Mendelssohn vs. Schoenberg

[Luke]

You claim that Schoenberg was greater then Mendelssohn, explain how in the world this could be, please.

Yes, I think all considered he probably was a greater composer than Mendelssohn, if that really matters. Taking into acount his technique (as flawless as M's, but much more fantastically displayed in his music), and the scope and ambition of his music (by which I don't mean how innovative it is, but that's another reason for those who think such things are important), and the motivic richness and density of his works, and so on. I also enjoy it a lot more, too, clearly, though that means nothing.

I'd happily spend a while writing a lot more, in a bit, in more detail, but somehow I doubt you will listen, so it's probably a waste of time....and I have a PM just appeared which may well be advising me of that possibility once again, in fact.

[Josquin des Prez]

But did he compose something that comes to 'The Midsummer's Overture' at 17 or the Octet at 16 or the Symphony In C minor at 15?

No.

Well no, he was too busy trying to support his brothers and drunken father. He did eventually complete his musical education and went to write works of an order of magnitude beyond anything Mendelssohn was ever able to compose, as a teenager or as an adult. Thus, why your stubborn fixation with the latter's precocious talents is an exercise in futility.

[Franco]

It is hard to fathom why musical composition has never been added to the Olympic Games.

[Luke]

Now he's falling into the old fallacy again that Mendelssohn was THE greatest merely because he was the most precocious.

Among them, anyway. If precociousness were any proof of anything, Mendelssohn would still have stiff competition from a huge variety of composers. Korngold's teenage and pre-teenage works are just astonishing - check out the piano trio he wrote at 12! (none but a crackpot would claim supreme greatness for him, though). Saint-Saens, Liszt, Handel, that Mozart fella, Scriabin's incredible son Julian who died at 11, Mozart's friend and contemporary Thomas Linley who died younger than WAM...


But the whole precociousness thing is a blind alley, meaning nothing.

[Lethevich]

It is hard to fathom why musical composition has never been added to the Olympic Games.

I think it was, along with all kinds of crazy crap, pre-WW2 (sculpture, city planning, etc).

Music competitions in general do have such a bad habit of awarding prizes to total rubbish...

Edit: I lie, the Olympic committee seem to have had a narrow view of what constitutes art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_art_competitions

[Saul]

Well no, he was too busy trying to support his brothers and drunken father. He did eventually complete his musical education and went to write works of an order of magnitude beyond anything Mendelssohn was ever able to compose, as a teenager or as an adult. Thus, why your stubborn fixation with the latter's precocious talents is an exercise in futility.

Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft, but his music is more astonishing and more moving then Beethoven, but the latter part of course is a matter of taste and opinion.

[Saul]

Among them, anyway. If precociousness were any proof of anything, Mendelssohn would still have stiff competition from a huge variety of composers. Korngold's teenage and pre-teenage works are just astonishing - check out the piano trio he wrote at 12! (none but a crackpot would claim supreme greatness for him, though). Saint-Saens, Liszt, Handel, that Mozart fella, Scriabin's incredible son Julian who died at 11, Mozart's friend and contemporary Thomas Linley who died younger than WAM...


But the whole precociousness thing is a blind alley, meaning nothing.

There were many child prodigies, but there was only one Mendelssohn.

[Luke]

Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft, but his music is more astonishing and more moving then Beethoven, but the latter part of course is a matter of taste and opinion.

Yes, it certainly is. And so it doesn't really mean much. But though it doesn't, because it's only one person's opinion, the concept of 'weight of opinion' (of informed, considered opinion, anyway) does count for something. Though one person's individual tastes means nothing, in the grand scheme of things, when a majority of concerned parties share an opinion, it begins to take on the status of a fact, it begins to mean something. And the fact is that the tastes of the vast majority of informed classical music lovers do not chime with yours.

[Saul]

Yes, it certainly is. And so it doesn't really mean much. But though it doesn't, because it's only one person's opinion, the concept of 'weight of opinion' (of informed, considered opinion, anyway) does count for something. Though one person's individual tastes means nothing, in the grand scheme of things, when a majority of concerned parties share an opinion, it begins to take on the status of a fact, it begins to mean something. And the fact is that the tastes of the vast majority of informed classical music lovers do not chime with yours.

Well its entirely possible that the majority is wrong. Not everything that has many followers means that its the truth.
When he majority of this site says that Schoenberg was a greater composer then Mendelssohn, this is simply not true, and therefore wrong.
And even so, one web site doesn't speak for all classical music listeners in the world.


Here's Wikipedia:
"his creative originality is now being recognized and re-evaluated. He is now among the most popular composers of the Romantic era."

One of the most popular that is, do you know what that connotes?

[Bulldog]

Here's Wikipedia:
"his creative originality is now being recognized and re-evaluated. He is now among the most popular composers of the Romantic era."

One of the most popular that is, do you know what that connotes?

Popularity? 

[greg]

Greg is your avatar lain?

Good guess- I didn't even think about it, but she does look like Lain!

Actually, she's Misaki from Welcome to the NHK. Crazy show where every single main character has serious problems, and most of them at one point try to jump off of a cliff to end it all (the main character is a shut-in and there's a ton of black humor in it).
One of my favorite shows, and one of my favorite characters. 

Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft, but his music is more astonishing and more moving then Beethoven, but the latter part of course is a matter of taste and opinion.

You got the "opinion" part right, thankfully. I don't know how you'll ever prove "greater skill and craft" part, though.

[Josquin des Prez]

Not only did Mendelssohn compose his music with a greater skill and craft.

Actually, i'm pretty sure Beethoven's use of form is quite a few degrees greater then that of Mendelssohn, and the contrapuntal and harmonic technique displayed in his late works leaves Mendelssohn in the dust (a bit unfair since Mendelssohn died relatively young but there is no indication his music was evolving in any technical sense, so...).

[Luke]

Of course he's popular. And he's a very great composer. I haven't said otherwise, though you seem to think I have. I've praised Mendelssohn fulsomely here, even though I have my own minor reservations about some aspects of his style and his musical 'personality', such as that failure to see things through that I described earlier.

No, Saul, as I read it this thread isn't really about Mendelssohn being a poor composer, because no one thinks he is. If there is doubt cast on him in this thread, it's only doubt that he is the 'King of Music' that you claim he is. No, in general terms no one is disputing that M was a great composer. The only serious composer-dissing going on round here is what you have to say about Schoenberg etc., and that's why I've asked you to substantiate your claims that he is actually Bad Composer (as opposed to one you don't like) with reference to the scores.

Once again, before you try to get me to do your work for you, there's no need for me to try to prove anything in this way, because I don't think Mendelsshon is a bad composer. Far from it.

[Luke]

Actually, i'm pretty sure Beethoven's use of form is quite a few degrees greater then that of Mendelssohn...

Mendelssohn obviously admired it, as he based some of his formal structures (and more) on Beethoven templates...

[Saul]

Actually, i'm pretty sure Beethoven's use of form is quite a few degrees greater then that of Mendelssohn, and the contrapuntal and harmonic technique displayed in his late works leaves Mendelssohn in the dust (a bit unfair since Mendelssohn died relatively young but there is no indication his music was evolving in any technical sense, so...).

All these flaws that Bernstein found in Beethoven's music, are nowhere to be found in Mendelssohn. His musical education was the most detailed and elaborate. His teacher Zelter famously told the 15 year old Mendelssohn:

" I have nothing else to teach you, now go and join the greats, Bach, Handel and Mozart". I would be more then happy to provide the source...

[Josquin des Prez]

All these flaws that Bernstein found in Beethoven's music, are nowhere to be found in Mendelssohn.

Which flaws are these again?

[Saul]

Which flaws are these again?

You want to tell me that you didn't watch the earth shattering monumental video of Bernstein discussing Beethoven's 7th?

http://www.youtube.com/v/wNi1_kGC9dg

[Luke]

All these flaws that Bernstein found in Beethoven's music, are nowhere to be found in Mendelssohn. His musical education was the most detailed and elaborate. His teacher Zelter famously told the 15 year old Mendelssohn:

" I have nothing else to teach you, now go and join the greats, Bach, Handel and Mozart". I would be more then happy to provide the source...

Saul, there are flaws and there are flaws. What Bernstein is talking about with Beethoven is not the same sort of flaw as lazily written, sloppy counterpoint or miscontroled formal balance or whatever, the sort of flaw a teacher would point out to a pupil. That sort of flaw does not exist in Beethoven in any meaningful way. But it is certainly possible that there are 'flaws' of a totally different sort in Beethoven, 'flaws', that is, when he is set against some kind of this-is-good-practice norm - his counterpoint is sometimes criticised for being too rugged, angular, rough, for instance. But then we ask - too rugged for what? Isn't the roughness of Beethoven's counterpoint entirely what it should be, given the scope and intent of the music itself. How would the Hammerklavier Fugue be as earth-shattering as it is if the counterpoint was smoothed out? Wouldn't unobtrusive, perfect part-writing be in itself an enormous flaw, in this piece, and in so many others?

The point is, Beethoven was reaching for new things, he was not inhibited about this in the ways Mendelssohn's music tends to ruggest to us that he was. The 'flaws' in Beethoven are necessary, and they are integral, and they are beautiful, and on a larger-scale, they aren't flaws at all, they are just perfect. Mendelssohn's smoothness is just that, but it isn't anything more - great for music which isn't really reaching out as far. But his inability to work in any other way was a limitation on him (when he tries, as in the last quartet, he writres some of his most interesting and satisfying music)

[Saul]

Be moved...

Felix Mendelssohn - 42. Psalm
http://www.youtube.com/v/I0YjuWzmkqg&feature=related

[Josquin des Prez]

"Beethoven may have mastered some things with difficulty, but he mastered nothing incompletely; and where he is not orthodox it is safest to conclude that orthodoxy is wrong."

- Donald Francis Tovey