Assessing Mendelssohn

[Amalie]

Assessments of the musical achievements of Mendelssohn vary today to perhaps a larger degree that was the case during his own lifetime and immediately after his death.
He was very popular in England during the 1830' / 40s, and indeed the strength of enthusiasm and acclaim for his music amongst the English public bears comparison with the tremendous adulation had for Handel by the time of the first performance of Elijah in 1847, he was a household name, and wherever he went he was cheered and applauded in the concert halls. His popularity in England continued for many years after his death. But how great a composer was he?
A representative of English opinion is a lengthy review by George MacFarren of the Third Symphony. MacFarren designates Mendelssohn's Third Symphony as one which will 'raise the author to the highest level of musical repute' and will advance the course of musical art. Furthermore he stressed the depth of human passion and feeling of the work.
In MacFarren's view, the originality of style which Mendelssohn has achieved in this work makes him the equal of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in the realm of instrumental music.
Would our correspondents here agree with this claim??




------------------
~ Unsterbliche Geliebte ~

[v russo]

Originally posted by Amalie:


Assessments of the musical achievements of Mendelssohn vary today to perhaps a larger degree that was the case during his own lifetime and immediately after his death.
He was very popular in England during the 1830' / 40s, and indeed the strength of enthusiasm and acclaim for his music amongst the English public bears comparison with the tremendous adulation had for Handel by the time of the first performance of Elijah in 1847, he was a household name, and wherever he went he was cheered and applauded in the concert halls. His popularity in England continued for many years after his death. But how great a composer was he?
A representative of English opinion is a lengthy review by George MacFarren of the Third Symphony. MacFarren designates Mendelssohn's Third Symphony as one which will 'raise the author to the highest level of musical repute' and will advance the course of musical art. Furthermore he stressed the depth of human passion and feeling of the work.
In MacFarren's view, the originality of style which Mendelssohn has achieved in this work makes him the equal of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in the realm of instrumental music.
Would our correspondents here agree with this claim??

Dear Amalie:

No. Haydn and Beethoven were asthetically more significant and innovatove as composers. Their achievment in the history of Western Classical Music is unpresedented.
Mendelssohn was a good composer, but not nearly as significant nor profoundly interesting as these other two "Mountain Tops" -as my old music history teacher once remarked.




------------------
v russo

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by v russo:
Dear Amalie:

No. Haydn and Beethoven were asthetically more significant and innovatove as composers. Their achievment in the history of Western Classical Music is unpresedented.
Mendelssohn was a good composer, but not nearly as significant nor profoundly interesting as these other two "Mountain Tops" -as my old music history teacher once remarked.

While I agree wholeheartedly in regards to Haydn and Beethoven I do feel that Mendelssohn is due more recognition than what he gets. The maturity of his early works rivals that of Mozart and Schubert in respect to their early works. But as far as innovating I think that Mendelssohn is no more than an extension of Schubert, although a very good extension. His oratorios do capture the essence of the Handel/Haydn oratorios, but do not add anything to what they did.

[Chaszz]

We can remember also that he played a large role in rescuing Bach from oblivion. I don't know if it was a strictly decisive role; but if it was, then without him we might not have Bach.

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
We can remember also that he played a large role in rescuing Bach from oblivion. I don't know if it was a strictly decisive role; but if it was, then without him we might not have Bach.

He also gave Schubert's 9th symphony
it's first performance when other orchestras were saying it was not playable. He championed the music of Niels Gade, granted no where near a Bach but, a rather pleasant romantic composer whose 1st symphony has touches of Mendelssohn running through it.
I think Mendelssohn's 3rd symphony, the "Scottish" is his best work in that genre. He was very self critical of his own works. He was not fond of the 4th symphony and refused to publish his 5th symphony. Mendelssohn is another another composer whose symphonies are not in the proper order. The actual order of his symphonies is no.1 then 2, 5 in 1832, 4 in 1833, and last No.3 was finished in 1842.

[Gurn Blanston]

In my reading over the years, the biggest "knock" I have seen written about FMB is that he "never lived up to his potential"? I would like to know in whose judgment that is. Apparently it was a common belief in the late 19th and early 20th. IMHO, he wrote some of the best music in his time. And an even larger contribution has already been mentioned by others, that of championing current and past composers. The list there includes Bach, Schubert, Gade, Schumann and even the young Brahms. I have all of his chamber music, it is great in anyone's estimation. I only have a lot of his orchestral works. King, I like the 3rd Symphony a lot, but I think Felix was wrong, the 4th is super, the opening movement is one of the most memorable around. Oh well, I have been accused of having little taste outside of my mouth, so don't go by me...


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Chris]

Mendelssohn is not a favorite of mine, but I do not dislike him. But the only work of his I listen to on a regular basis is his violin concerto, which is a very fine work, in my opinion.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
King, I like the 3rd Symphony a lot, but I think Felix was wrong, the 4th is super, the opening movement is one of the most memorable around. Oh well, I have been accused of having little taste outside of my mouth, so don't go by me...

I'm also partial to the fine Hebrides (Fingals cave) and Ruy Blas overtures, Midsummer night's dream music, the piano concertos, songs without words & the string octet.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Sorrano]

The piano music is very nice. I've heard the first concerto one time and came away liking it. But the piano music is always fun to play and there is a good variety of it.

[Tony John Hearne]

I simply adore the Piano Trio no 1 in D minor and got very hooked on the Octet in (I think) E flat major when I was a young dude, particularly the vibrant first movement. Put that togeher with the Overture to A Midsummer Night's Dream and the Violin Concerto, and I think we have here a fantastic composer

------------------
Love from London

[Rutradelusasa]

*taking some time from the lovely Copacabana beach behind me to post*
I don't know who here posted (not much time to look) that Mendelssohn was a extension to Schubert. That's well put, actually Mendelssohn took Schubert's innovations on the treatment of the woodwind section on the orchestra a step further, and it isn't as recognized as it should be. They did a marvelous job on how they used these instruments not only as a harmonic support for the whole ensemble, but as leaders of the themes (in equal status of the string section, the same applies to brass) and also gave them more imaginative parts, more difficult and more important as well. Take the beggining of the 'Italian Symphonie' for an example, the woodwinds provide the basis for the strings in a way not done before, and lo! the flutes are UNDER the clarinets in the violin concerto? Usually composers only got more imaginative with the woodwind section when they desired a specific effect, such as Haydn's in The Seasons and Beethoven's in the Pastoral. Schubert and Mendelssohn started to give them more respectful parts, and that continued onto Schumann (that's why he's considered a bad orchestrator - listen to Gardiner's recordings of his Symphonies to know he's not) and Wagner.

I won't be able to post again for some time (a few days) so don't expect me to reply in regards to replies about this, still I'm eager to get responses and I will look into them as soon as possible.

------------------
"Aaaaagnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi... PAM, PAM PA RAM PAM PAM..." (Missa Solemnis)

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rutradelusasa:
*taking some time from the lovely Copacabana beach behind me to post*
I don't know who here posted (not much time to look) that Mendelssohn was a extension to Schubert. That's well put, actually Mendelssohn took Schubert's innovations on the treatment of the woodwind section on the orchestra a step further, and it isn't as recognized as it should be. They did a marvelous job on how they used these instruments not only as a harmonic support for the whole ensemble, but as leaders of the themes (in equal status of the string section, the same applies to brass) and also gave them more imaginative parts, more difficult and more important as well. Take the beggining of the 'Italian Symphonie' for an example, the woodwinds provide the basis for the strings in a way not done before, and lo! the flutes are UNDER the clarinets in the violin concerto? Usually composers only got more imaginative with the woodwind section when they desired a specific effect, such as Haydn's in The Seasons and Beethoven's in the Pastoral. Schubert and Mendelssohn started to give them more respectful parts, and that continued onto Schumann (that's why he's considered a bad orchestrator - listen to Gardiner's recordings of his Symphonies to know he's not) and Wagner.

I won't be able to post again for some time (a few days) so don't expect me to reply in regards to replies about this, still I'm eager to get responses and I will look into them as soon as possible.

Well I'm not sure how much of Schubert Mendelssohn would have known in 1833 when he wrote the Italian Symphony (Schumann didn't discover 'The Great C major' symphony until 1840) - I should have thought that if we were discussing any composer regarding orchestral innovations in the 1830's it would be Berlioz whose Symphonie Fantastique appeared in 1831.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Joy]

Mendelssohn, a geat child prodigy along side Mozart in Western music. Another composer who died far too young and you wonder what 'might have been' if he had lived longer. Hebrides, a favourite of mine, and Midsummer Night's Dream, just wonderful. I recently watched an adaptation of this play on PBS just simply entitled "Dream" performed by the American Ballet Theatre and it was superb!!
Peter, talking about Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, only 27 years old at the time, amazing! A truly avant garde piece of music.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'