thread. Though I never did care for it, I notice that the Mendelssohn Octet is missing from all the lists. By the number of recordings of it, it must be one one the most popular works in all of Chamber Music.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Delicious Manager said:


> _I think solo instrumental works should be omitted as they are not strictly 'chamber' works (being for only one instrument and, therefore 'instrumental' works)._


Defer to Ravellian.


----------



## Ravellian

Erm, I don't mean to sound biased, but considering how vast the keyboard repertoire is (including piano, harpsichord, and organ works), it would make sense for them to occupy a completely separate list. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about other "chamber" works (including ensembles and solo instrumental pieces w/piano accompaniment), but I believe the best grouping would be:

1: String ensemble works (string quartets, quintets, octets, etc. with at least 3 parts)
2: Other ensemble works (piano trios/quartets, wind ensembles, etc. with at least 3 parts)
3: Solo non-keyboard instrumental works (violin sonatas, cello sonatas, flute sonatas, etc., 2 parts only)
4: Solo keyboard works


DDD's lists group (1) and (2) together, which seems unfair because they both represent such a vast quantity of material. Yet there is not enough quality material within the subgroups of (2) to warrant separate lists (top 50 piano trios, top 50 wind ensembles, etc.), so those should be lumped together. We could easily create top 100 lists for the four groups above.


----------



## mmsbls

I'd love to see lists for:
1) String ensemble works (string quartets, quintets, octets, etc. with at least 3 parts)
2) Piano and strings ensemble works with at least 3 parts

I'd be happy to include other works (sole piano, etc.) as well if others want that.

What type of voting will be used? I'd rather not use the type we use for the Classical Music Project.


----------



## Pieck

mmsbls said:


> I'd love to see lists for:
> 1) String ensemble works (string quartets, quintets, octets, etc. with at least 3 parts)
> 2) Piano and strings ensemble works with at least 3 parts
> 
> I'd be happy to include other works (sole piano, etc.) as well if others want that.
> 
> What type of voting will be used? I'd rather not use the type we use for the Classical Music Project.


Just go here please and vote!
http://www.talkclassical.com/12581-tc-top-50-string.html


----------



## mmsbls

Pieck said:


> Just go here please and vote!
> http://www.talkclassical.com/12581-tc-top-50-string.html


Thanks for the pointer. I never read that thread because I thought it was about musicians and not pieces.


----------



## Webernite

:lol: 

I don't think Pieck was trying to be rude. He (she?) just wants the link to be big enough for everyone to notice.


----------



## Pieck

Very well said mister. Im male


----------



## jurianbai

mmsbls said:


> Thanks for the pointer. I never read that thread because I thought it was about musicians and not pieces.


after you said that I can see how the misunderstanding occured. so, to do justice I think we should do the top 50 string ensemble on MUSICIAN (group) also!!!:trp:


----------



## Pieck

jurianbai said:


> after you said that I can see how the misunderstanding occured. so, to do justice I think we should do the top 50 string ensemble on MUSICIAN (group) also!!!:trp:


but how much string ensemble do you know well enough to rate?


----------

