Mendelssohn vs. Schoenberg

[Luke]

We all have missions in life but that doesn't mean that we are all the same.
Some people are gifted  more then other people. The Genius of Mendelssohn is in a totally higher and extremely different level then the drivels of Schoenberg.
This doesn't have to do with opinion, but pure fact, reading the hand on the wall.

Those who choose Schoenberg over Mendelssohn, practice subjectivity and personal taste, rather then accepting reality.

Believe it or not ,music has quality, and one composers music has either a superior quality or inferior quality then other composers. This quality exists in everything, in all forms of art. To say that every art has the same quality, will put all artists in the same level, and this would be just wrong.

Didn't you say you were joking when after you wrote this kind of thing before? Just to stimulate discussion, or something. Whatever, it was rubbish then, and it's rubbish now. The actual facts - provable, quantifiable facts, look-in-the-score-and-see facts, are that as much as we have means to measure these things, Schoenberg was one of the most supremely gifted composers of all. Mendelssohn was pretty darn hot skills-wise too, though his music never carries this skill to such breathtaking heights as Schoenberg does*.

And in turn, this has nothing to do with liking the music or not, it has to do with just the notes themselves, on the page. You might, for instance, despise the op 9 Chamber Symphony (one of the most exciting, lovable works in the repertoire, IMO), but it is impossible, if you actually engage with the score, not to realise that this composer could do pretty much everything, with ease. So let's have none of this talk of 'drivel' until you have proved that you know what you are talking about, until you can take a Schoenberg score apart and show us, in an objective way, without relation to your own personal tastes (that's what you yourself said was important up there, remember), exactly where these flaws and the 'drivel' are, chapter and verse.

*that's one of the strange features of Mendelssohn's music, IMO - he can rise to really beautiful heights and yet have a last minute failure of nerve, a refusal to seal the deal. One of my favourite pieces of Mendelssohn is one of the Songs Without Words, I forget the op no, I think it's 60-something, and it's an Andante in D major. There is a meltingly gorgeous cadence in there identical, I think, to one in the last duet of Rosenkavalier...but Strauss manages to give us an ecstatic closure on this harmonic progression, and Mendelssohn leaves you feeling that he just pulled back from the brink somehow. Unsatisfying. It's safe, it's beautiful, it's flawless....but it could be so much more. That's Mendelssohn, for me, much of the time.

[cosmicj]

*that's one of the strange features of Mendelssohn's music, IMO - he can rise to really beautiful heights and yet have a last minute failure of nerve, a refusal to seal the deal. One of my favourite pieces of Mendelssohn is one of the Songs Without Words, I forget the op no, I think it's 60-something, and it's an Andante in D major. There is a meltingly gorgeous cadence in there identical, I think, to one in the last duet of Rosenkavalier...but Strauss manages to give us an ecstatic closure on this harmonic progression, and Mendelssohn leaves you feeling that he just pulled back from the brink somehow. Unsatisfying. It's safe, it's beautiful, it's flawless....but it could be so much more. That's Mendelssohn, for me, much of the time.

This brings to mind Charles Rosen's comment that Mendelssohn's melodies often begin brilliantly but finish with conventionality and weakness.  He illustrates the position with the long melody from the Violin Concerto (mvt i).

[Franco]

Given your views, I'm puzzled why you bother to read these discussions, or post on them.

I read and post on these threads to discuss music and learn about recorded performances new to me and to exchange views with others about a mutual fascination (Mendelssohn and Schoenberg are both composers I am particularly interested in). 

I have no urge to discuss music in a hierarchal context, though, I am not prone to making judgements about "greatness" about one composer over another since I find that not only unproductive to enjoying the music, but actually that kind of baggage is an impediment to opening myself to the music.

I hope I have alleviated some of your puzzlement.

[cosmicj]

Franco - Oh, I understand why you'd be interested in some of the threads on this site - what I don't understand is your interest in this one, which is explicitly about hierarchy or comparative value.

[Franco]

Be puzzled then.

[Josquin des Prez]

Well it sure is 'polite', 'pretty' & 'exquisitely crafted' fellas ..."happy muzak" essentially, background decor imo.  That's just not my thing & it leaves me cold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KtxIDZBeg

If you can't understand just how brilliant this piece is, you really ought to seek out a new hobby. I'm serious.

[Josquin des Prez]

Ugh. I can't listen to that sorry ...

Well, with that attitude... 

[not edward]

I'm not a big Mozart lover. In fact, I don't listen to much of his music at all.

But if all you can hear in (say) the C major string quintet, the D minor symphony or the C minor piano concerto is "pretty perfection" you're not listening to the same Mozart as I do when I pull those works out.

To derail the offtopicness for a bit, I keep hearing very favourable comment on Mendelssohn's op 80 quartet. Anyone have good recommendations for it?

[cosmicj]

To derail the offtopicness for a bit, I keep hearing very favourable comment on Mendelssohn's op 80 quartet. Anyone have good recommendations for it?

I recommend the Aurora Quartet rec I imaged above.  Very technically accomplished, expressive.  The sound is better than most Naxos releases.  The Op 80 quartet is one of the works I had in mind when I thought of as overwrought, a bit insincere, but it's worth listening to, that's for sure.

[karlhenning]

You've got some cheek, discussing the topic, Edward! ; )

[jochanaan]

...Those who choose Schoenberg over Mendelssohn, practice subjectivity and personal taste, rather then accepting reality...

So let me make sure I'm understanding you: You say that it's "fact" and "reality" that Mendelssohn is greater than Schoenberg.  But that begs a question: Who determines that this is reality?  You?  And what gives you the exclusive ability?  Why should a newcomer to classical music accept your claim to know reality and not, say, Karl's, or Sergeant Rock's, or mine?  Karl is a published composer, Rock may be a player and is certainly a fan with wide knowledge and understanding, and I am a performer with decades' experience; I think that makes our comments about reality as valid as yours.

(No, I'm not dissing your favorite composer! If you've read my comments here, you'll see that I have defended Mendelssohn's music against several charges of not being "great."  But this does not lessen Schoenberg's greatness.)

[Bulldog]

So let me make sure I'm understanding you: You say that it's "fact" and "reality" that Mendelssohn is greater than Schoenberg.  But that begs a question: Who determines that this is reality?  You?  And what gives you the exclusive ability?  Why should a newcomer to classical music accept your claim to know reality and not, say, Karl's, or Sergeant Rock's, or mine?  Karl is a published composer, Rock may be a player and is certainly a fan with wide knowledge and understanding, and I am a performer with decades' experience; I think that makes our comments about reality as valid as yours.

You're making the assumption that Saul is speaking honestly, and there's good reason to assume otherwise.

[Bulldog]

But you are underestimating the importance of 60,000 views of Saul's music on Walla - and the credibility this affords him to make these pronouncements.

People who knowingly make dishonest statements in order to induce response have no credibiity with me.  Saul has made his bed and will have to live with the results.

[karlhenning]

Entirely with you, Don.

[karlhenning]

Totally cool that the current polling shows Schoenberg at a 3:2 advantage.

[Josquin des Prez]

So let me make sure I'm understanding you: You say that it's "fact" and "reality" that Mendelssohn is greater than Schoenberg.  But that begs a question: Who determines that this is reality?  You?  And what gives you the exclusive ability?  Why should a newcomer to classical music accept your claim to know reality and not, say, Karl's, or Sergeant Rock's, or mine?  Karl is a published composer, Rock may be a player and is certainly a fan with wide knowledge and understanding, and I am a performer with decades' experience; I think that makes our comments about reality as valid as yours.

The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them; and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man.

- Otto Weininger

If every star in the firmament was equal to the other, you would never be able to get anywhere, and between Saul and, say, Karl, i would definitely state that the latter shines brighter then the first, and that i would follow his light over the other. Why? Intuition. This is how i then move towards discovering truth, by following the brightest stars in the firmament (genius).

[Teresa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KtxIDZBeg

If you can't understand just how brilliant this piece is, you really ought to seek out a new hobby. I'm serious.

Damn! I listened to it completely and I hated it immensely! To my ears it is not brilliant, indeed I can hear no value in it at all, this could be used to chase people away from Classical music IMHO. 

So you seriously advise those who cannot hear the brilliance of this composition need to I seek a new hobby!?     I feel your attitude is RUDE and INSENSITIVE  .  Since CLASSICAL MUSIC is my life, according to you I might as well comment hara-kiri.  IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! 

[Teresa]

I voted for Mendelssohn, I really love his Hebrides Overture and can hear his talent in works of his I am not that fond of. 

Schoenberg on the other hand took many young modern composers down the atonal and hard dissonance road, so I see him as a negative influence.  Thank goodness for the anti-Schoenberg movement to rebel against his serialism and very atonal ugliness.  Because of this at least half of modern classical works are tonal, and many are quite wonderfully beautiful.

I made new modifications of my original post, above.  Personally I feel it has taken decades to undo the anti-musical damage that Schoenberg has done to modern composers.  The modern 20th and 21st century compositions from Johan de Meij Jennifer Higdon, Michael Daugherty, Michael Gandolfi, and countless other prove that this adversity can be overcome. 

Also I am sad to say I believe that Schoenberg was a bigger influence than Mendelssohn on composers that followed.  However there is no doubt in my mind that Mendelssohn is by far the greater composer.  I find it shocking that he has less votes in this thread. 

[jochanaan]

You're making the assumption that Saul is speaking honestly, and there's good reason to assume otherwise.

Perhaps there is.  But my post was not only for Saul but for the many newbies that might be reading this thread.  Now, probably most of them have learned to think for themselves, but there's always the chance that somebody might be swayed by such pronouncements.  It's them I'm really challenging.

[kishnevi]

I recommend the Aurora Quartet rec I imaged above.  Very technically accomplished, expressive.  The sound is better than most Naxos releases.  The Op 80 quartet is one of the works I had in mind when I thought of as overwrought, a bit insincere, but it's worth listening to, that's for sure.

My only recording is by the Emerson SQ.  Perfectly satisfied with it, but truth to tell, when I want to hear some of his chamber music, it's almost invariably the Octet or the Piano Trios I opt for.