The Grey Area-Chamber and Orchestra Pieces

Hi guys,

So I feel that this is a very interesting area of classical music. How do you define chamber music and when does a chamber piece become too large and thus enters the world of orchestral repertory?

the only reason I've started to think of this is because I've just started writing the music for a requiem I've been meaning to write for about a year and a half now. After letting it ferment I have a lot of ideas and such. However, the ensemble calls for sixteen people. I was unsure if it was a chamber piece or an orchestral piece, because the parts could hypothetically (and if possibly, I would love) be doubled, tripled or blown up into large sections. At least the strings. But if this was not done and just kept to about sixteen or seventeen, is it a chamber piece?

One of my teachers told me that a Mozart Symphony could be considered a chamber piece even (an orchestra of forty hardly qualifies as a chamber piece), and that it depends on the orchestration as well.

Any and all input is appreciated,

All the best,

Yasamune

I believe chamber music is generally intended for performance in a small room or concert hall with one part per person and usually no conductor (I'm not sure about the conductor).

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines Chamber Music as follows:

music and especially instrumental ensemble music intended for performance in a private room or small auditorium and having one performer for each part

You might also want to look at Wikipedia's Entry on Chamber Music.

Well, the distinction isn't totally clear. But what is rather certain is that you can't just define it by numbers. 16 players could very well be the number of players in a small orchestra, but it could be a large chamber music ensemble as well. You definitely can't define it by the presence/absence of a conductor, since there are orchestras (even large ones) that always play without a conductor, while a lot of chamber music (especially contemporary chamber music) will often be played with a conductor, sometimes even if there are only two or three instrumentalists!

Defining chamber music by "one player per part" may come closer in most cases, but that too doesn't always apply. First, there are performances of orchestral pieces where every part (even strings) is only played by one person. I have composed for such orchestras as well, and it is still a different thing than consciously composing for a chamber ensemble - plus it is of course perfectly possible to play almost any piece with just single strings (as long as there are no divisi parts) - it's just a question whether it's adequate for the piece (it may be for a lot of baroque/classical music, but maybe less so for a huge Strauss piece). Also, again in contemporary music it's not too uncommon for composers to actually write out a part for every player even in a medium to large orchestra (Ligeti and others often did that).

Cutting it down to the "intended performance space" is not quite accurate either, since a lot of music isn't even consciously created for a specific room. The size of room that is deemed adeqate for an ensemble is generally more defined by its size/volume/instrumentation than it's function as an "orchestral piece" or "chamber music".

But still, most of these elements may take a part in the consideration whether a particular piece qualifies as "orchestral" or not. But there's one additional major distinction: The composer's intention. Often, the way a piece is composed differs between orchestral music and chamber music. Orchestral music more often tends to use "mass effects", textures, compound timbres, etc., whereas the traditional chamber music piece may focus more on treating all instruments as individual voices that interact. Goethe described the string quartet as "a conversation between four reasonable people" - and it's exactly this idea of personal interaction (be that a "discussion", a "fight", or something else) that is quite a prevalent traditional concept of chamber music: In other words, a music where different instruments/players come together in some way.

Orchestral music, on the other hand, began possibly since the Mannheim school in the late 18th century to grow somewhat apart from this tradition, towards a more unified sound, or even "a single polyphonic, multi-faceted instrument", where global processes (such as crescendi/diminuendi, textures, etc.) became more and more important and musical lines began to separate from one clear instrumental identity (e.g. by having a melody change it's timbre by moving gradually between instruments etc.). Of course, this also has a lot to do with the advent of the role of the conductor as the single leader of the whole group, which led to a greater unification of the orchestra body.

But of course, these separations were never strict. Before an "orchestra culture" really existed (as mentioned around the time of the Mannheim school) there was no real distinction between chamber music and orchestral music. A renaissance/baroque piece was often just performed with whatever instruments were available at the time of the performance, so one time the basso continuo might have been played by a harpsichord alone, another time by a lute and a cello, a third time by a huge arsenal of bass strings, bassoons, trombones, etc. The important point was just that the bass and the melody were clearly audible, and that there were some filling instruments to complete the harmonies. In the classical era this had of course already changed to a much more conscious use of the orchestra, but the distinction between orchestras and chamber ensembles still wasn't very clear, with maybe the only difference that in orchestral performances more complete amateurs tended to perform. This did change a lot in the following time of course, and the 19th century generally shows a relatively clear distinction between both forms in the sense I mentioned, also because orchestras tended to grow more and more in size, while chamber music groups tended to stay at a similar level - but even there, there were composers who breached the gap and composed orchestral music in a "chamber musical" way, or chamber music in an "orchestral way" (the latter tends to be much rarer than the former though).

And of course, in the 20th century this changed a lot again. In the second half of the 20th century many composers stopped composing for orchestras altogether, prefering larger chamber music groups and still today the "contemporary music ensemble" (such as the Ensemble Intercontemporain, the Ensemble Modern, the Ensemble l'Itin

Well, I suppose if it does not change anything, then I suppose it does not matter. However, i think it does change the way that the piece is perceived, and the way chamber pieces are performed are just as interesting if not more interesting than regular orchestra pieces. In a major orchestral piece, the conductor brings the orchestra together by use of his baton and judgement and his suggestions/orders, where as in a chamber ensemble, it is far more democratic and really shows people as they are as musicians and as people. I've been told by a few teachers that chamber music is an allegory for how people SHOULD work together. I'm not sure if I agree with this entirely yet.

I still think it matters though. I think it's a good discussion to have, cause I think it does matter to a lot of people.

PS. Gardener-FABULOUS ANSWER! I LOVE IT! :D