Talk:Chamber music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[edit] Complete Scope of Chamber Music
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)
[edit] Organization
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)
