# Easy orchestral music for Baroque listeners?



## athrun200 (Dec 13, 2016)

I have been listening to Baroque music for over 3 years and I enjoy listening to it together with a score on my hand.
I love Baroque music because the duration of each movement is not too long (usually not longer than 3 or 4 minutes) and the scores are easy to read (not too many instruments).

Yesterday, I wanted to expand my listening area to orchestral music after Beethoven's time so I randomly picked a music on Naxos library called Manfred Symphony, by Tchaikovsky, and grabbed a score from IMSLP.

I am good with the first 1 or 2 minutes, but I started to lose my concentration since then. To be more specific, I find the music too long and the score too complicated (Too many instruments). I know the music is good, it's just me who cannot appreciate it.

So I would like to ask if there's any shorter and easier orchestral pieces after late 18th centenary that are suitable for chamber music listeners like me?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

athrun200 said:


> I have been listening to Baroque music for over 3 years and I enjoy listening to it together with a score on my hand.
> I love Baroque music because the duration of each movement is not too long (usually not longer than 3 or 4 minutes) and the scores are easy to read (not too many instruments).
> 
> Yesterday, I wanted to expand my listening area to orchestral music after Beethoven's time so I randomly picked a music on Naxos library called Manfred Symphony, by Tchaikovsky, and grabbed a score from IMSLP.
> ...


Try Ravel's Le Tombeau de Couperin. It is a charming, melodic, modern suite patterned after a baroque suite.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Ibert's Escales (1922) is a fun, colorful orchestral work. Very melodic and "user-friendly." It has three fairly short movements (each movement is about four or five minutes long).


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Manfred!?! Bad choice. 

Tchaikovsky? Good choice. Try his Serenade for Strings


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Dvorak's Serenade for Winds.
Copland's Appalachian Spring (the chamber music version for 13 players)
Arnold's Three Shanties for Wind Quintet
Farkas' Early Hungarian Dances for Wind Quintet


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I, too, often like following sheet music when I listen. However romantic orchestra music is hard for me with the sheer number of instruments playing. I therefore often choose to follow the score while listening to piano or chamber music. I just received the box set of the Takacs Quartet playing Beethoven, and yesterday I listened to the first quartet with score in hand.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> I, too, often like following sheet music when I listen. However romantic orchestra music is hard for me with the sheer number of instruments playing. I therefore often choose to follow the score while listening to piano or chamber music. I just received the box set of the Takacs Quartet playing Beethoven, and yesterday I listened to the first quartet with score in hand.


And did you liked it?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Pugg said:


> And did you liked it?


I did. Listened to it twice in fact. But 15 more to go.

I re-read the question of the O.P. and would like to amplify my answer as regards length of chamber music works. Much of the great chamber music of the 19th century is lengthier that most Baroque works with longer individual movements. One group of exceptions that come to mind are the incidental works of Schumann.

I don't think anyone in the post Beethoven/Schubert 19th Century can match Brahms for chamber music, but his works tend to be long. The two clarinet sonatas are only about 20 minutes apiece. Several others may be as short, but I can't think of any that are briefer.

Twentieth century composers often wrote shorter chamber music pieces. But you may prefer to follow along with Chopin or any of a number of other composers for the piano.


----------



## athrun200 (Dec 13, 2016)

Vasks said:


> Manfred!?! Bad choice.
> 
> Tchaikovsky? Good choice. Try his Serenade for Strings


May I know why Manfred is a bad choice?
I just pick whatever I saw on Naxos and then Manfred popped up on the screen.:lol:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

As I've said before, I've never got on with Tchaikovsky's Manfred. I find it rather dull and boring. A previious poster made a better suggestion - Serenade for Strings.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Merl said:


> As I've said before, I've never got on with Tchaikovsky's Manfred. I find it rather dull and boring. A previious poster made a better suggestion - Serenade for Strings.


I 2nd (or 3rd) that suggestion. Also if you want to go full orchestral with Tchaikovsky go with the 4th Symphony or my personal favorite, the violin concerto.


----------



## Ralphus (Nov 13, 2016)

Here are a few that I enjoy, and you might too. They're attractive, vibrant, and not too long. The Vaughan Williams is more sedate than vibrant but is truly glorious and chamber-musicky, too.

Prokofiev - Symphony #1 "Classical"
Grieg - Holberg Suite
Barber - Overture to the School for Scandal
de Falla - Three Dances from the Three-Cornered Hat
Borodin - Polovtsian Dances
Vaughan Williams - Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis

Some good choices above, too. I second (or fourth) Tchaikovsky Serenade for Strings, and Ravel Tombeau de Couperin. Anything by Ravel might do it, actually. And, yes, Manfred is a tough first adventure. Yawn. IMHO, not Pyotr's best.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Try:
Stravinsky's Pulcinella
Ravel's Piano Concerto
Schumann Symphony No. 4


----------



## athrun200 (Dec 13, 2016)

Thanks everyone. The list is now long enough for me to enjoy for a month or two.


----------

