Mendelssohn=superficial?

[weissenberg2]

People have told me the music of Felix Mendelssohn is superficial. I personally think that is blasphemy. Sometimes his music is somewhat harmonically basic, but his counterpoint is up to par and his sense of structure is excellent and I find in his chamber and orchestral writing, the instruments work very well together.

What does everyone else think?

[thalbergmad]

I have just finished reading a book about the life and works of Mendelssohn.

One section i found very interesting as it mentions the possibility that Mendelssohn simply did not "suffer" enough for his compositions to be of any great emotional depth. When compared to the turmoil that was experienced by the likes of Wagner and Beethoven, Mendelssohn's life seems to have been somewhat smoother and perhaps this is reflected in his works.

I can listen to some of his compositions and remain completely unmoved.

Thal

[weissenberg2]

I have just finished reading a book about the life and works of Mendelssohn.

One section i found very interesting as it mentions the possibility that Mendelssohn simply did not "suffer" enough for his compositions to be of any great emotional depth. When compared to the turmoil that was experienced by the likes of Wagner and Beethoven, Mendelssohn's life seems to have been somewhat smoother and perhaps this is reflected in his works.

I can listen to some of his compositions and remain completely unmoved.

Thal

Well keep in mind he lived only to 38. I usually find a lot of his music to have emotional depth, but I agree a good portion of it is emotionally dry (E.G. symphony no.4 in A major "Italian") but the thread has to do with the compositional part of his music, not the emotional.

[samjohnson]

Well keep in mind he lived only to 38. I usually find a lot of his music to have emotional depth, but I agree a good portion of it is emotionally dry (E.G. symphony no.4 in A major "Italian") but the thread has to do with the compositional part of his music, not the emotional.

Chopin only lived to 39...
I've always like Mendelssohn.  Some of his music lacks power, but it's all very pleasant. 

[ahinton]

I have just finished reading a book about the life and works of Mendelssohn.

One section i found very interesting as it mentions the possibility that Mendelssohn simply did not "suffer" enough for his compositions to be of any great emotional depth. When compared to the turmoil that was experienced by the likes of Wagner and Beethoven, Mendelssohn's life seems to have been somewhat smoother and perhaps this is reflected in his works.

I can listen to some of his compositions and remain completely unmoved.

OK, so leaving aside for a moment the sheer wonder of the craftsmanship that characterises so much of his work (especially his chamber music - I can most certainly live without those largely ponderous and Teutonically five-star symphonies as easily as you can down a pint of decent beer), may I commend you to listen to the last of his six string quartets - the one in F minor, Op. 80 - written not so much in sorrow but in anger at the premature death of his sister? Even its lovely slow movement barely veils the angst and almost unremitting grimness of the remainder. It's a powerful work that admittedly owes more than a little to Beethoven's Op. 95 quartet in the same key, yet Mendelssohn's never gives way to optimism as Beethoven's finally does, preferring instead to end by winding up the F minor tension to a degree quite unprecedented in his work (as indeed is much of the rest of the piece). I have a wonderful performance by the Mistry Quartet but I don't think that they ever recorded it - you'll find others, though...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

may I commend you to listen to the last of his six string quartets - the one in F minor, Op. 80 - written not so much in sorrow but in anger at the premature death of his sister?

OK, i will.

It is a shame that he had less than 6 months himself to live. Grief can produce wonderous music.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Well keep in mind he lived only to 38.

There are undoubtedly a long list of superb composers who lived less.

Thal

[ramseytheii]

I have just finished reading a book about the life and works of Mendelssohn.

One section i found very interesting as it mentions the possibility that Mendelssohn simply did not "suffer" enough for his compositions to be of any great emotional depth. When compared to the turmoil that was experienced by the likes of Wagner and Beethoven, Mendelssohn's life seems to have been somewhat smoother and perhaps this is reflected in his works.

I find that dubious at best - after all, Liszt hardly suffered in such a way as Beethoven; Bach is not on record as having a particularly tragic life; Brahms was healthy and beloved all his life; Handel suffered a stroke but that is about all, and we listen to plenty of his music from before that; I feel the list goes on and on. 

It's a cliche, in my opinion, to describe artists as repositories of suffering and disease.  It causes ridiculous films to be made about artists, where they are always portrayed as freakish people in need of superhuman amounts of sympathy.

Walter Ramsey

[argerichfan]

There are undoubtedly a long list of superb composers who lived less.

And you can put Julius Reubke at the top of that list.  

Re Mendelssohn, I think the Scottish Symphony such a superb piece of music (not to mention the tone painting!), that I've missed the Teutonic accusations.  

And I know this is not always a popular, fashionable or trendy thing to admit, but I've always found tremendous moments of power and faith in the oratorios, Elijah and St. Paul.  They can be very moving experiences in the right venue.  And there's always Hear my prayer...

[thalbergmad]

Brahms was healthy and beloved all his life;

And how it shows.

As for Liszt, I feel we have some reasonable inner turmoil there.

Thal

[weissenberg2]

And you can put Julius Reubke at the top of that list.  

Re Mendelssohn, I think the Scottish Symphony such a superb piece of music (not to mention the tone painting!), that I've missed the Teutonic accusations.  

And I know this is not always a popular, fashionable or trendy thing to admit, but I've always found tremendous moments of power and faith in the oratorios, Elijah and St. Paul.  They can be very moving experiences in the right venue.  And there's always Hear my prayer...

I agree the Scottish symphony is great. I personally prefer the Reformation symphony. I don't like the Italian symphony, to repetitive 

Anyway, the original question has not been answered. Is it superficial? (not emotionally, compositionally)

[ramseytheii]

Anyway, the original question has not been answered. Is it superficial? (not emotionally, compositionally)

It's an interesting question but it's flawed, in my opinion.  How is something superficial compositionally?  I've heard that as a description of Schubert's works - when they were comparing him to Beethoven.  It's meant that Schubert didn't work out the themes as thoroughly, didn't "develop" as much, and didn't compose his themes in sufficiently small, separable pieces.  But that criticism missed all the original elements of his music!  It just "wasn't Beethoven"!

So we have to judge a composer by what idea they had in mind, not someone else's work.  In that respect, I think Mendelssohn could be superficial in his approach.  For instance in Elijah certain cuts are often made because movements start to be texturally repetitive.  The number of solos with simple four-part harmony becomes monotonous.  It's true with some of the piano music as well.

But I don't think you can say that he is like that in general.  If you think about it, he composed a vast amount of music that is original and unforgettable, and in the permanent canon.  A little while ago, it was his 200th birth anniversary.  This is what I posted then:

"Elijah; Midsummer Night Dream; Calm Sea and Prosperous journey; Fingal's Cave; Octet; all of the Songs without Words; Rondo Capriccioso; Piano concerti; Violin concerto; Organ sonatas; Preludes and fugues; Piano trios; Lobgesang; Reformation Symphony; Scottish Symphony; Serious Variations; Ruy Blas - for a composer who I don't even consider my favorite, so much of his music is indispensable to me!"

There is nothing superficial about the composition of those masterpieces, and I think it is safe to say that his great works outnumbers his lesser ones.  But somehow Mendelssohn has become a perennial punching bag.  Barenboim, a few years ago, said that the history of music would be the same with or without him (an idiotic statement typical of Barenboim).  In the 60's, it was retro and contrary to appreciate Mendelssohn, as Glenn Gould did.  Wagner and his acolytes loved to hate Mendelssohn.

Oh well.  Just love him for the music he wrote which is great.  Bach wrote a lot of music that we couldn't bother to listen to today, and most other composers did as well.  Why single out Mendelssohn?

Walter Ramsey

[argerichfan]

Elijah; Midsummer Night Dream; Calm Sea and Prosperous journey; Fingal's Cave; Octet; all of the Songs without Words; Rondo Capriccioso; Piano concerti; Violin concerto; Organ sonatas; Preludes and fugues; Piano trios; Lobgesang; Reformation Symphony; Scottish Symphony; Serious Variations; Ruy Blas - for a composer who I don't even consider my favorite, so much of his music is indispensable to me!

Well Walter, it's almost as if you borrowed my list.  I know and love all the works you mention, and as an organist, I appreciate the inclusion of the organ sonatas.  You only left out St. Paul, a work I love, though that is very much a minority opinion.

Perhaps I rate Mendelssohn higher than you do, maybe not, though the repertoire would be very much poorer without his contributions.  The fact that he lived a relatively carefree life, IMO, doesn't count for much.  Talent is TALENT. 

[birba]

I ADORE Mendelssohn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gep]

For some reason, and while admiring his compositional skill in pretty much all departments, Mendelssohn's music fails to grab me such as so much music can and does. This is, with me, generally true with composers from that era (such as Schumann). For me, it's all very well written, attractive, entertaining, pleasant, ekcetera, but it falls short of a certain zest music from other periods has. A certain lack of drama, humour, emotion? Too placid, civilised, well-mannered? I don't know...
Of course, we all have our composers we like more than others. But for me, interest stalls a bit after ± Beethoven and only picks up again when the likes of Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler and the like start shaking things up.

This was particularly noticable when, a few years ago, I attended a series of concerts in which the Belgian Quatuor Danel presented 6 string quartets by Mieszyslav Weinberg, two in each concert and seperated by a Mendelssohn quartet. To me, the Mendelssohn quartets didn't "work" anything like the Weinbergs. Not even the op. 80 one, despite the fact that I find that one the best of the ones MB wrote.

I do have a fondness for MB's early orchestral works, though (the string symphonies, esp. 7-12, and the early concerti. But these are of course founded on the likes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven).

To make things even more puzzling perhaps, I'm not so very much moved by Mozart either, much as I love a number of his works. Perhaps there's something of the same reason behind that...

gep

[birba]

hmmmm...food for thought.  I'd like to answer "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but somehow there's more to it.  There's SO much humour in MB's music.  In fact, I would liken him to Haydn, not Mozart.

[thalbergmad]

In fact, I would liken him to Haydn, not Mozart.

I would liken some of his piano works to Weber.

Thal

[gep]

Perhaps I'm just more of a Sturm und Drang type. I like Fingall's cave for ex. Yet I haven't found anything in MB that compares to the various emotional aspects (including humour) inculded in one single work such as can be found in Haydn's "Farewell" Symphony.

Currently my eye is beholding the thermometer atque moisture measuring thingy. The eye does not behold beauty there....

gep

[weissenberg2]

It's an interesting question but it's flawed, in my opinion.  How is something superficial compositionally?  I've heard that as a description of Schubert's works - when they were comparing him to Beethoven.  It's meant that Schubert didn't work out the themes as thoroughly, didn't "develop" as much, and didn't compose his themes in sufficiently small, separable pieces.  But that criticism missed all the original elements of his music!  It just "wasn't Beethoven"!

So we have to judge a composer by what idea they had in mind, not someone else's work.  In that respect, I think Mendelssohn could be superficial in his approach.  For instance in Elijah certain cuts are often made because movements start to be texturally repetitive.  The number of solos with simple four-part harmony becomes monotonous.  It's true with some of the piano music as well.

But I don't think you can say that he is like that in general.  If you think about it, he composed a vast amount of music that is original and unforgettable, and in the permanent canon.  A little while ago, it was his 200th birth anniversary.  This is what I posted then:

"Elijah; Midsummer Night Dream; Calm Sea and Prosperous journey; Fingal's Cave; Octet; all of the Songs without Words; Rondo Capriccioso; Piano concerti; Violin concerto; Organ sonatas; Preludes and fugues; Piano trios; Lobgesang; Reformation Symphony; Scottish Symphony; Serious Variations; Ruy Blas - for a composer who I don't even consider my favorite, so much of his music is indispensable to me!"

There is nothing superficial about the composition of those masterpieces, and I think it is safe to say that his great works outnumbers his lesser ones.  But somehow Mendelssohn has become a perennial punching bag.  Barenboim, a few years ago, said that the history of music would be the same with or without him (an idiotic statement typical of Barenboim).  In the 60's, it was retro and contrary to appreciate Mendelssohn, as Glenn Gould did.  Wagner and his acolytes loved to hate Mendelssohn.

Oh well.  Just love him for the music he wrote which is great.  Bach wrote a lot of music that we couldn't bother to listen to today, and most other composers did as well.  Why single out Mendelssohn?

Walter Ramsey

Thank you for your response.

By superficial I was thinking a lack of depth, 'just a bunch of pretty melodies' etc...

I would liken some of his piano works to Weber.

Thal

I agree he is like Weber, I would say he is more like Schumann.

[birba]

I would liken some of his piano works to Weber.

Thal

Definitely.  But Schumann?!  Can't hear that.

[weissenberg2]

Definitely.  But Schumann?!  Can't hear that.

I feel they have the same idiom but speak in different voices.

[imbetter]

I hear absolutely no resemblance of Mendelssohn to Schumann. To me he sort of sounds like a mixture of Beethoven and Schubert.

[weissenberg2]

I guess I am part of the minority with the Schumann 

[ahinton]

I think the Scottish Symphony such a superb piece of music (not to mention the tone painting!), that I've missed the Teutonic accusations.  

And I know this is not always a popular, fashionable or trendy thing to admit, but I've always found tremendous moments of power and faith in the oratorios, Elijah and St. Paul.  They can be very moving experiences in the right venue.  And there's always Hear my prayer...

These are, I fear, the kinds of Mendelssohn crowd-pleasers that would have me running from the concert hall, for all that they are at worst well-crafted; I'm not seeking to criticise them per se but to observe that those oratorios in particular are pretty much anathema to me; their influence on Stanford and Parry was unconfortably large and there remain whiffs of Victorian sanctimoniousness hanging over even into bits of Elgar's The Kingdom and The Apostles - frankly, on the oratorio front (in England, that is), Gerontius swept an awful lot before it and is on quite another level altogether....

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

I have the 5-CD survey of Mendelssohn piano solo works by Benjamin Frith on Naxos. Listening through, it becomes apparent that the piano solo output can be distilled to a handful of absolute masterpieces, while the rest are forgettable.

The same could be said after surveying Schumann's complete piano works (Jörg Demus on Nuova Era 13-CD set).

Anyway, I feel justified to say that if any composer can be labeled superficial, Rossini takes the cake!

[argerichfan]

... and there remain whiffs of Victorian sanctimoniousness hanging over even into bits of Elgar's The Kingdom and The Apostles - frankly, on the oratorio front (in England, that is), Gerontius swept an awful lot before it and is on quite another level altogether....

There are some great moments in The Kingdom and The Apostles, particularly 'The Spirit of the Lord' from the latter (I feel that is one of the greatest moments in Elgar), but alas, the superb writing and craftsmanship in these oratorios is basically wasted on uninteresting and defuse librettos.  It is no surprise that Elgar never completed the projected 'trilogy', but of course the bottom line was simply that neither of those two oratorios earned Elgar enough money.  He was a business man, he was simply making a living.   Frankly I can understand that.  But his genius went on to full flower in symphonic music, and he went to the top of the pile, well above the symphonies of Stanford and Parry, as delightful as they are.  (Well, some of Stanford's symphonies basically just go through the 'motions')

Ultimately Elgar was in much the same situation as Wagner.  Unless Wagner was inspired by a great human theme -usually redemption through love- he couldn't compose anything above the many and myriad compositions of the kappelmeisters of his time.  Elgar's Gerontius is so unutterably great because the composer was so taken with -and inspired- by a human theme which eventually affects all of us. 

Most of my (non-cyber) friends are either atheist or agnostic, but all of them do give some thought to the concept of death, and that is very human of course.  And that is why Gerontius will always remain one of the great human experiences in our life, on a par with the Bach B minor and the Beethoven Missa. 

[ahinton]

There are some great moments in The Kingdom and The Apostles, particularly 'The Spirit of the Lord' from the latter (I feel that is one of the greatest moments in Elgar), but alas, the superb writing and craftsmanship in these oratorios is basically wasted on uninteresting and defuse librettos.  It is no surprise that Elgar never completed the projected 'trilogy', but of course the bottom line was simply that neither of those two oratorios earned Elgar enough money.  He was a business man, he was simply making a living.   Frankly I can understand that.  But his genius went on to full flower in symphonic music, and he went to the top of the pile, well above the symphonies of Stanford and Parry, as delightful as they are.  (Well, some of Stanford's symphonies basically just go through the 'motions')

Ultimately Elgar was in much the same situation as Wagner.  Unless Wagner was inspired by a great human theme -usually redemption through love- he couldn't compose anything above the many and myriad compositions of the kappelmeisters of his time.  Elgar's Gerontius is so unutterably great because the composer was so taken with -and inspired- by a human theme which eventually affects all of us. 

Most of my (non-cyber) friends are either atheist or agnostic, but all of them do give some thought to the concept of death, and that is very human of course.  And that is why Gerontius will always remain one of the great human experiences in our life, on a par with the Bach B minor and the Beethoven Missa.

You make a number of valid and important points here (although none of them are about Mendelssohn!). I do agree with much of what you write here, although I'd have to take issue with the extent to which one could reasonably write of Elgar's three symphonies, the violin and cello concertos, the chamber music, Alassio and Falstaff as examples of his being "inspired by a great human theme -usually redemption through love- [to the point that] he couldn't compose anything above the many and myriad compositions of the Kapellmeisters of his time" (as you say of him, comparing him to Wagner in this respect); Elgar certainly wrote some Kapellmeisterisch music, tossed off his fair share of ephemeral bonbons and did some other work far below his best (the revolting Crown of India almost certainly representing the ultimate nadir in his output) but, as you say, he had to earn a living - it's just that not all of his truly great music deals with the issues that we encounter in Gerontius.

Anyway, mindful of the topic(!), it is probably fair to suggest that Mendelssohn's oratorios exerted no small influence over Stanford and Parry (of the former of whom Sorabji once said that he'd have set the whole Bible to music given the chance) and it was into this watered-down sentimentalist complacent self-satisfied Victorian "Christian oratorio" mould that Elgar might have been expected to pour his own efforts in the medium; his discomfort with the idea of so doing is plainly evident from a number of instances in The Kingdom and The Apostles, but in Gerontius he rises far above such conventions and faces a fundamental human issue directly with music that largely moves away from set-piece formats to through-composed continuous organic/symphonic narrative à la manière de Wagner (albeit at the same time well aware of the example of Brahms in such works as Ein Deutsches Requiem and the sadly lesser-known Schicksalslied) - and the composer's own bons mots on the motivation behind Gerontius and what he sought to achieve in going about it the way he did are revealing here. It might be argued that all that remains to link Elgar's oratorio writing to the Mendelssohnian model is that same Germanic influence that had exerted so strong a pull on English composers in the latter half of the 19th century, not least Stanford and Parry; what he does with this, however, is on quite another level altogether from his English contemporaries and immediate musical forebears.

But to return directly to FM; I suppose that, the oratorios and symphonies apart, my own feelings about his work tend to some extent to occupy a middle viewpoint in that I can do far more than merely appreciate the consistently elegant craftsmanship of so much of his work but at the same time cannot but accept that he rarely explores the outer reaches of human emotion, but then that was not his way, I guess - although maybe it might have become so had he survived for a further thirty years; that Op. 80 quartet really does strike me as quite a new departure for him...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

he rarely explores the outer reaches of human emotion

Compare Mendelsohn's 4th with Shostakovich 4th, for example.

Case closed, I think?

[weissenberg2]

Compare Mendelsohn's 4th with Shostakovich 4th, for example.

Case closed, I think?

Mendelssohn's 4th symphony is a bad example, I think no.5 would be a better one.

[argerichfan]

...the revolting Crown of India almost certainly representing the ultimate nadir in his output) but, as you say, he had to earn a living - it's just that not all of his truly great music deals with the issues that we encounter in Gerontius.

Well, Cown of India was a commission after all... and I do wonder if the music had different associations, would it be so maligned? 

Anyway, mindful of the topic(!), it is probably fair to suggest that Mendelssohn's oratorios exerted no small influence over Stanford and Parry (of the former of whom Sorabji once said that he'd have set the whole Bible to music given the chance)

Sorabji? I can certainly imagine him saying that, though I've always read that it was Delius.  He reportedly made the statement to Elgar when they got together (Elgar flew over the Channel to visit) very near the end of their respective lives.  They were reminiscing about the old English choral tradition... would like to have been a fly on the wall.   

[ahinton]

Well, Cown of India was a commission after all... and I do wonder if the music had different associations, would it be so maligned?

If you had to mistype that title, why didn't you make it Clown of India?! - and, in answer to your question, I fear that, having seen the score, the ansdwer to your question is yes (and, let's face it, the title itself is surely enough to place it beyond the pale)...

Sorabji? I can certainly imagine him saying that, though I've always read that it was Delius.  He reportedly made the statement to Elgar when they got together (Elgar flew over the Channel to visit) very near the end of their respective lives.  They were reminiscing about the old English choral tradition... would like to have been a fly on the wall.   

So would I! It was indeed in 1933, however, so that would not have been posible. I cannot now run to earth the precise source of this in Sorabji but, of course, he may have been quoting Delius, either subconsciously or consciously but without crediting him...

Best,

Alistair

[iumonito]

I think Mendelssohn had such facility to write music that by and large his output lacks the impact that is so prevalent in other composers for whom the compositional process was more arduous (like Beethoven).

In that sense, I find him very much akin to Saint-Saens.

That said, Mendelssohn's craftmanship is irreproachable, I think.  I don't know the anecdotes very well, but it strikes me that probably Mendelssohn also lacked the very exacting nature that prompted the likes of Dukas and Brahms to destroy large amounts of music they composed, and later deemed worthless.

I, for one, adore the Italian symphony, the violin concerto, and too many of the songs without words to find any fault in Felix (Happy) Mendelssohn.

Schumann, Clara Schumann and Brahms adored him, by the way.

And if all he did was to give us J.S. Bach on a commercial scale, I think his contribution would already have been worthwhile.

So...what do you mean superficial?  Mendelssohn is great.

[slobone]

But somehow Mendelssohn has become a perennial punching bag.  Barenboim, a few years ago, said that the history of music would be the same with or without him (an idiotic statement typical of Barenboim).  

And yet Barenboim's recording of the Songs without Words is superb. Why would he say something like that? Maybe he studied too much Schenker at the conservatory...

Mendelssohn's music is quite typical of his time. The architectural construction and continuous development characteristic of Beethoven was out of fashion. Instead the emphasis was on accompanied melodies, probably influenced by Italian opera.

As a result, most composers of that generation are at their best in miniatures, not large-scale works. (I sat through Elijah once, and that was enough.) Also, there was a huge market for piano music to be played in the home.

Which is fine with me -- what would we non-virtuosos do without Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Chopin?

[iumonito]

Mendelssohn's music is quite typical of his time. The architectural construction and continuous development characteristic of Beethoven was out of fashion. Instead the emphasis was on accompanied melodies, probably influenced by Italian opera.

Totally

&feature=related

&feature=related