# The best composer of chamber music?



## Edward Elgar

Who do you think is number one?
In my mind, it's a tie between Brahms, Mozart, Haydn and Saint-Seans.


----------



## ChamberNut

I'm not sure who was the "best", but my favorites for chamber music are:

Beethoven # 1 (String Quartets + Piano Trios + Violin Sonatas)

Brahms
Schubert
Schumann
Mendelssohn

Not familiazied with Haydn or Mozart chamber music yet.


----------



## sebastianglabo

imo those are the worst composers for chamber music. bach, mozart, husa. are the best imo. have you ever heard the medelhson spring symphonies.....BORING!


----------



## Mark Harwood

Boccherini, Telemann and Giuliani for me. I enjoy the way you can listen with pleasure at different levels of attention.


----------



## Lisztfreak

In my whole life I've heard about 5 SQs (Haydn, Debussy, Grieg, Brahms, Sibelius) and three or so Mozart's quintets - so I cannot judge about chamber music. 
Yet I liked very much Brahms' SQ no.3, and Debussy's and Sibelius' quartetts.


----------



## Manuel

> Who do you think is number one?
> In my mind, it's a tie between Brahms, Mozart, Haydn and Saint-Seans.


Those are fine. But my list would include Franck, Rachmaninov and Ravel.


----------



## Mr Salek

From my experience, Mendelssohn and Schubert. Not terribly keen on Haydn.


----------



## IAmKing

Olivier Messiaen
Bela Bartok
Edgard Varese
Frank Zappa
Shostakovich
Steve Reich


----------



## frenchhornkid12896

I love the reicha woodwind quintet! It's so much fun to play


----------



## Saturnus

A tie between Dvorak (for his piano quintet in A-maj), Saint-Saens (bassoon sonata & trumpet septet) and Beethoven (oboe trio & string quartets).

frenchhornkid: I think Danzi wrote way better quintets than Reicha (I have played both), but they are similar. I put up a thread here somewhere about Danzi with link to all of his quintets, I hope you check him out.


----------



## opus67

Saturnus said:


> A tie between Dvorak (for his piano quintet in A-maj)


I heard it for the first time recently. Wonderful piece of music.


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

hard to answer

First names coming to my mind:

Haydn, Shosta, Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Schnittke...


----------



## Manuel

Arensky composed great chamber music. as an introduction I suggest his piano trio in d minor.


----------



## cato

For me, this is really a hard question to answer.  

I love everything from 1780"s Mozart to 2007 Gorecki.  

The question of "best" is so subjective, and who I think is the "best" really depends on the time of day, and my mood.  

Early in the morning, I like to listen to Mozart with my morning coffee for a "pick me up".

Perhaps, mid-day, to evening, I'm in a more romantic mood, and I'll listen to some Brahms.

Then, late at night, when I'm in a more sober, reflective mood, I'll listen to a Shostakovich string quartet, or the new Gorecki string quartet No. 3, Op. 67.

So yeah, it kinda depends on my mood.


----------



## Manuel

cato said:


> The question of "best" is so subjective, and who I think is the "best" really depends on the time of day, and my mood.


That's _partially _true. But there external constraints also. For example, if it's a cloudy sunday afternoon, a _rational human __being _will only listen to *string quartets*.


----------



## ChamberNut

cato said:


> Early in the morning, I like to listen to Mozart with my morning coffee for a "pick me up".
> 
> Perhaps, mid-day, to evening, I'm in a more romantic mood, and I'll listen to some Brahms.


Cato, if you are looking for something in between, try Schumann's String Quartet No. 3. Very under-rated but absolutely wonderful 2nd movement. I have a feeling you'll like it if you haven't listened to it already. Unfortunately there aren't many recordings of Schumann's String Quartets (as I said i think they are underrated compared to his Piano Quintet and Piano Quartet). I have the Naxos Fine Arts Quartet recording which is very lovely. I've also heard the St. Lawrence Quartet version on a digital cable TV CDN station (which is how I first heard this work and was attracted by it.)

In exploring further chamber works, I eventually want to explore Shostakovich and Bartok's string quartets. I have a feeling that I might enjoy their darker intensity. However, having said that, I'm not quite there yet.


----------



## Manuel

> In exploring further chamber works, I eventually want to explore Shostakovich and Bartok's string quartets. I have a feeling that I might enjoy their darker intensity. However, having said that, I'm not quite there yet.


Don't forget to add some Bax to your list. His first SQ is a fresh work, very imaginative and full of resources.


----------



## ChamberNut

Manuel said:


> Don't forget to add some Bax to your list. His first SQ is a fresh work, very imaginative and full of resources.


Thanks for the recommendation to Bax.

As for Shostakovich and Bartok, any particular string quartets in particular that I should focus on first, or just go in blindly?


----------



## Manuel

> As for Shostakovich and Bartok, any particular string quartets in particular that I should focus on first, or just go in blindly?


I have all of them. But never listened carefully to any. So I can not comment them...

This is from Bax's first. The first four bars are worth all the money you spend in the whole cd.

I also suggest *Vainberg*'s piano quintet. Not a frequent work, with some bits of *Shostakovich *and *Prokofiev*, and a Scherzo that resembles a cheap european _tango_


----------



## Manuel

> I have a feeling that I might enjoy their darker intensity. However, having said that, I'm not quite there yet.


I feel the same. Whenever I want to face such a great cycle of music (the same applies to Shosty's symphonies, and Wagner's Ring) I don't know where to start, or what is worst, I wonder perhaps I'm not ready to fully appreciate the works. The sort of fear I have when you I'm about to learn a big piano sonata, I somehow feel it can be out of my league...


----------



## Amade Van Haydn

Hi!
I want to tell you my thoughts about this questions:
One name can’t be mentioned enough: HAYDN! His string quartets are one of the great work cycles in history of arts. 
The importance of Haydn for the quartet is comparable with BOCCHERINI’S for the quintet. But after Boccherini, quintets never had the same importance as quartets.
Before these masters of string chamber music, in the baroque era, J.S. BACH seems to me the most important chamber music composer, above all his violin and cello solo pieces.
It’s a moot point whether MOZART or BEETHOVEN is more important in chamber music, but I tend to the second because of his outstanding late string quartets.
For me, the best romantic chamber music master is BRAHMS, who in some way sums up the chamber music of the past century before him.
SCHUBERT composed some very, very good and important works, like the “Death and Maiden”-quartet, the string quintet or the two piano trios. But his repertoire is quite narrow.
MENDELSSOHN, SCHUMANN, SAINT-SAENS and DVORAK were mentioned, but for me they aren’t candidates for the best composer of chamber music, perhaps the first of them DVORAK.
In the late romanticism, don’t forget FAURE and REGER!
In modern chamber music, SHOSTAKOVICH is the leading composer. 
SCHOENBERG and the twelve-toner I don’t like, I can’t judge them.
BRITTEN is also very interesting. I think he’s the most important British chamber composer ever.

At all, I can’t say just one or two names. 
For the string quartet, which is always titled as the most important chamber music discipline, I can decide clearly for HAYDN and BEETHOVEN. 
Regards,
AVH.


----------



## Guest

It's true. Sunday afternoon rolls around (it's Portland, so it's cloudy), and sure enough, the Lachenmann string quartets are in the machine!


----------



## Handel

From what I know, now:

Haydn: His string quartet op. 20 is the best chamber music I have ever heard. Complexity, variety. 

Beethoven was also a great chamber music composer. His piano trios are great.

Boccherini composed too some nice chamber music.


----------



## ChamberNut

Handel said:


> From what I know, now:
> 
> Haydn: His string quartet op. 20 is the best chamber music I have ever heard. Complexity, variety.
> 
> Beethoven was also a great chamber music composer. *His piano trios *are great.
> 
> Boccherini composed too some nice chamber music.


Thank you for pointing that out Handel. Many people praise Beethoven's string quartets (and rightly so, they are my personal favorites), I adore his piano trios nearly as much. I think they are fantastic, and not just the "Ghost" and "Archduke" trios either.


----------



## World Violist

I like Grieg, Brahms, Sibelius, Schubert eek: ), and several others.


----------



## Saturnus

ChamberNut said:


> Cato, if you are looking for something in between, try Schumann's String Quartet No. 3. *Very under-rated*but absolutely wonderful 2nd movement. I have a feeling you'll like it if you haven't listened to it already. Unfortunately there aren't many recordings of Schumann's String Quartets (as I said i think they are underrated compared to his Piano Quintet and Piano Quartet). I have the Naxos Fine Arts Quartet recording which is very lovely. I've also heard the St. Lawrence Quartet version on a digital cable TV CDN station (which is how I first heard this work and was attracted by it.)


AGREED. There is though one perfect recording of no. 3, it is by the Zehetmair Quartet from ECM. It got the Gramophone Awards 2003.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Beethoven of course!


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Beethoven of course!


You would say that, wouldn't you.

I must say that I am very greatly impressed by Schubert in the chamber music department. I don't think there is anything to beat D 956. I find in that the perfect combination of drama, melody, melancholy, creative skill, general compositional excellence. Within it, the famous second movement is among the most exquisite pieces of music ever written.

So it's Schubert for me.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> You would say that, wouldn't you.
> 
> I must say that I am very greatly impressed by Schubert in the chamber music department. I don't think there is anything to beat D 956. I find in that the perfect combination of drama, melody, melancholy, creative skill, general compositional excellence. Within it, the famous second movement is among the most exquisite pieces of music ever written.
> 
> So it's Schubert for me.


I was absolutely serious about Beethoven. Schubert I find a disappointment, a mish-mash of ideas that sound as if they originally belonged to someone else.


----------



## Morigan

Mr. Corkin, I think you might need to further broaden your musical horizon.


----------



## Handel

He broadened his musical horizon. He loves now Handel's music


----------



## Morigan

Handel said:


> He broadened his musical horizon. He loves now Handel's music


Well, he could begin to recognize that other composers were great _besides_ Händel and Beethoven.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Morigan said:


> Mr. Corkin, I think you might need to further broaden your musical horizon.


My Friend, never confuse ignorance and discernment, for my only crime is that I have too much of the latter, and what crime is it to have sublimely good taste?


----------



## Morigan

Rod Corkin said:


> My Friend, never confuse ignorance and discernment, for my only crime is that I have too much of the latter, and what crime is it to have sublimely good taste?


Ha!

You seem to share a trait of character with your idol.


----------



## Handel

Morigan said:


> Well, he could begin to recognize that other composers were great _besides_ Händel and Beethoven.


I know. But when you really loves a composer's music, it is sometimes difficult to go elsewhere. It happened to me. But through Naxos web site (at that time all tracks could be fully listened), I discovered many many (often 2nd rate but nonetheless good) composers. Through a cheap-low quality CDs bought at 1$ in a drugstor, I discovered Haydn. Now, even if my musical energy is mainly directed at Handel and Haydn, I love to discover other composers, even if they are not on par with those two.


----------



## Leporello87

Handel said:


> I know. But when you really loves a composer's music, it is sometimes difficult to go elsewhere. It happened to me. But through Naxos web site (at that time all tracks could be fully listened), I discovered many many (often 2nd rate but nonetheless good) composers. Through a cheap-low quality CDs bought at 1$ in a drugstor, I discovered Haydn. Now, even if my musical energy is mainly directed at Handel and Haydn, I love to discover other composers, even if they are not on par with those two.


Very good points here. It can indeed be very difficult to go elsewhere, and when you've heard the finest music available, sometimes it can seem a letdown to listen to music that is lower quality. Having said that, I believe it is also very instructive to explore the music of second rate composers. Beethoven is undeniably a foremost musical genius, but he was also very much influenced by his contemporaries; no composer exists in a vacuum. Familiarity with the general musical context in which the great composers were trained -- in other words, the pieces that they heard in their own time, largely composed by second or third rate composers -- gives us a more useful and realistic way to appreciate the works of the greatest composers, and to enjoy which aspects of these works are truly original, as opposed to contextual.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Leporello87 said:


> Very good points here. It can indeed be very difficult to go elsewhere, and when you've heard the finest music available, sometimes it can seem a letdown to listen to music that is lower quality. Having said that, I believe it is also very instructive to explore the music of second rate composers. Beethoven is undeniably a foremost musical genius, but he was also very much influenced by his contemporaries; no composer exists in a vacuum. Familiarity with the general musical context in which the great composers were trained -- in other words, the pieces that they heard in their own time, largely composed by second or third rate composers -- gives us a more useful and realistic way to appreciate the works of the greatest composers, and to enjoy which aspects of these works are truly original, as opposed to contextual.


I have listened to all of the others, but only Beethoven and Handel move me. This is not something I worry about too much, Life is short and I only have time for the very best. But even here I require a highly specific style of performance with the correct original instruments (or copies at least thereof). Beethoven on a Steinway serves me no purpose!


----------



## Saturnus

ChamberNut said:


> Thanks for the recommendation to Bax.
> 
> As for Shostakovich and Bartok, any particular string quartets in particular that I should focus on first, or just go in blindly?


I think no. 3 or 4 is a good prelude for the masterpiece, the sixth. 5th is also good but the first and second are in the little bit romantic mood Bartók was in earlier in his career, but he was heavily influenced by Richard Strauss. Don't get me wrong, the "first" quartet is considered his first mature work and listening to the quartets by number is like taking the strange route from romanticism to the brutal modern music around the World Wars.
Bartók wrote some 8 or 9 quartets in his lifetime, the first one when 11 years old if I remember it right, so the "first" quartet isn't really his first.


----------



## Leporello87

Rod Corkin said:


> I have listened to all of the others, but only Beethoven and Handel move me. This is not something I worry about too much, Life is short and I only have time for the very best.


I certainly understand. It's all just a matter of interest. The evolution and sources of musical style just happens to be an issue I'm very interested in, and sometimes satisfying that interest requires looking at some second- or third-rate music. But I can equally understand where one wouldn't want to "waste time" with less than the best. Having said that, you never know where you'll find a treasure.



> But even here I require a highly specific style of performance with the correct original instruments (or copies at least thereof). Beethoven on a Steinway serves me no purpose!


It's a shame you put the word "correct" in there, for I was just thinking, how would Rod enjoy Beethoven on a harpsichord??

P.S. [tongue in cheek]From experience, playing late Beethoven on a harpsichord turns out to be a simply transcendental, revelatory experience  [/tongue in cheek]


----------



## Rod Corkin

Leporello87 said:


> I certainly understand. It's all just a matter of interest. The evolution and sources of musical style just happens to be an issue I'm very interested in, and sometimes satisfying that interest requires looking at some second- or third-rate music. But I can equally understand where one wouldn't want to "waste time" with less than the best. Having said that, you never know where you'll find a treasure.
> 
> It's a shame you put the word "correct" in there, for I was just thinking, how would Rod enjoy Beethoven on a harpsichord??
> 
> P.S. [tongue in cheek]From experience, playing late Beethoven on a harpsichord turns out to be a simply transcendental, revelatory experience  [/tongue in cheek]


I think with Beethoven and Handel in particular, their styles embody the best of everything that was on offer up until these respective times, whilst still of course adding the very personal element. Put simply they had the best taste in music, and this was reflected in their compositions. A level of taste that I have not witnessed elsewhere. You get something of everything with these guys. I would never say either was ahead of their time, both were conservative in some respects, but I would say they were ABOVE their time.

Concerning the harpsichord, I suspect have more respect for this instrument than most musical academics and pro pianists, together with other instruments such as the recorder. However it is clear I have heard nothing of Beethoven that sounds like true harpsichord music, and having heard Handel's harpsichord music is is clear to me why he would have never needed a piano. I prefer the fortepiano, and specifically the central European concept of the instrument because, would you believe it, these were the very instruments Beethoven played and composed music for. I know this is a still a radical concept for some.


----------



## Leporello87

> However it is clear I have heard nothing of Beethoven that sounds like true harpsichord music


Right, well this is of course why I used the fake "tongue in cheek" tag 



> ...and having heard Handel's harpsichord music is is clear to me why he would have never needed a piano. I prefer the fortepiano, and specifically the central European concept of the instrument because, would you believe it, these were the very instruments Beethoven played and composed music for. I know this is a still a radical concept for some.


Probably so, though I'm not sure why it should seem radical. Every single time I play a work of Bach on the harpsichord, it provides an extra insight into the piece that playing on a modern piano does not provide. The same is true of listening to harpsichord music on a (gasp) harpsichord, but I find the contrast to be especially clear when playing. I'm sure it's the same story with Handel, although, I rarely (these days, never) play Handel.

Unfortunately, I have never had the pleasure of playing Mozart or Beethoven on a fortepiano, but I suspect the same would be true there.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> I have listened to all of the others, but only Beethoven and Handel move me. This is not something I worry about too much, Life is short and I only have time for the very best.


I gather you extend this preference to cover all music genres, i.e. Beethoven and Handel are the only two composers you have any time for.

Without wishing to cause any offence, I'm afraid I find it very strange when people say they personally only like one or two composers on the grounds that everyone else is deemed to be grossly inferior. This can't be right, and there has to be something very odd with their judgement. I can possibly understand such simplicity among kiddie-posters, who are still wet behind the ear, but among seasoned adults who profess to know a lot about classical music it is a very peculiar phenomenon in my experience. Most people have favourites but nothing like as tight and so totally exclusionary as yours is. But if this is your *personal choice*, so be it.

I find it stranger still for you to argue, as I believe you do, that only these two composers are any good in general *objective terms *, and that you reckon you can prove it by providing what you consider to be a better piece of music by either one of these against an example - nominated by one of us - of some other composers' works. If this is what you are saying, I find this to be gross arrogance. If I provided say Schubert's Impromptu D 899/3 as my preferred piece of solo piano, and you challenged it by saying that a piece which you selected by Beethoven is superior then I'd laugh at you, as too I suspect would the majority of sensible posters on this Forum if they were to make their preferred offering.

I accept that I may have misunderstood your argument, but if not I'm afraid I find your extremely elitist views on classical music to be both sinister and repelling.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> I gather you extend this preference to cover all music genres, i.e. Beethoven and Handel are the only two composers you have any time for.
> 
> Without wishing to cause any offence, I'm afraid I find it very strange when people say they personally only like one or two composers on the grounds that everyone else is deemed to be grossly inferior.


Believe me in all seriousness it is a curse I have, but not all is 'grossly inferior'. I believe every composer has at least one hit in him, but I work on the whole output.



Mango said:


> If this is what you are saying, I find this to be gross arrogance. If I provided say Schubert's Impromptu D 899/3 as my preferred piece of solo piano, and you challenged it by saying that a piece which you selected by Beethoven is superior then I'd laugh at you, as too I suspect would the majority of sensible posters on this Forum if they were to make their preferred offering.


This is EXACTLY what I was waiting for. Provide us with your mp3, wma, whatever format... I will demolish it.


----------



## Leporello87

Rod Corkin said:


> I will demolish it.


I believe this might be what Mango is taking issue with. Why is demolition even the goal here? Different people are looking for different types of music. What you hate, another person may love. While I agree there is most definitely some level of objectivity in terms of judging quality of musical works, I also believe there's quite a bit more subjectivity than you claim.

There doesn't exist a single composer -- no matter how great he or she may be -- whose entire output is superb. By the way, that observation includes both Handel and Beethoven. Strange, but true.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Believe me in all seriousness it is a curse I have, but not all is 'grossly inferior'. I believe every composer has at least one hit in him, but I work on the whole output.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what I was waiting for. Provide us with your mp3, wma, whatever format... I will demolish it.


Your reply is exactly what I hoped you would say.

You will demolish it? In what way?

No you definitely won't. Before I comment any further on this, I will let other posters express any views they may have on your arrogance. I suspect many will be quite feeble, but we'll see.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Your reply is exactly what I hoped you would say.
> 
> You will demolish it? In what way?
> 
> No you definitely won't. Before I comment any further on this, I will let other posters express any views they may have on your arrogance. I suspect many will be quite feeble, but we'll see.


I will demolish it by providing my own wma of course! Have I to explain everything?


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> I will demolish it by providing my own wma of course! Have I to explain everything?


How does providing your wma "demolish" mine, unless you have a better version of Schubert's Impromptu D 899/3?


----------



## Handel

Rod Corkin said:


> This is EXACTLY what I was waiting for. Provide us with your mp3, wma, whatever format... I will demolish it.


A bit too agressive here pal.


----------



## Frasier

A few demolition experts on this site without doubt.

Well.....just set the explosives right or the edifice might come crashing down on the demolisher. 

I can't understand any of these fanaticisms over bach mozart beethoven schubert or whoever else. Sure they write nice music - that's why it's still marketable. Schubert seems to have dropped out of the charts lately but who knows what? 
But many other composers exist as good as mozart...perhaps not so much beethoven, but because of our cultural lineage, the german/austrian is ingrained rather than the italian/french. 

All this aside, Mozart was probably the best composer of chamber music within his /its cultural context. Most of his works can be performed as chamber music. Only problem is you need damned good players. Don't get the idea that I like Mozart: I don't. I think he had a machine or was, as suggested on another thread, a consortium. No matter, his music makes nice aural wallpaper.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Please MANGO, for God's sake try and develop some sense of humour.


My sense of humour is fine, thanks. I gave you plenty of opportunity to clarify what you meant by "demolishing" other people's views, but you failed to respond, except in purely arrogant and dismissive terms. The evidence is there for all to see.

Your threatening, humourless style is not the way to disseminate what special knowledge you may think you have about Beethoven.

I too have a vast collection of classical music - and an extensive knowledge of several top composers - and I find it extremely unlikely that you could tell me anything worthwhile that I don't already know about Beethoven.


----------



## Frasier

Yeah, come on everyone, whip out yer wmas or whatever musical weapon you have and join the fray. 

Sorry to say that my musical knowledge is almost nothing and this site looks like the place I can increase that nothingness substantially. 

It's too vague a thread this. I still assert that mozey-wozey was among the top writers for chamber music simply because he wrote so much, and chamber music was a feature of the aristocracy. But many composers have written chamber music and if you include all music designed to be played in just a room, then the genre is massive. 

Any road, I'll pop in from time to time to cheer everyone on, help with the casualties and perhaps bring the sandwich trolley round.


----------



## Handel

I think you are taking this too personal Rod (the lacklustre quartets part).


----------



## The Purple Wasp

(let's go back to the thread)

As for me, my Tastes change with time.
As I was a child, I used to listen Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and other musicians of the classical period. I enjoyed them very much. Then I discovered baroque music. Bach, Handel, Monteverdi , Purcell, Telemann, Vivaldi, and other Italian composers.
Teenager, I was romantic. It was useless to talk to me about something else. Schubert, Berlioz, Chopin,... were my favorites.
Now I appreciate more sophisticated music, like Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Scriabin, etc...

So, I Can’t tell you who is the best...


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> POST SCRIPT


Your previous insults were more subtle than that last one. Can't you try again, please ?


----------



## Daniel

Some consequences will follow after those last discussions. And generally I remind you all on our forum-rules! One excerpt (Forum rules):

*Guidelines for General Behavior*
Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.
Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.
If you have any complaints about other users or their posts, contact the staff directly (by private message) or use the »report post« function. 
If in doubt about any of these guidelines - or generally if you need help with anything on this board - you can always send a PM (private message) to a member of the staff, or use the contact form.

Regards,
Daniel


----------



## Rod Corkin

Frasier said:


> Reasonable of him to reply, though. Only a musically naive person would make such a claim about Beethoven's quartets as most of us, whether liking Beethoven or not, would agree on their quality. Of course Op18 No 1 is musically far simpler than Op 135 but that's because many of us see the quartets as a statement of Beethoven's evolving musical growth, a deeply personal one at that. .


Well in some respects op135 is a deliberate throwback to times earlier than Op18, though with B's typical late-period slant. The first movement in particular of op135 is one of my favourites, this is just a sublime and perfect piece of music.



Frasier said:


> Unfortunately the discussion degenerated into mudslinging etc. Mango does have the propensity to pick up some obscure slant in a post and labour it, throwing things off course to open up an opportunity to abuse again; making false allegations etc....which does say singificant things. So, best left alone.


A neat summary Fraisier, however I for one am now of a mind to move on, leaving all these shinanigans for future historians to ponder. A noble gesture, typical of my good character.


----------



## Guest

*Frasier*

I refer to the following quote you made about me:



Frasier said:


> Reasonable of him to reply, though. Only a musically naive person would make such a claim about Beethoven's quartets as most of us, whether liking Beethoven or not, would agree on their quality


In view of this, I was wondering if you could express your opinion on the following gem of wisdom from Corkin: 


Rod Corkin said:


> I was absolutely serious about Beethoven. Schubert I find a disappointment, a mish-mash of ideas that sound as if they originally belonged to someone else.


Since many chamber fans would say that Schubert was roughly the equal to Beethoven in this genre, would you not agree that this quote by Corkin is shockingly naïve, to say the least.

Since you have an opinion on most matters, I thought I'd test you on this. In all seriousness, can you please give us your view? I ask because I am interested in checking out the internal consistency of your position on matters musical. Only, if you read my actaul omments about Beethoven, I made it perfectly plain that I am great fan, and merely felt that the early SQs are rather lack-lustre. This is hardly earth shattering criticism. I also made it clear too that all my comments about Beethoven were not absolute but relative only to other many magnificent works by Betthoven

Thank you so much.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> *Frasier*
> 
> Since many chamber fans would say that Schubert was roughly the equal to Beethoven in this genre, would you not agree that this quote by Corkin is shockingly naïve, to say the least.
> 
> Since you have an opinion on most matters, I thought I'd test you on this. In all seriousness, can you please give us your view? I ask because I am interested in checking out the internal consistency of your position on matters musical. Only, if you read my actaul omments about Beethoven, I made it perfectly plain that I am great fan, and merely felt that the early SQs are rather lack-lustre. This is hardly earth shattering criticism. I also made it clear too that all my comments about Beethoven were not absolute but relative only to other many magnificent works by Betthoven.
> 
> Thank you so much.


I would suggest any general survey of CM fans would put Beethoven well ahead of Schubert, nevertheless...

Concerning my 'opinions' I typically say little and prefer to offer music as the evidence, talk is cheap when it comes to music. I still offer the challenge to anyone that thinks to the contrary that Beethoven can out do anyone with the piano, with an mp3 duel - just like the piano duels Beethoven himself was famous for. Or quartets, trios or whatever. This kind of thing always makes for good entertainment.


----------



## Daniel

To all:

This forum should not get a place to "fight" with music... Please stop this pointless discussions about "this composer is better than...", or any form of "duels".

Thank you.


----------



## Handel

Daniel said:


> To all:
> 
> This forum should not get a place to "fight" with music... Please stop this pointless discussions about "this composer is better than...", or any form of "duels".
> 
> Thank you.


Can't agree more.


----------



## Guest

Frasier said:


> Unfortunately the discussion degenerated into mudslinging etc. Mango does have the propensity to pick up some obscure slant in a post and labour it, throwing things off course to open up an opportunity to abuse again; making false allegations etc....which does say singificant things. So, best left alone.


You are a right little stirrer aren't you? Was there really any need for this? In the interests of letting things settle down, I will not respond further on this but let this be an example of your totally unnecessary, irritating, snide comments which just invite retaliation.


----------



## Handel

Mango said:


> which just invite retaliation.


Self control dammit.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Daniel said:


> To all:
> 
> This forum should not get a place to "fight" with music... Please stop this pointless discussions about "this composer is better than...", or any form of "duels".
> 
> Thank you.


I would say at least two thirds of the posts I have read from other people at this site involve the statement of a preference of one composer over another or one piece over another. Opinion polls everywhere! Have you somehow missed this phenomenon Daniel? I offer to relieve the eventual banality of so many such remarks by suggesting we present the musical proof to back them up with.

It is a pity you might rob your members of the potential to hear just about any Beethoven piece they wished performed to the highest standards on authentic instruments, including his very own pianos and quartet of strings.

Things can't be said unless it is a vaccuous restatement of a matter already well known and accepted, music can't be heard lest it creates a scene of embarrassment. What a strange forum this is!


----------



## Frasier

Mango said:


> You are a right little stirrer aren't you? Was there really any need for this? In the interests of letting things settle down, I will not respond further on this but let this be an example of your totally unnecessary, irritating, snide comments which just invite retaliation.


As the post was in reply to another since deleted, I deleted mine.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> *Frasier*
> I made it perfectly plain that I am great fan, and merely felt that the early SQs are rather lack-lustre.


Fair enough, now you have refined your statement to mean Op18, I beg you to present here something to your mind that is full of lustre, produced at the same age or under (op18 was published when Beethoven was 31). I in turn will present a few things from Op18 for general debate, not a duel if you don't like the term. If you need help uploading simply email your mp3 to me and I'll do it for you.


----------



## Daniel

Rod Corkin:

Personal preferences do not include judging about absolute values and qualities of works.
Even if you find the forum strange: This forum won't allow any further battles or battle-games, because the sense of music is the complete opposite. This should be considered in the discussion-style, too.

Kind regards,
Daniel


----------



## Rod Corkin

Daniel said:


> Rod Corkin:
> 
> Personal preferences do not include judging about absolute values and qualities of works.
> Even if you find the forum strange: This forum won't allow any further battles or battle-games, because the sense of music is the completly opposite. This should be considered in the discussion-style, too.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Daniel


I suggest you are wholely incorrect re: 'the sense of music is the complete opposite', for no other art form has been so imbued with the sense of competition. Certainly in Beethoven's time competition was everything.

Don't worry Dan, I'll present no music here for your members to enjoy, not one single track, I hope at least you heard Handel duet from L'Allegro I provided in another chain.


----------



## Daniel

Rod Corkin said:


> for no other art form has been so imbued with the sense of competition. Certainly in Beethoven's time competition was everything.


You are right in the point, that competition has been a great part in musical history, indeed. Often quoted: one definition of "concerto" shall be the Latin "concertare" (~ to compete), though there are some other theories out there.

Nevertheless it was kind of a sportily activity. But I definately see no sense for a forum to create such kind of "competitions" in the values and qualities of composers and works, the scene would change too fast into a battle-field caused by personal tastes and opinions.

And to add my personal opinion: For me music should bring hearts and people together, it should not separate them.

Daniel


----------



## Rod Corkin

Daniel said:


> You are right in the point, that competition has been a great part in musical history, indeed. Often quoted: one definition of "concerto" shall be the Latin "concertare" (~ to compete), though there are some other theories out there.
> 
> Nevertheless it was kind of a sportily activity. But I definately see no sense for a forum to create such kind of "competitions" in the values and qualities of composers and works, the scene would change too fast into a battle-field caused by personal tastes and opinions.
> 
> And to add my personal opinion: For me music should bring hearts and people together, it should not separate them.
> 
> Daniel


Well at the BRS I ran such a 'competition', only in this case it was Bach and Handel. It was good entertainment as everybody got to hear a lot of music they hadn't heard before, but no-one ended up being offended. Of course neither side backed down but I knew this would be the case. As I said before people openly voice their preferences here in virtually every chain I have read, you can't control this Dan. unless you delete all of these posts - and then there would be none left. I am simply focusing people's attention to this phenomenon.

What is there to be scared of? Better to have the music than the words I say for such things, I provided hundreds of mp3s for members during my years at the BRS (never full recordings mind, in case lawyers are reading, only a track or two, once a week or so, giving full catalogue details!) - an act of generosity I have not witnessed anywhere else and nor do I expect to witness in the future.


----------



## ChamberNut

Manuel said:


> Don't forget to add some Bax to your list. His first SQ is a fresh work, very imaginative and full of resources.


Manuel, it was awhile ago you had recommended Sir Arnold Bax to me, and I thank you! 

I got a copy of Bax String Quartet No. 1 and 2 from the library on the weekend, and have listened to the 1st quartet so far. I think it's fantastic!

I'll comment later on the 2nd quartet once I get a chance to listen to it.


----------



## oisfetz

And try any chamber piece by Sergei Taneyev you find


----------



## ChamberNut

Numbers 13, 14, 15 x 2

Beethoven & Schubert

Certainly towering monuments in the string quartet repertoire.


----------



## terotero

Beethoven.
Had he written nothing else than the late quartets, he would still be regarded as a great composer.


----------



## opus67

I really must listen to Beethoven's quartets. I haven't had the chance to listen to anything beyond the Razumovsky's, and no more than once or twice. May be I'll listen to one quartet today, and few during the next two days. Now that I'm very much into Schubert's late music, especially the quartets, I'm eager to listen to Beethoven's.


----------



## ChamberNut

opus67 said:


> I really must listen to Beethoven's quartets. I haven't had the chance to listen to anything beyond the Razumovsky's, and no more than once or twice. May be I'll listen to one quartet today, and few during the next two days. Now that I'm very much into Schubert's late music, especially the quartets, I'm eager to listen to Beethoven's.


Opus67, remember that it took awhile before Schubert's late quartets "grew" on you, the same may happen with Beethoven's late quartets. Repeated listenings will more than likely turn you into a big fan of them.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Anyone got any experiences with Chausson, Roussel or Magnard?


----------



## oisfetz

That's impossible. Those 3 died long ago. 
But about their works, yes, I've a lot of chamber from all of them.
Even a very rare live recording of the Poemme by Kreisler (but the guy was already
too old,and made mistakes).
Chausson and Magnard string quartets are some of the best any french composer did,IMO


----------



## Lisztfreak

oisfetz said:


> That's impossible. Those 3 died long ago.


 Sorry! A wrong choice of words...

Some of the best French quartets you say, eh? Well, then I'll surely venture to buy the nice 2CD set I saw of their quartets.

Chausson's works like Chanson perpétuelle, Poeme de l'amour et de la mer, Symphonie and Viviane also sound very attractive...


----------



## Sid James

Some of the quartets I like, which haven't been mentioned:

Janacek
Walton
Ravel
Debussy


----------



## ecg_fa

Very hard to answer for me-- I love a lot of chamber music & tough to narrow down. And 
leaving aside lieder which to me is a sort of chamber music too.

But today anyway:

Beethoven
Haydn (as much maybe because he sorta 'invented' it)
Shostokovich (string quartets esp. to me as important as his symphonies)
Mozart
Schubert
Schumann
Faure
Saint Saens
Bartok
Ravel and Debussy (can't really pick between 'em  ). & many others

Ed


----------



## confuoco

Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Bartok and Shostakovich


----------



## Bach

Boulez. _Sur Incises_ is breath taking.


----------



## kratos

BRAHMS, where BEAUTY makes sense...


----------



## Taneyev

kratos said:


> BRAHMS, where BEAUTY makes sense...


Totally agree. Every other composer had some weak piece. Not Johannes. At least published.


----------



## JAKE WYB

BRAHMS - he was incapable of writing a dull or fusty work it seems but my favourite is the piano quintet as it brims with richness and drama and i also love his piano quartet in c minor for its rhythmic dynamism and dramatic rigour but the ending is bad and a let down

SCHUBERT - not so good and onsistent as brahms but his best is better - quartets 13 and 14 are magnificent of corse and his piano trios particularly the one with the rippling piano accompaniment in the last movement mmm

BARTOK - his quartets are full of brilliance of course, contrasts is pure enjoyment and sonata for 2 pianos and percussion unbalanced but graet

JANACEK - his quartets are a reve;ation there are no more intense and dramatic, heartfelt and original works - had he writtena few more it would be the greatest quartet cycle of the age but the other works - Mladi for wind sextet is just as orginal nothing like it and alwayas puts a smile on my face - also heard cappricio for piano and brass sextet at albert hall last year - sounded sublime in such large context - only janacek can weave such extraordinary sounds and colours within a chamber work


----------



## livemylife

Brahms G minor piano quartet is great as well.


----------



## bdelykleon

Brahms, Haydn, Mozart, in this order.


----------



## starry

Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn - not in any particular order.


----------



## Mirror Image

Poulenc, Bax, Brahms, Debussy, Shostakovich, Elgar....


----------



## Tapkaara

I really need to start listening to chamber music with more frequency.

I enjoy Sibelius, Schumann, Shostakovich and Beethoven. I have heard quite of bit of Haydn's chamber works on the radio and find those to be of high quality, although I am not usually a big fan of the classical period. I should seek out a good disc of Haydn quartets...any recommendations?

I also heard Janacek's quartet "Intimate Letters" last night on the radio and was floored by its brilliance.


----------



## bdelykleon

Tapkaara:
Some recomendations
String Quartets: opp. 20, 33, 64 and 76 are the best haydn composed, these two cds are among the best I heard:
















Takacs is the best quartet with "normal' tuning, and Mosaiques the best HIP interpretation. This DVD fromt he lindsays is quite good also:









String Trios:
The last trios are among the most beautiful music ever written, so expansive and breathtaking, the Beaux Arts do a very fine job:









You should also try some mozart, the Haydn Quartets are as good as anything Haydn or Beethoven composed, the Dissonance is specially good, and with Talich you can't miss:









And obviously as you are into Mozart, add another viola and hear the finest string quintets ever composed:


----------



## Tapkaara

bdelykleon: This is all very mouth-watering. Wow, looks like a lot of good stuff. We'll see if I can pick some of these up once I get my next paycheck.

Thanks for some very tantalizing recommendations!


----------



## JAKE WYB

BAX - trio elegiaque - beautifully simple but extremely magical i that baxian celticcy way - has less old fashioned chromaticism than some of his works so its particularly sweet - need to peruse the harp quintet tonight....


----------



## Lisztfreak

In the past year or so I've even been slightly more into chamber than into orchestral music.

I don't think the difference between chamber and orchestral music is like between a pencil drawing and an oil canvas, but like that between a plate of fresh oysters and a frothy _minestrone_.

So my current favourite masters are *Beethoven*, *Brahms*, Elgar, Chausson, Poulenc, *Enescu*, Janáček, Alwyn and Shostakovich. 
Exploring Roussel and Schubert.


----------



## Mirror Image

Brahms, Poulenc, Bax, Beethoven, Debussy, Saint-Saens, Shostakovich, etc.


----------



## Bach

Mirror Image said:


> Brahms, Poulenc, Bax, Beethoven, Debussy, Saint-Saens, Shostakovich, etc.


Good selection.. what genres of chamber music did Bax compose in?


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Good selection.. what genres of chamber music did Bax compose in?


Valse, for harp (1931)
Rhapsodic Ballad, for cello (1939)
Violin Sonata No. 1 (1910)
Legend, for violin and piano, in one movement (1915)
Violin Sonata No. 2 (1915, revised 1922)
Ballad, for violin and piano (1916)
Violin Sonata No. 3 (1927)
Ballad, for violin and piano (1929)
Violin Sonata in F (1928)
Concert Piece for Viola and Piano (1904)
Viola Sonata (1922)
Legend, for viola and piano (1929)
Folk-Tale, for cello & piano (1918)
Cello Sonata (1923)
Cello Sonatina (1933)
Legend-Sonata, for cello & piano (1943)
Four Pieces for Flute and Piano (1912, revised 1915 & 1945)
Clarinet Sonata (1934)
Fantasy Sonata, for viola & harp (1927)
Sonata for Flute and Harp (1928)
Trio in One Movement for Piano, Violin, and Viola (1906)
Elegiac Trio, for flute, viola, and harp (1916)
Piano Trio in Bb (1946)
String Quartet No. 1 in G major (1918)
Piano Quartet, in one movement (1922)
String Quartet No. 2 (1925)
String Quartet No. 3 in F (1936)
[edit]Five players
Quintet in G (1908)
Piano Quintet in G minor (1915)
Quintet for Harp and Strings, in one movement (1919)
Oboe Quintet (1922)
String Quintet, in one movement (1933)
Quintet for harp and strings from the Sibley Music Library Digital Score Collection
In Memoriam, sextet for cor anglais, harp & string quartet (1916)
Nonet (1930)
Threnody and Scherzo, octet in two movements (1936)
Concerto for Flute, Oboe, Harp and String Quartet (1936)


----------



## Bach

Any you feel are of particular note?


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Any you feel are of particular note?


Yes, you should buy this recording:










This is the only recording I own of Bax's chamber music, but I'm particularly moved by his "Octet," "In Memoriam," and "Concerto for Flute, Oboe, Harp, and String Quartet."

These are wonderful pieces of music.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Mirror Image said:


> String Quartet No. 1 in G major (1918)


That one is particularly good-natured! I can imagine it being played by the pond of an English garden, with lads in linen shirts and girls in summer dresses drinking wine and chatting around.


----------



## Mirror Image

Lisztfreak said:


> That one is particularly good-natured! I can imagine it being played by the pond of an English garden, with lads in linen shirts and girls in summer dresses drinking wine and chatting around.


Yes, Bax was such a wonderful composer. Still so underrated. He deserves more attention.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> Yes, Bax was such a wonderful composer. Still so underrated. He deserves more attention.


From what I see in this forum, he gets more attention than undisputed geniuses like Handel, Mozart and Haydn, who are light-years ahead of Bax in any concievable way.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> From what I see in this forum, he gets more attention than undisputed geniuses like Handel, Mozart and Haydn, who are light-years ahead of Bax in any concievable way.


I didn't realize listening and enjoying classical music was competition for you. Even Bach recognizes musical ability when he hears it and will agree when he hears Bax that he is a remarkable composer.

The reason Handel, Mozart, and Haydn aren't talked about much on this forum is because there's more to classical music than these three composers and everybody on this forum, including yourself, knows this. Now excuse me while I continue to listen to some William Walton.


----------



## andruini

He may not be the best one, but I wanna give a super special shout-out to my homie Jacques Ibert.. His chamber works are truly exquisite..
I also really love Poulenc's..


----------



## Mirror Image

andruini said:


> He may not be the best one, but I wanna give a super special shout-out to my homey Jacques Ibert.. His chamber works are truly exquisite..
> I also really love Poulenc's..


I actually heard an Ibert piece for the first time the other day on AOL Internet radio, which I hardly ever listen to but had it on that day for some reason. Anyway, the piece was "Escales." Pretty cool piece. Had kind of a Ravel/de Falla feel to it.


----------



## andruini

Mirror Image said:


> I actually heard an Ibert piece for the first time the other day on AOL Internet radio, which I hardly ever listen to but had it on that day for some reason. Anyway, the piece was "Escales." Pretty cool piece. Had kind of a Ravel/de Falla feel to it.


Yeah, that's a great piece.. You'll get that and "Divertissement" if you ask for recommendations to get into him.. Those pieces are good and all, but his chamber music is where its at.. I love how he writes for woodwinds.. Oh, that reminds me of his lovely Flute Concerto.. That's a great work too..


----------



## JAKE WYB

*BAX*


Mirror Image said:


> Valse, for harp (1931)
> Rhapsodic Ballad, for cello (1939)
> Violin Sonata No. 1 (1910)
> Legend, for violin and piano, in one movement (1915)
> Violin Sonata No. 2 (1915, revised 1922)
> Ballad, for violin and piano (1916)
> Violin Sonata No. 3 (1927)
> Ballad, for violin and piano (1929)
> Violin Sonata in F (1928)
> Concert Piece for Viola and Piano (1904)
> Viola Sonata (1922)
> Legend, for viola and piano (1929)
> Folk-Tale, for cello & piano (1918)
> Cello Sonata (1923)
> Cello Sonatina (1933)
> Legend-Sonata, for cello & piano (1943)
> Four Pieces for Flute and Piano (1912, revised 1915 & 1945)
> Clarinet Sonata (1934)
> Fantasy Sonata, for viola & harp (1927)
> Sonata for Flute and Harp (1928)
> Trio in One Movement for Piano, Violin, and Viola (1906)
> Elegiac Trio, for flute, viola, and harp (1916)
> Piano Trio in Bb (1946)
> String Quartet No. 1 in G major (1918)
> Piano Quartet, in one movement (1922)
> String Quartet No. 2 (1925)
> String Quartet No. 3 in F (1936)
> [edit]Five players
> Quintet in G (1908)
> Piano Quintet in G minor (1915)
> Quintet for Harp and Strings, in one movement (1919)
> Oboe Quintet (1922)
> String Quintet, in one movement (1933)
> Quintet for harp and strings from the Sibley Music Library Digital Score Collection
> In Memoriam, sextet for cor anglais, harp & string quartet (1916)
> Nonet (1930)
> Threnody and Scherzo, octet in two movements (1936)
> Concerto for Flute, Oboe, Harp and String Quartet (1936)


I feel ones of note that im familiar with are

elegiac trio
sonata for flute and piano 
quintet for harp and strings

they absorb over two or tgree listenings - i find with bax that once you are familiar ith his music any inferioritites or old fahionedness with his writing goes away and you are left with a personable and enchanting sound world that is every bit as rewarding and interesting than one of what other people may call the 'greats' and music is about enjoyment and getting familiar not being a perfect and exactly executed masterwork

I find they are good car music - you can turn it up and let it waft without worrying about your ears being suddenly ravaged like most classical music of the period


----------

