Favourite Chamber Music Work?

[thetamman]

Hey everyone,

I have to play a chamber music work next year for an exam, and was thinking of Arensky's Piano Trio No. 1. Is this a good idea? I know (comparatively) more about piano solo music than chamber music, so any input/advice would be welcomed - esp. with mainstream repertoire that holds up well in exams/competitions, as I want to do well for my exam (is obscure repertoire a good idea for an exam?) Knowing me, of course, anything russian or 20th century would be valued greatly:D

Regards,
thetamman

[communist]

Mozart violin sonata in E minor K.304

Mendelssohn variations concertantes for violin and piano

Mendelssohn cello sonata no.2 in D major

Brahms cello sonata

Brahms violin sonatas

Brahms piano quartets

Brahms piano quintet

Schumann piano quintet

Dvorak piano quintets

Dvorak piano trios

Grieg violin sonata no.3

Tchaikovsky piano trio

Rachmaninoff cello sonata

Rachmaninoff trio elegiaques

Shostakovitch piano trio no.2

Khachaturian trio for piano clarinet and violin

Ginastera piano quintet

Schnittke piano quintet

Hindemith sonatas for brass and piano

[thetamman]

wow thanks for the prompt reply! Can't wait to check these out! I was also thinking of Ginastera's Cello Sonata, except i don't know where I might be able to get the score Is it buyable?

[communist]

wow thanks for the prompt reply! Can't wait to check these out! I was also thinking of Ginastera's Cello Sonata, except i don't know where I might be able to get the score Is it buyable?

I was not aware he had one. I will look around to see who publishes it.

[communist]

It is published by Boosey & Hawkes.

[slobone]

Well there's tons of great stuff. But I would think the first step would be to line up the musicians you're going to play with. That will limit the genre. Also, they will undoubtedly have opinions of their own. Some pieces that are wonderful for the pianist are not so much fun for the others, and vice versa...

[mikey6]

no Beethoven in the list?!?
The trios, violin sonatas and cello sonatas are all standard repertoire.  If it's a uni/school exam or whatever, it shouldn't matter whether it's obscure or not, as long as it's played well.
What chamber group are you forming? Are you basing it on people or instruments you want to play with?  Decide on that and then try some pieces.
Work with another pianist - 2 piano repertoire is fantastic!

[franzliszt2]

no Beethoven in the list?!?
The trios, violin sonatas and cello sonatas are all standard repertoire.  If it's a uni/school exam or whatever, it shouldn't matter whether it's obscure or not, as long as it's played well.
What chamber group are you forming? Are you basing it on people or instruments you want to play with?  Decide on that and then try some pieces.
Work with another pianist - 2 piano repertoire is fantastic!

I knew you'd say that


Haydn, Schubert!!!

[kitty on the keys]

Mozart    Trios
Mozart

[kitty on the keys]

Mozart    Clarinet, viola, & Piano
Beethoven   Trios
Beethoven   Clarinet, cello & piano
Faure Trio
Ravel Trio
Debussy   Trio
Schubert   Trios
Turina  various chamber works with piano
Haydn   Trios

   I am doing the 3 Trios for Flute, Cello, & Piano for a fwe recital programs this year

Have fun---Chamber music is GREAT . Also look into the piano ensemble--duet, 2 piano, 4-6-8 hand playing is fun too


Kitty on the keys

[bradley]

Mendelssohn Trio in D minor
Tchaikovsky Trio
Shostakovich Trio in E minor
Brahms Trio in A minor
Brahms Quintet

[indutrial]

If you're interested in twentieth century stuff, why not take a look at Tansman's Trio no. 2 for piano, violin, and cello (No. 1 doesn't exist). He wrote the work in the late 1930s when he was at the top of his game in terms of piano playing and composing. It requires considerable virtuosity from all three players, especially for the scherzo movement (which is bookended by two brisk pizzicato sections). The first and last movements are pretty demanding on the pianist, as they are fast and loaded with Tansman's characteristically gigantic polytonal chords.

Other works I would recommend include Milhaud's piano trio and piano quartet, both of which are fairly obscure works that could stand to receive more attention. Both of those are later works of his, numbering in the 400-range of his opus catalog.

If you're interested in different settings, take a long look through Bohuslaw Martinu's catalog. He wrote works for all sorts of unusual groupings, as well as the usual ones mentioned above. For good instrumental sonatas, Hindemith and Milhaud are solid choices. Danish composer Neils Viggo Bentzon is a good post-Hindemith composer to look into also, as he boasts a monster catalogue of pieces for all sorts of groupings. If you (and the other players) want a bigger challenge, maybe a Skalkottas piece would be worth a shot.

I don't know how well post-1900 works would go over with judges/teachers who are quite likely  way less familiar with music written during their own lifetimes, but it could at least give you more music to explore.

[rob47]

Franck Piano Trio is a whole lot of win

or perhaps Ligeti if you're up for it

[gerryjay]

there are so many wonderful chamber works that it's difficult to answer. anyway, let me pick some that include piano:
- schubert - arpeggione sonata
- brahms - sonatas opus 120
- shostakovich - viola sonata
- castelnuovo-tedesco - fantasia opus 150
- reich - six pianos

best!

[librisgeek]

Faure's first piano quartet.

[john11inc]

If you want something showy and accessible, but also modern and relatively obscure.


Personally, though, if you're going to be using this for stuff like conservatory auditions, go with Brahms, Dvorak or Schumann.  They really won't appreciate anything that's not entirely within the common repertoire.  Franck Quintet or Ravel Trio are possibilities as well, but for sheer safety, I'd recommend the Brahms Quintet or Quartet No. 3.  Promise there's nothing self-serving in that suggestion; I hate Brahms.

[abj]

Schumann's piano quartet is very beautiful.

Especially the third movement.

[weissenberg2]

 I hate Brahms.

May I ask why? it is not uncommon for people to dislike Brahms, I personally love his music. Not trying to change your opinion though.

[ahinton]

If you want something showy and accessible, but also modern and relatively obscure.


Personally, though, if you're going to be using this for stuff like conservatory auditions, go with Brahms, Dvorak or Schumann.  They really won't appreciate anything that's not entirely within the common repertoire.  Franck Quintet or Ravel Trio are possibilities as well, but for sheer safety, I'd recommend the Brahms Quintet or Quartet No. 3.  Promise there's nothing self-serving in that suggestion; I hate Brahms.

The Bloch is an astonishingly powerful work - all too infrequently played (although is is rather better known these days than it used to be). I can't share your hatred of Brahms! Sorry! Well, at least not of such chamber works of his (since we're talking chamber music here) such as the second piano trio, piano quintet, the three piano quartetsand the two each of string quintets and sextets.

OK - what about one of the finest works ever dedicated to that great chamber music composer Fauré, then? - I refer, of course, to the piano quintet of Florent Schmitt.

Best,

Alistair

[abj]

May I ask why? it is not uncommon for people to dislike Brahms, I personally love his music. Not trying to change your opinion though.

From my limited knowledge of people and tastes: to like Brahms means one generally has an appreciation of the structure itself, and of the classical form, in which he composed (and composed most meticulously and masterfully). The music itself is not as intense or saccharine as some of the other early compositions by the "romantic" composers, but then Brahms was hardly a romantic composer. The genius, so to say, of Brahms, lies mostly in the complexity and originality of his compositions, in a time when the classical form was seen to be impoverished.

[weissenberg2]

From my limited knowledge of people and tastes: to like Brahms means one generally has an appreciation of the structure itself, and of the classical form, in which he composed (and composed most meticulously and masterfully). The music itself is not as intense or saccharine as some of the other early compositions by the "romantic" composers, but then Brahms was hardly a romantic composer. The genius, so to say, of Brahms, lies mostly in the complexity and originality of his compositions, in a time when the classical form was seen to be impoverished.

True, telling from John11inch's YouTube uploads, he is into avant-garde music thus it is not a surprise he would not like Brahms.

[retrouvailles]

True, telling from John11inch's YouTube uploads, he is into avant-garde music thus it is not a surprise he would not like Brahms.

I wouldn't say that there  is any correlation here. I am into so-called "avant-garde" music (it's a rather pejorative term-don't use it) and I happen to love Brahms.

[ahinton]

True, telling from John11inch's YouTube uploads, he is into avant-garde music thus it is not a surprise he would not like Brahms.

Why so? Gep has elsewhere on this forum clarified that it is perfectly possible to care about Bach, Xenakis, Mahler and Pettersson, so why would someone interested in certain contemporary music necessarily dislike Brahms? John11inch may do so (he has, as we know, said as much), but he did not say that this was because of the kinds of music that do appeal to him - nor indeed should he have done so.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I wouldn't say that there  is any correlation here. I am into so-called "avant-garde" music (it's a rather pejorative term-don't use it) and I happen to love Brahms.

So does Brian Ferneyhough.

As Anthony Payne observed, it is perfectly possible to love Webern and Delius (OK, he never said that it should be compulsory, but...)...

Best,

Alistair

[weissenberg2]

Nevermind my previous statement. I thought that because he hates Brahms and loves 'postmodern' music so I thought the two correlate. I did not think it through before I posted it.

[ahinton]

Nevermind my previous statement. I thought that because he hates Brahms and loves 'postmodern' music so I thought the two correlate. I did not think it through before I posted it.

No problem!

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

Nevermind my previous statement. I thought that because he hates Brahms and loves 'postmodern' music so I thought the two correlate. I did not think it through before I posted it.

I'm actually not a HUGE fan of Post-Modern music.


I was actually talking about this with someone yesterday, so I will use the same analogy.  Brahms has written a fair number of works I enjoy: Sonata No. 2, Klavierstuck Op. 76, Piano Quartet No. 1, Symphony No. 1, Piano Concerto No. 1 and the Double Concerto (as well as a couple, smaller works here and there).  Most of his music, however, I strongly dislike.  Brahms is a master technician, within the highest, possible echelon of compositional skill, particularly with harmonic development and contrapuntal forms.  I'm not going to argue against that.  However, I do not think Brahms had any particularly interesting ideas, or if he did, he certainly didn't show them.  Brahms was a throwback to the past, much like Reger or Busoni (although Busoni was, obviously, a fair deal less conservative, most of the time).  His music was purposefully safe and conservative; his music was reactionary to what he considered excesses in what was, then, the standard form of German writing (think Wagner).  It's in this purposeful conventionalism and lack of exploration that I dislike (read: it does not challenge me); I can appreciate the technique of his craft, but there is a big difference between evocative, profound art and a precise and technically perfect still life.  Brahms is still life, and I'm just not into that.  I'm sure you'd make the exact, same argument to discredit the kind of music I normally listen to, yes?  "Just because it is expertly crafted or makes sense on paper, that doesn't make it good music to the ears".  I am merely applying this to Brahms instead of Cage, as my aesthetic preference simply lies on the other side of the fence.

Wait, I was going to use the other analogy.  Brahms is like watching the world's best curling team.  Sure, they are really, really good.  But it's curling; who gives a ***?

[weissenberg2]

I'm actually not a HUGE fan of Post-Modern music.


I was actually talking about this with someone yesterday, so I will use the same analogy.  Brahms has written a fair number of works I enjoy: Sonata No. 2, Klavierstuck Op. 76, Piano Quartet No. 1, Symphony No. 1, Piano Concerto No. 1 and the Double Concerto (as well as a couple, smaller works here and there).  Most of his music, however, I strongly dislike.  Brahms is a master technician, within the highest, possible echelon of compositional skill, particularly with harmonic development and contrapuntal forms.  I'm not going to argue against that.  However, I do not think Brahms had any particularly interesting ideas, or if he did, he certainly didn't show them.  Brahms was a throwback to the past, much like Reger or Busoni (although Busoni was, obviously, a fair deal less conservative, most of the time).  His music was purposefully safe and conservative; his music was reactionary to what he considered excesses in what was, then, the standard form of German writing (think Wagner).  It's in this purposeful conventionalism and lack of exploration that I dislike (read: it does not challenge me); I can appreciate the technique of his craft, but there is a big difference between evocative, profound art and a precise and technically perfect still life.  Brahms is still life, and I'm just not into that.  I'm sure you'd make the exact, same argument to discredit the kind of music I normally listen to, yes?  "Just because it is expertly crafted or makes sense on paper, that doesn't make it good music to the ears".  I am merely applying this to Brahms instead of Cage.

Wait, I was going to use the other analogy.  Brahms is like watching the world's best curling team.  Sure, they are really, really good.  But it's curling; who gives a ***?

fair enough, and no, I would not use that to discredit all of the music you listen to, I may use that to discredit some pieces by Finnissy, Stockhausen et al but certainly not all of it, I personally find Keqrops by Xenakis to be a very passionate and well-written piece.

[indutrial]

I can see exactly where John is coming from here. Brahms is well inside the circle of my appreciation, but he's not on the same level as a contemporary like Faure in terms of blowing my hair back. I'll admit that I've never quite decided what I like and don't like about music from the late nineteenth century. When I was younger, I really liked Liszt and Saint-Saens, but recent years (and an increased love of chamber music) have actually pushed me closer to guys like Brahms and Reger. After hearing too many heavily-romantic pieces, their work seems more and more necessary. For the same reasons, I'll always like twentieth-century composers like Milhaud, Hindemith, Bentzon, and Tansman just as much as some of the heavier musical fare from their time periods.

If Brahms is the musical analogue to curling, what does that make John Cage? I'm imagining a very frail man walking into a gymnasium filled with all sorts of sporting equipment and a childish look on his face. I think I'd rather watch the curling.

[thetamman]

Hey thanks for all your suggestions. John11inch, thankyou - the Bloch is AMAZING... I'm so tempted to play it, except as you said, it's annoying how music is so political that only 'mainstream' works are generally appreciated. People would rather hear Tchaik 1 for example than a Medtner 2.

Agree with the Brahms comment - the problem with a lot of composers is that they can compose 'technically' brilliantly (i.e. employing compositional techniques and so forth), but that in itself detracts away from the 'inspired' nature of the music. That's why (even though I might not necessarily the results of all Debussy's works), I do draw from Debussy's idea of music delineating form unto itself as opposed to composing music to fit a structure, as opposed to replying on jaded 'compositional techniques'. I don't hate Brahms, because I respect him as a technician, as you said, of the highest order, but to be honest, much of his music (akin to Schumann's) bores me - he was too caught up with trying to 'make' his music perfect, instead of letting it perfect itself...

Hmm... John, I do enjoy contemporary music, but I'm inclined to think of them more as 'experiments in music' as opposed to 'music' itself? Music's ultimately about communicating 'something' IMHO, and I like contemporary music because it expands our musical 'vocabulary'. I think it's about time that we started to synthesise the findings of these 'experimentations' to start creating music that communicates in ways that words alone can't...? That's what I'd define as great art anyway.

I've explored quite a lot of these ideas in my own compositional output - music as message/communication, and allowing music itself to determine your structure as opposed to structure/techniques determining your music, so if anyone wants an example of what I mean, feel free to send me a message.

Regards,
thetamman