Talk:Chamber music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 1 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitze Chua(Gwen).

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repertoire lists[edit]

I'm not going to edit the page at the moment, but I'm not sure of the worth of listing chamber repertoire in this page. The repertoire varies according to group - a string quartet shares no repertoire at all with a piano trio, for instance. So wouldn't repertoire lists be better on those individial pages (string quartet, piano trio, string trio, piano quintet and so on)? --Camembert

I agree with Camembert--the list could get so huge that readers would have trouble finding what they're looking for. Better to use the existing structure of the Wikipedia to keep things organized. --Opus33 19:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I had reverted that portion of my edit when I copied some of the repertoire to piano trio. I'll do it now. UninvitedCompany 19:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Complete Scope of Chamber Music[edit]

I would like to know the complete scope of chamber music, i.e., the instruments involved. Is 2 pianos included? Thank you so much. - von Herzen

  • To quote from Groves: "Similarly, although chamber music is often defined as involving two or more players, much solo repertory such as Renaissance lute music, Bach’s violin sonatas and partitas and cello suites and several of Beethoven’s piano sonatas fulfils many of the functions and conditions of chamber music." --bleh fu 04:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

Perhaps a list-format would be more effective for displaying the multitude of different arrangements. I think that organization by the number of people in the ensemble would be the most effective, but this also runs the risk of redundancy -- perhaps limiting it to the most common/popular sub-categories would be prudent; I think something like this would work well:

etc. Possible issues:

  • How to deal with ensembles that don't fit easily into any of these categories?
  • Possibly organize by instrumentation as well? Wind chamber music? Piano chamber music?
    • How to deal with vocal chamber music? Maybe that needs an article for itself.

I'd love feedback. Cheers. --bleh fu 04:43, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

What about tables? I think this looks good. However, they will be quite cumbersome to maintain, xhtml, html, wikitable, whatever. --bleh fu 06:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea; you've already done what seems to be the biggest pain about it, the initial setup. Two suggestions: for instrumental sonata, you could probably just have one entry there, with the instrument being piano + other instrument (perhaps linking the ones that have separate articles in the comments ("see violin sonata, ...")). For another, I'd probably mention notable nonstandard instrumentations like the Schubert separately as notable exceptions rather than putting them in the table. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 06:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think I like incorporating uncommon examples in the table -- it takes advantage of its visual clarity. I think it's worth the inconvenience in table coding. --bleh fu 06:41, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Moved the table to the article. --bleh fu 03:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I like the table. Let's definitely expand it (sextet, octet, different kinds of trios, etc.) Antandrus 03:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plentious?[edit]

Is 'plentious' a word? Did the author mean 'plenteous'? I haven't changed it, because even if it's a mistake, it's a good word. Plus there is a very, very old wiki custom of leaving little imperfections like this around - wabi-sabi, we called it.

-- Tom Anderson 2008-03-21 some time in the evening —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.86.107 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added some stuff[edit]

Quite a bit of stuff, actually. This is a work in progress. I have left the section on 20th century music blank, hoping someone more knowledgeable than I on the topic would complete it. I am gradually adding pictures and music samples, but I thought I ought to go public with it now rather than wait. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about 20th century - I wrote it myself. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is completely Eurocentric. Nothing wrong with that, except that a huge amount of the classical music of non-Western cultures, esp. in Asia, consists of some form of chamber music (Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, North African/Saharan, etc.) Perhaps a small additional section could be added to the article that refers to this fact and links to various other Wikipedia articles on the classical musics of the world outside the Westernized parts of it? A student looking for information on chamber music should be offered a window onto these OTHER, well-established, types of chamber music. 2601:84:8A00:2860:48AB:4607:1FA7:AA22 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of small ensemble music of non-European music cultures as being referred to as "chamber music". There is an article called Musical ensemble which would be the appropriate place to include that material. IMHO. Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bartók - Sonata for two pianos and percussion - Assai lento - Allegro molto (clip).ogg[edit]

The image Image:Bartók - Sonata for two pianos and percussion - Assai lento - Allegro molto (clip).ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Fair Use justification to the image. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of links to nonfree content[edit]

I posted the following on User:Nixeagle's talk page about his deletion of the YouTube link to the Debussy quartet:

I disagree with your decision to remove this musical example, for the following reasons:

1. The musical examples in the article - and especially this one - are not mere decoration, but they are there to illustrate important milestones in the history of chamber music. And the Debussy quartet (as the article points out) is perhaps the most pivotal work of chamber music written in the last 120 years, as it heralds the end of tonality as we know it. Removing this example is a substantive deletion of relevant material.

2. As you could see if you read the article carefully, I have made every effort to use free material when it was available. I even enlisted free material - I convinced the Carmel Quartet to release their recordings of key works under a CC license (it wasn't too hard - they are good friends of mine). I used nonfree material only when I couldn't find free material.

3. Whenever I used nonfree material (by linking to YouTube), I linked only to videos that were posted by the performers themselves. There are plenty of recordings on YouTube that people taped from other sources and posted. I never used those, as the actual copyright owners might not agree to the use of their materials on YouTube. However, when a person posts a video of himself performing, it is fair to assume that that person wants other people to view the video. However, just to be sure, in every case where I used a YouTube video, I contacted the poster and received permission.

4. As you know, the subject of linking from Wikipedia to YouTube articles has been discussed often at the village pump, and it is not only not forbidden, but explicitly allowed.

As one who plays and performs myself, I am as sensitive as anyone to the issues of copyright infringement and would never do anything to impinge on the rights of others - certainly not in the Wikipedia. Moreover, I laud Wikipedia's objective of being a repository of free content. I will certainly replace any nonfree example used in any of my articles with a free one if I can find one. In the meantime, however, I believe the links to YouTube are justified and necessary.

If I do not receive a response from you within a couple of days, I will restore the example. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next day: My long harangue on this matter wore down poor User:Nixeagle, who responded, "Blah, go for it." Thank you, Nixeagle. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment that I agree with keeping the YouTube link in the article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with linking to websites containing free music that doesn't violate copyright. Graham87 13:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber orchestra[edit]

Is a chamber orchestra (less than 40 members) considered a kind of chamber music ensemble? Should it be in the table? — Gwalla | Talk 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. My inclination is no. If we include it, that means that just about all the music written up to Beethoven is chamber music (Mozart and Haydn symphonies, for example, with two horns and two oboes and strings). The article on Orchestra mentions chamber orchestras, but doesn't discuss them.

Our article defines chamber music as one player to a part, so if we include chamber orchestras, we would have to change that definition. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of nonfree content redux[edit]

Graham has pointed out that the Creative Commons license used by the Gardner Museum is not a free use license, but excludes commercial and derivative use. For this reason, the recordings cannot be included in the Wikipedia Commons (which requires a free use license) though they can be linked to, as they are in the public domain. For a discussion of this problem, see User_talk:Ravpapa#The_ISG_museum_license.

Therefore, I am going through the article, and replacing the recordings with links to the Gardner archive, and tagging the copies of the recordings in the Commons for deletion. This is just so everyone knows why this odd change in the article is taking place. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just remembered about this problem. I've tagged all the recordings for deletion, but I'm not sure how to remove them properly from this article because it uses templates in an unusual way. Graham87 08:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. All the references to the Gardner Museum archive have been changed from pointing to the Commons to pointing to the original archive. So deleting the recordings will not affect the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome's comments[edit]

Thank you for the critical reading of this article. I have revised text and added references where there was ambiguity.

Where I made a revision, I removed that tag, but left the in-text comments, occasionally adding to them or inserting a question. If you feel the revision does not adequately clarify, or that a citation is still required, please put the tag back in.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and I in turn thank you for making the corrections and adding references, which I had expected to do myself, once I found the necessary documentation. I have some responses to comments that you left in hidden text, which I would like to address a little more publicly here:
  1. To my criticism "what kind of instrument is a 'bass line'?" You said "changed to 'instrument', though I believe bass line is more correct, as several instruments might play the bass part." You are of course absolutely correct, but it was the larger context I was taking exception to, "two treble instruments and a bass line, often with a keyboard instrument (harpsichord or clavichord) filling in the harmony." (Clavichord is of course absurd, as anyone who has ever heard one would know, and your removal of this instrument is unquestionably correct.) The problem here is that in the case of using harpsichord, etc., the bass line is played by that instrument, as well as harmonies improvised according to the bass and figures (if any). Indeed, a harpsichord or organ often is used alone to play the bass (e.g., in the autograph manuscripts of Handel's recorder sonatas—not trio sonatas, to be sure, but the continuo principle is just the same—the composer specifies only "cembalo", and indeed some of the bass lines in these sonatas are so idiomatic for the keyboard that they are virtually unplayable on the cello, viola da gamba, or bassoon). I think that "bass line" can be restored, but the wording around it needs to be thought out.
  2. In this same place, you cite Donington, who is a fairly dependable source, to justify the statement that a single chording instrument is usual, and then ask "though other references may differ. I would be interested in hearing if so". I shall need to dig around a bit, but this depends in part on time and place. In 17th-century Italian practice, for example, an extremely common continuo instrumentation was the combination of chitarrone and chamber organ. The chitarrone's function in this case is primarily to support the melodic bass at the lower octave to the organ, but it also contributes some harmonic filler. The combination of plucked string (usually theorbo or French archlute) and organ was also occasionally described for chamber music in northern Europe in the eighteenth century, but of course it is when you get to the larger forces used in opera and oratorio that multiple chording instruments become a virtual necessity.
  3. A little further on, you have restored "some of Handel's trio sonatas are scored for 'violins, flutes or oboes'", and you cite Ulrich (1966), p. 132. I do not know the Ulrich book, but I am beginning to suspect it may not be all that reliable, if it really claims that Handel ever offered the alternative of oboe/violin or oboe/flute. As outlined in my hidden annotation, "None of the op. 2 or op. 5 trio sonatas include oboes amongst the possible instruments," and in fact, there are no undoubtedly authentic trio sonatas by Handel that mention the oboe at all. There was a set of six trio sonatas of doubtful authorship published under Handel's name, for oboe, violin, and continuo, but the instruments are very specific here. Since these are the only Handel trio sonatas to even mention oboe, it is manifestly untrue to claim that he ever offered the choice of "violins, flutes or oboes" as interchangeable instruments. (I refer you to the Handel work-list in the New Grove.)
  4. The matter of "Baroque chamber music was often contrapuntal; that is, each instrument played the same melodic materials at different times, creating a complex, interwoven fabric of sound" still needs work. It is not necessary for the different lines to play the same material for it to be contrapuntal, though this often occurs. Your change is in the right direction, since the description no longer defines canonic writing, but it still suggests that imitative counterpoint is the only kind found in trio sonatas.
  5. Where the article reads, "In the trio sonata, there is often no ascendent or solo instrument, but all three instruments share equal importance", I commented "Source needed. In fact, this is sometimes true, sometimes not," and you responded, "I have qualified this so it is less categorical. Personally, I know of no trio sonata of the Baroque where there is a solo line - if there were, would it be called a trio sonata?" I see I was not clear in expressing my criticism. No, of course there is not usually a "solo line", except briefly, and usually the two melody instruments take turns when this is the case. What I meant to say is that the bass line is not always an equal partner to the upper two voices, and in these cases "all three" instruments are not equal. I think I can find a quotation from Telemann on how he composed trio sonatas that will clarify this point.
  6. Finally, near the end of this section, to the passage reading "In the second half of the 18th century, the complexities of counterpoint fell out of fashion, and a new galante style appeared. The music of the galante featured richly embellished solo parts with simple accompaniments," I added two calls for verification, and you asked, "Have you added these fact tags because you feel the statements require attribution, or do you question their accuracy?" I question the accuracy of the first statement, but will accept the possibility that some source makes this claims. The first statement is an oversimplification in that (1) counterpoint is not necessarily more complex than other kinds of textures, and (2) countrapuntal textures never entirely fell out of fashion (consider the great fugue in the finale of Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony, for example, or the "Kyrie" from his Requiem). The second statement, about galante style is I think also oversimplified (if not so badly distorted as the first), and for that reason requires attribution.
That should do to be getting on with. I'll try to find some of those needed sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I will also keep working on it. I think our next project should probably be Trio sonata, which should clarify some of the more delicate points that we might leave vague here. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ulp! Of course there must be an article on the trio sonata and, also of course, you are right that this is the place to work out more detailed things. (Drat! I'm trying to reduce the number of articles on my watch list, not increase them!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?[edit]

I have only just noticed (though it has been there for some time) that the complete score of the composition Wach (Awake) by Karlheinz Stockhausen is quoted in this article without a permission-to-reprint notice. This is the English version of the text composition, found on p. 66 of Für kommende Zeiten (Für kommende Zeiten is not a single composition, as implied by the caption, but rather a collection of seventeen works, of which Wach is the sixteenth). The copyright page of the publication clearly reads "© K. Stockhausen 1976", and the page on which the English version appears also is marked with the "©" symbol. My first impulse was to delete it immediately, but on checking Wikipedia:Copyright violations, I found the advice: "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed." I am following this advice for the moment. However, I also find in that article: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored." If an adequate explanation is not provided fairly quickly, I am inclined to follow this latter instruction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I included this quote in the belief that it was fair use under Wikipedia policy, which specifies that "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." However, you might be right that this exceeds the limits of fair use. I have raised the issue here and will be interested in what others have to say.
I suggest we wait a few days to see what response we get. If there is no definitive policy regarding this, let's remove it. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Quotation of poetry (if Wach is so to be regarded) is a particularly sticky wicket in copyright law, and quotation of complete scores (which this is, albeit a unconventional one) always requires permission. When I quoted similar compositions from Stockhausen's Aus den sieben Tagen in my Ph.D. dissertation and a derived article, I was required to obtain permission from the publisher. I don't see how this case could be any different.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table of works[edit]

The table of chamber music works seems not ideal to read (let alone manage) to a newcomer. I propose to have a table here of just duet, trio, ..., not listing works, just kinds of duets, trios ... and divert to more specific tables in the respective articles, such as String trio, Wind quintet. These could accommodate a greater variety of works, rather than sticking to the ones most people know anyway. I don't want to go as far as proposing something like List of compositions for viola: A to E for all kinds of chamber music, but would like to see a broader coverage possible. - Btw, I don't see why we have details such as Hindemith's instruments in this table, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gerda that this list is pretty useless. It is there, I think, mostly for historical reasons: a couple of years ago, this list was the article in its entirety.
If we do include a list, I would like to see one with a lot of functionality; specifically, a list that you could
  • Sort by type of ensemble
  • Sort by composer
  • Filter by instrument ("Ensembles including trombone") or by two instruments ("trombone and glockenspiel")
  • Sort by period or by style (problematic, I know)
  • Filter by canonical repertoire vs. obscure (a lot of our readers don't know that you are more likely to hear Haydn string quartet Opus 20 number 4 on the radio than the Noam Sherif "Rosendorf" quartet).
And, as long as I am dreaming, I'd like to know where I can hear a recording or see (buy) the music. In short, something like IMSLP, only including the last 70 years as well. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff[edit]

Just a quick note to say how much I enjoyed this article. Congratulations to everyone involved - an example of Wikipedia at its finest! Bedesboy (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links section: Excessive?[edit]

User Mr Stephens has added a tag to the External Links section noting the excessive number of external links at the end of the article.

I, too, have watched with concern as the list of external links grows and grows. And I wonder how appropriate these links are.

The vast majority of these links are to websites of local and regional chamber music societies, whose main function is to organize community chamber music concerts. It is, to my knowledge, the only place on the web where such a list exists. the ACMP (www.acmp.net) has a list of such organizations, but not nearly as comprehensive.

So, on the one hand, this list has developed into a unique and valuable resource. On the other hand, one can't help but wonder if this is the right place for it. It would certainly be a tragedy to simply delete or prune it; yet to leave it as it is - well, you see my quandary.

Any ideas?

--Ravpapa (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only now notice that Aircom did a hatchet job on the external links section, without addressing any of the concerns raised above. I have restored the list. Certainly many of the links in that list that were removed by Mr. Aircom were relevant, including the links to ACMP, Chamber Music America, and others.
Please discuss this issue before making wholesale deletions to the links section. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to provide links to multiple other websites (see WP:Linkfarm). For a global topic the external links should not link websites of only regional or even national significance. Having too many links also dilutes out the good ones. Some were bordering on plain advertising, while others where dead. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current external links can be categorised into:

Advertising
Local interest
National interest
Dead
Possibly relevant

Hatchet job or not, sometimes you need to trim the fat. AIRcorn (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to differ with you on specific links. For example, the ACMP is certainly an organization that is relevant to the article, has its own wikipedia article and is also mentioned in the body of the text. By the same token, I would argue the case for a few more links.
But that is not the issue. My concern here is that, advertising or no, the links section of this article has turned into a real, and important, resource for people interested in chamber music. There isn't, to my knowledge, a similar list anywhere on the web. Moreover, it is a list that would be of interest to people reading the article. Consider the typical reader of this article - say, a high school student doing a report. An obvious question she might ask is, "Where can I here some of this stuff?" And here in the links section she might find an answer.
On the other hand, you are right: When viewed strictly from a policy point of view, this list is out of place. So the question is, where do we put it so that the information is not lost, but the article doesn't turn into a monster?
One idea that I had was to create a list article, List of Regional Chamber Music Societies. How would you feel about that? --Ravpapa (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ACMP page may be relevant, but it still comes across as an advertisement (login, membership and join now button displayed prominently on the linked page). It is fine as an external link from its own Wikipedia page, but I don't see how it adds anything to this article.
However, I having no problem with a List of Regional Chamber Music Societies article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Give me a few days, I will work on it. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Regional Chamber Music Societies article shows as a red link as of 01/04/2023. Was it ever created? Or created and then deleted? I realize that this conversation occurred 10 years ago. 2601:84:8A00:2860:48AB:4607:1FA7:AA22 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otstanding cleanup issues[edit]

These tags are outstanding and will result in a GAN quickfail if not immediately addressed. [Articles needing cleanup (May 2012), Articles needing link rot cleanup (May 2012), Articles with unsourced statements (February 2011, March 2009)] Jezhotwells (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add external links to that. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Fixed link rot, bare urls and citation needed. Where is "Articles needing cleanup (May 2012)"? Couldn't find it in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?[edit]

I am a bit surprised by Hyacinth's insistence on adding the Citation needed tag on the sentence in the lead, "The analogy to conversation recurs in descriptions and analyses of chamber music compositions". Hyacinth's edit summary says "conversation not discussed in article body".

Footnotes 2, 13, 14, 25, 27, 32, 33, 46, 62, and 87 all refer to usages of the word "conversation" or words related to conversation ("rhetoric", "vocabulary" and so on). There is one section of the article entitled "Conversational Paradigm" and two sections entitled "Music of Friends" which discuss chamber music as conversation. The sentence immediately preceding the tagged sentence is the first reference to chamber music as conversation, with a footnote. The word "conversation" appears in the article 21 times. So, Hyacinth, perhaps you could explain what I am missing here? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're surprised I'm confused. I remember doing a search for "convers" and finding few hits. Either I was somehow mistaken at the time (match case?), or I am misremembering, as there are many instances.
That said, your count above is off. 13 makes no reference to a conversational style, and if the source does, the article doesn't reflect that (instead it is a citation for the info that Haydn is considered "father of the string quartet"). The same with 25, 27, 46, 62, and 87.
However, since the idea is cited directly before the tagged sentence, and given 2 and 14, the tag is unnecessary. Hyacinth (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Beethoven section[edit]

The text says that the Op. 1 trios were published when Beethoven was 22. Actually they were *written* when he was 22, and published in 1795, when he was 24. I'll fix it. Opus131 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OnBeyondZebrax's edits[edit]

OnBeyondZebrax (talk · contribs): Thank you for your edits, which added a lot to the article. While I agree with most of them, I have some issues about a few. I didn't feel right to change them without discussion, so here is my opinion:

  • The lead: While it is true that the string quartet is a key type of chamber music, I don't think it merits inclusion in the lead. In the Baroque period there were no string quartets, and, in terms of mass, I am not sure that there are more string quartets than, for example, piano trios or music for piano four hands, which was an immensely popular form in the 19th century. Also, you exclude from the definition of chamber music music for a single instrument with piano; but many do consider this to be chamber music. It is, in my mind, incorrect to exclude Brahms violin or cello sonatas from the chamber music repertoire.
  • Changing "today" to "2010s": this is very odd syntax, and also problematical. Do you promise to edit the article to update it on January 1, 2020?
  • "... still play chamber music at home... " How do you know they are playing at home? maybe they are playing at someone else's home? or at a workshop in a conservatory? The addition of "at home" adds nothing, and could be misleading.
  • "... or even by a string orchestra": Is composition for a string orchestra something extreme? What does "even by" add? I would understand it if it was "even by a gamelon orchestra" or "even by a bagpipe orchestra" But a string orchestra?
  • "A bass note with no numeric code above it was deemed to be the ..." The article is about chamber music. Explanations of how to write figured bass seem irrelevant to the article, and would be incomprehensible to most readers.
  • "and the chamber music he or she composed was for the pleasure of aristocratic listeners and amateur aristocratic performers." There are two things problematic about this edit. First of all, "he or she" - I don't know any female composers from the Baroque and early classical periods (which is what this sentence is talking about). Do you? Secondly, are you sure that the aristocratic players of this music played to aristocratic listeners? As far as I know, these players played for their own pleasure and did not necessarily perform. Prince Esterhazy, for example, played the baryton (badly), and is never known to perform in public. So your edit is probably incorrect.
  • "for professional musicians playing for a paying audience of the general public." Subscription concerts were not for the general public. They were invitation-only affairs, and often cost a good deal of money; so the audience was generally aristocratic.
  • "By leading, this means that the violinist indicates the start of each movement and their tempos by a gesture with her head or bowing hand." This is a very rudimentary and misleading explanation of what leading means in a chamber ensemble. Setting the tempo at the outset of the movement is one of the lesser acts of the leader, and it is not necessarily done by gesturing with head or bow hand. So this explanation more misleads that adds. I would remove it.

Any other opinions?

Regards,

--Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the points Ravpapa mentioned. These edits need to be modified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were a handful of women composers back then. Isabella Leonarda, for example, wrote some sonatas da chiesa. But certainly they were a tiny minority. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chamber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chamber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of lead clarity[edit]

The lead for this article should include a brief description of the structure for the rest of the article by including the timeline breakdown of chamber music's progression over time. These delineations are used for section headings throughout the article but not actually denoted in the introduction. RannochbyGlencoe (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but am open to being convinced. I disagree because the lead paragraph should not be a summary outline of the article, but should state the most salient points - which this lead does. I think an historical recounting in the lead would make it turgid and topheavy, and add nothing.
However, as I say, I could be convinced. I suggest you take a shot at it, on the talk page preferably, and we'll see if we all agree.
Ravpapa (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as part of Wiki Edu project[edit]

Hi, I'm Gwen and I will be revising this article as part of my class on chamber music literature this spring! I will be working on the "chamber music and society in the 19th century" section and I look forward to your feedback on my revisions! Kaitze Chua(Gwen) (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have you on board. What sources are you reading? Always glad to help out and make recommendations. Ravpapa (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Chamber Music Literature[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 22 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitze Chua(Gwen) (article contribs).

Did Haydn really invent the "conversational style" of the string quartet?[edit]

It can be found in Franz Xaver Richter's quartets from 1757 https://s9.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usimg/6/6a/IMSLP661672-PMLP450653-partitur.pdf --Wikiwickedness (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down the tone and cut clutter?[edit]

Hi peeps. Overall I find the work great but I find the tone of the article a bit off. In many places it reads, to me, rather like a book chapter or a magazine article.

It's clear the authors have had quite strong views about what's "good" or "bad" and who are "the greats". Nothing wrong having those views but I wonder whether they need to be expressed on Wikipedia. Here are couple of examples:

Mozart's string quartets are considered the pinnacle of the classical art.
Ludwig van Beethoven straddled this period of change as a giant of Western music. Beethoven transformed chamber music, raising it to a new plane, both in terms of content and in terms of the technical demands on performers and audiences.

In addition to these opinionated views the article is rather sprawling. I feel like the whole thing could be much improved by streamlining it, cutting out some clutter, using simpler sentences, and so on. If this was an academic or non-fiction book/article on the subject, presenting the views of writer/scholar(s) X, then both the strong views as well as the sprawling language would be fine. But on Wikipedia I would change the tone.

I don't know that much about classical music myself and so I'm not going to touch this. Nor am I going to debate the issue -- you active editors do as you see best. But I thought I'd give you my two cents as a reader. Gemena (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chamber_music&oldid=1209867034"