GMG Classical Music Forum

Man, this is really a tough choice for me. I'm not a massive fan of either composer, but I enjoy their music more than I may have previously indicated. I guess I'll go with Mendelssohn. His music sounds so effortless yet not detached. Schumann can't always escape a certain "stodginess" in his music, but I hold his Symphonies 3 and 4, PC, and most of his chamber music in highest regard. But Mendelssohn's music is so overflowing with life, vitality and freshness, so I'll have to cast my vote in favor of him. :)

Schumann is more up my alley. Mendelssohn doesn't usually do much for me.

Not even a close one for me.  I prefer Schumann.

Schumann unequivocally for me. I love all of his works for piano and orchestra, almost all of the chamber music I've heard, the Cello Concerto, the four symphonies, among others. For me, I just prefer the darker, more troubled sound-world of Schumann and Mendelssohn just doesn't dig deep enough into the soul for my tastes.

Dang it, John! You're making me wish I had voted for Schumann! >:( ;D

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 03, 2013, 05:48:55 PM
Schumann unequivocally for me. I love all of his works for piano and orchestra, almost all of the chamber music I've heard, the Cello Concerto, the four symphonies, among others. For me, I just prefer the darker, more troubled sound-world of Schumann and Mendelssohn just doesn't dig deep enough into the soul for my tastes.

Yep.

I'm going with Bob.

Surprised to see Felix get so little love! :-\

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 03, 2013, 05:48:55 PM
Schumann unequivocally for me. I love all of his works for piano and orchestra, almost all of the chamber music I've heard, the Cello Concerto, the four symphonies, among others. For me, I just prefer the darker, more troubled sound-world of Schumann and Mendelssohn just doesn't dig deep enough into the soul for my tastes.

Nobody has yet mentioned Schumann's solo piano works which, to me, are far more compelling than anything Mendelssohn composed.  So it's Schumann in a landslide.

Quote from: Sammy on October 03, 2013, 06:24:34 PM
Nobody has yet mentioned Schumann's solo piano works which, to me, are far more compelling than anything Mendelssohn composed.  So it's Schumann in a landslide.

Yep, that too. :)

Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 06:23:58 PM
Surprised to see Felix get so little love! :-\

I'm confident his numbers will go up soon.  Based on my perception of general consensus, the vote will be quite close.

Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 05:50:18 PM
Dang it, John! You're making me wish I had voted for Schumann! >:( ;D

Well, I've never been much of a Mendelssohn anyway. :-\

Quote from: Sammy on October 03, 2013, 06:24:34 PM
Nobody has yet mentioned Schumann's solo piano works which, to me, are far more compelling than anything Mendelssohn composed.  So it's Schumann in a landslide.

True, what little of Schumann's solo piano music I've heard was beautiful and masterful.

Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 06:23:58 PM
Surprised to see Felix get so little love! :-\

Why?

Well, this isn't a totally fair poll from my perspective. Schumann's music is very important to me—I'm thinking particularly of the piano music from Opus 1 to (roughly) 22, the songs, and the chamber music. I relate very strongly to his compositional concerns and ways of writing, the constant undercurrent streak of darkness, the fear of madness and so on and so forth. I flatter myself by thinking he is the kind of composer I might have become had I been born in his time period/social class/gender/etc—the "mirror" whose music always seems to reflect aspects of my own. Mendelssohn is... a composer whose music I quite enjoy.

At the same time, of all living composers, Mendelssohn was probably the one Schumann held in highest esteem, even to the point of toning down the more consciously experimental aspects of his style later in life and turning from piano music and lieder to choral, chamber and orchestral music to imitate him. Mendelssohn's music has been out of fashion for quite a while, so it is more difficult to appreciate objectively with the weight of so many years of criticism hanging over it, but I imagine developing an understanding of Mendelssohn is key to unlocking greater appreciation of Schumann's later music (which has often been dismissed as weaker by commentators). I suspect I'm further behind on this than many people, since I'm still not familiar with most of Mendelssohn's mature work (indeed sometimes it seems I rarely listen to anything Mendelssohn wrote after the age of eighteen), but the string quartet in F minor is probably a good place to start.

Mendelssohn wrote some wonderful music, but Schumann's oeuvre is overwhelming compared to that - the solo piano works, the chamber music, the cello, piano, and violin concertos, the symphonies, the songs are all in another class to me.

Not even close. Schumann. His work is so much more challenging, experimental and personal than Mendelssohn's relatively safe and traditional (with a couple of exceptions) works.

I extremely like Mendelssohn's symphonies and Violin Concerto, but Schumann's music can touch me much more, it's absolutely beautiful and powerful.

I find Mendelssohn's string quintets to be superior to all of Schumann's chamber works.  While Schumann's piano works are superior to Mendelssohn, I am not a piano person I'm a a chamber person which is why I voted for Mendelssohn.

Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2013, 07:47:08 AM
I find Mendelssohn's string quintets to be superior to all of Schumann's chamber works.  While Schumann's piano works are superior to Mendelssohn, I am not a piano person I'm a a chamber person which is why I voted for Mendelssohn.

Interesting, David.  Schumann's Piano Trios are currently my absolute favourites in that genre.

No contest: Schumann.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 04, 2013, 07:53:52 AM
Interesting, David.  Schumann's Piano Trios are currently my absolute favourites in that genre.

Really?  Brahms and Beethoven for me.  Give me the Ghost Trio, Archduke and Brahms PTs and I'm happy as a pig in slop. :)

Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2013, 08:02:53 AM
Really?  Brahms and Beethoven for me.  Give me the Ghost Trio, Archduke and Brahms PTs and I'm happy as a pig in slop. :)

Don't get me wrong, I love Brahms' and Beethoven's PTs.  There is just something really special that I particularly love and find in the Schumann PTs.

My fav chamber work of Schumann's is the piano quintet.

But we should have a piano trio marathon day, that would be cool.  I would listen to Beethoven's Ghost, Schubert's PT #2, all of the Brahms, some late Haydn, Dvorak's Dumsky and Shostakovich's PT #2. 8)

What would you choose for such a marathon Ray?

Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2013, 08:11:24 AM
My fav chamber work of Schumann's is the piano quintet.

+ 1

Although . . . the Violin Sonatas are apt to set this favorite status at risk . . . .

Quote from: amw on October 03, 2013, 06:44:13 PM
Well, this isn't a totally fair poll from my perspective. Schumann's music is very important to me—I'm thinking particularly of the piano music from Opus 1 to (roughly) 22, the songs, and the chamber music. I relate very strongly to his compositional concerns and ways of writing, the constant undercurrent streak of darkness, the fear of madness and so on and so forth. I flatter myself by thinking he is the kind of composer I might have become had I been born in his time period/social class/gender/etc—the "mirror" whose music always seems to reflect

At the same time, of all living composers, Mendelssohn was probably the one Schumann held in highest esteem, even to the point of toning down the more consciously experimental aspects of his style later in life and turning from piano music and lieder to choral, chamber and orchestral music to imitate him. Mendelssohn's music has been out of fashion for quite a while, so it is more difficult to appreciate objectively with the weight of so many years of criticism hanging over it, but I imagine developing an understanding of Mendelssohn is key to unlocking greater appreciation of Schumann's later music (which has often been dismissed as weaker by commentators). I suspect I'm further behind on this than many people, since I'm still not familiar with most of Mendelssohn's mature work (indeed sometimes it seems I rarely listen to anything Mendelssohn wrote after the age of eighteen), but the string quartet in F minor is probably a good place to start.

Can you say a bit more about this? Which late Schumann pieces do you have in mind?

I've never been able to get into the mass. I've never heard the requiem. I don't enjoy the cello concerto much. Are these unexperimental and mendelssohnian.

Quote from: DavidW on October 04, 2013, 08:11:24 AM
My fav chamber work of Schumann's is the piano quintet.

But we should have a piano trio marathon day, that would be cool.  I would listen to Beethoven's Ghost, Schubert's PT #2, all of the Brahms, some late Haydn, Dvorak's Dumsky and Shostakovich's PT #2. 8)

What would you choose for such a marathon Ray?

3 Schumann's, 3 Brahms, Beethoven (both Op. 70's), Rimsky-Korsakov's, Taneyev's, Tchaikovsky. I could add more of course.  ;D

Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 08:17:33 AM
+ 1

Although . . . the Violin Sonatas are apt to set this favorite status at risk . . . .

I have yet to hear a note of these, Karl.   :(  At least, I still have several Schumann works yet to discover.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 04, 2013, 07:53:52 AM
Interesting, David.  Schumann's Piano Trios are currently my absolute favourites in that genre.

Indeed, Ray. I've really grown to love Schumann's chamber works over the years. Mendelssohn's chamber music is overall less consistent in quality, but I love his Octet and piano trios quite a bit.

Did anyone here Rzewsky's performance of Mendelssohn's Songs without Words?  I mention it because the fact  that someone of his stature is such a passionate champion of Mendelssohn makes me wonder if there's more to the piano music than I may have thought, whether the music has been just too often treated to superficial performances. However he never performed Mendelssohn in Europe as far as I know, and I've never come across a recording of any of the concerts he gave in the US.

Another reason I'm a bit unwilling to dismiss Mendelssohn's piano music is Maria Grinberg's extraordinary CD, which makes it sound pretty deep stuff.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41T3024SH1L.jpg)

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 03, 2013, 05:46:39 PM
Not even a close one for me.  I prefer Schumann.

+1

Since Saul isn't here, I voted for Bartholdy, just to give him a voice  8)

Sarge

Quote from: Mandryka on October 04, 2013, 08:17:37 AM
Can you say a bit more about this? Which late Schumann pieces do you have in mind?

The Violin Concerto and Sonatas are often brought up, as are a couple of the piano trios, some of the late piano music (Gesänge die Fruhe is a good mind-changer for those who haven't really liked Schumann's later music much), plus yes the Requiem and the various other choral stuff which was modeled at least in part (I believe) after Mendelssohn's (then immensely popular) oratorios, sacred choral works etc. It can also be instructive to compare the original versions of Schumann's early piano works with some revisions he made much later in the 1850s (after he had come to identify much more with the conservative wing of German musical politics), of which the most radical is the new version of the Impromptus on a Theme of Clara Wieck, Op. 5.

Re Mendelssohn's piano music, the Songs without Words have tended to be considered minor works by Mendelssohn scholars of which I'm aware, with their popularity mostly due to their suitability for not very advanced pianists, sentimental melodies and generally safe, conservative (therefore "neutral" through the many changes of style in the intervening decades) idiom. I haven't explored the rest of his piano works very much though (recommendations?) and there are several of them (i.e. the Songs without Words) of which I'm quite fond. The piano sonatas are much more experimental, reflecting some influence of late Beethoven, and in turn looking forward to the developments of Schumann and co. later on, but they're not as characteristic or fully formed dating as they do from the age of 13-17.

Here's  Rzewski's notes on the Songs without words

   

Quote from: Frederic Rzewski, programme notes for a recital of the complete Songs without Words in California August 2008The 'Songs Without Words' are usually seen as trivial salon pieces, a
mixed dish to be offered as light refreshment in an otherwise serious
program. I see them rather as a single unified work: a systematically
constructed secular oratorio for piano, a musical Bildungsroman,
painting a ranibow of life's changing patterns and emotions within an
unchanging structure of repetitive cycles.
   If there is a single dominant theme, it is water: the naturalistic
evocation of babbling brooks in spring that opens each cycle, or the
splashing of oars that ends it. But other unifying links recur
constantly: the descending fourth or tritone, for example, or the
anapestic phrase structure that reappears everywhere: two short
repetitions followed by a longer answer.
   In order to make the larger form perceptible, I choose fast tempi.
(The duration might vary from 90 to 100 minutes.) I see Mendelssohn as a
radical: a revolutionary romantic, but also firmly anchored in classical
rationality. He always returns to the chorale, somehow a symbol of
Reason in a time of social upheaval.
   Why call it "songs without words?"  Does that mean there are words?
Schumann thought so, maybe. Could it have something to do with the
Hasidic _niggun_? Apparently not. If there were words, they were
deliberately suppressed. Why? Is it about a secret? Is the Duetto at the
end of the third cycle a simple love song, or a mystical allegory? These
are all questions I cannot answer; but I try to ask them in my playing.
     

I'm interested in  the op 5 impromptus, they were championed and recorded by Eduard Erdmann, who's one of my favourite pianists. I don't know if he plays the original or the revision.  Is there a recording of both? I'd be quite curious to check it out.

By the way, any suggestions about good books on Schumann, especially his aesthetics,  would be appreciated!

If I were to vote --- which I refuse to do --- my vote would go to Schumann... but...

...Anytime I see Mendelssohn dismissed as "not deep enough", "safe" and "conservative" I tend to go Saul-esque (Dzorelashvili, not St. Paul...)

Felix (what an appropriate name, BTW!) was born in a rich family, grew up in a safe and committed intellectual / artistic environment and his whole personality was, as a result, very balanced. His music (at least until the death of his sister Fanny) is sunny, joyous and uplifting, with occasional angry outbursts --- but then again so is Mozart's. Schumann's music is "personal"; yes, because of Schumann's personality; Mendelssohn's music is every bit as personal as Schumann's, because that was his personality: sunny, joyous and uplifting. Is there any rule that music should be all angst and despair and it should disturb the listener? I've never ever understood why joy and happiness are somehow less human than sorrow and despair and why art based on the latter feelings is somehow superior to art based on the former feelings.  :o

IIRC, shortly after Mendelssohn's death, Clara Wieck-Schumann managed to have his husband agree to invite Liszt for dinner: an attempt to have the two of them make peace at last. Liszt comes, Schumann welcomes, the dinner and talk goes on rather peacefully, until Liszt makes a dismissive comment about Mendelssohn's music --- at which point Schumann bursts out in outrage and the Clara-envisaged truce turns into a debacle.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on October 05, 2013, 11:44:30 AM
If I were to vote --- which I refuse to do --- my vote would go to Schumann... but...

...Anytime I see Mendelssohn dismissed as "not deep enough", "safe" and "conservative" I tend to go Saul-esque (Dzorelashvili, not St. Paul...)

Felix (what an appropriate name, BTW!) was born in a rich family, grew up in a safe and committed intellectual / artistic environment and his whole personality was, as a result, very balanced. His music (at least until the death of his sister Fanny) is sunny, joyous and uplifting, with occasional angry outbursts --- but then again so is Mozart's. Schumann's music is "personal"; yes, because of Schumann's personality; Mendelssohn's music is every bit as personal as Schumann's, because that was his personality: sunny, joyous and uplifting. Is there any rule that music should be all angst and despair and it should disturb the listener? I've never ever understood why joy and happiness are somehow less human than sorrow and despair and why art based on the latter feelings is somehow superior to art based on the former feelings.  :o

Well said.

They're both personal; it's just that one personality is far more interesting than the other.

Voted for Mendelssohn, because he is the underdog here and I really enjoy he's string symphonies and octet.

I haven't explored that deep either of these composers thou...

I voted Schumann. There's that madness and despair in Schumann... But I do love Mendelssohn's piano trios. Also, Brautigam's recent PI recording of Songs without Words (books 1-4) is a fine one. I guess they'll be another installment - hopefully soon. I'm looking forward to it. I have a lot of PI recordings of Schumann but I notice there's still some major piano works of Schumann's that I haven't found on fortepiano (Davidsbündlertänze/Kreisleriana).

Schumann by a mile.

No, by 26.2 miles (a marathon length).

Tough choise. Both have excellent symphonies, amazing violin concerto (Schumann's unduly neglected, at least compared to Mendelssohn's), much powerful and innovative chamber music (again Schumann's noticeably more neglected, outside of his piano quintet) and beautiful songs. While their musical style is quite different from each other I for some reason almost always think of these two composers in same breath. That does not mean I don't appreciate their music because I do. But which one is better? Well, this is one of those times when I have to say that to me it's a tie. They both have their strengths as well as weaknesses.

This will be a slaughter.

It's really a close call.  And since Schumann and Mendelssohn were such good friends and had such mutual respect, it's not a fair poll.  But I voted for Mendelssohn.  I feel that his music is more fully realized than Schumann's, more consistently good even if less experimental.  Yet Mendelssohn was not above changing received tradition.  He was an early advocate of transitions between movements--mostly because he didn't like his concertos etc. to be interrupted by applause! :o And his orchestration is a little more assured than Schumann's and more gratifying to the players.

Or maybe I just voted for Felix because I like to help underdogs. :laugh:

They did a study...60% of the time, Schumann wins every time.

Quote from: TheGSMoeller on May 26, 2014, 06:26:49 PM
They did a study...60% of the time, Schumann wins every time.

74.2%, actually.

I refuse to vote, but Schumann wins for me, although not by much. I'd rate their orchestral and chamber music about equally, maybe with a slight nod to Mendelssohn. His quartets op.44 (which inspired Schumann's op.41) maybe a little shallow, but he has three great ones anyway, then the octett, string quintets, trios. The wonderful ouvertures may be even better than the symphonies and while I like Schumann's symphonies as well, I think his 2nd and 3rd are rather uneven.
Mendelssohn's choral works are superior (although Schumann's "Paradies und die Peri" has some wonderful stuff and very successful in its time).
But in the end, Schumann's great piano music and lieder tower over Mendelssohn's contributions to these genres. Although there is some nice stuff by Mendelssohn which tends to get neglected, he has nothing as epochal and moving as Schumann's Dichterliebe or Kreisleriana, Carnaval, Davidsbündler, Fantasie etc.

Altogether, I think a lot of music by both of these deserved to be better known. Many listeners are mainly focused on symphonic and orchestral pieces and tend to prefer the later romantics. But some of the most important works of these two are not in these genres, but chamber, vocal and in Schumann's case, piano solo

Love them both equally for different reasons, so, choosing not, I have chosen.   ;D

I think that Mendelssohn's early symphonies are superior to Mozart's juvenile symphonies.
Of course, Wolfgang's number 34-41 sweep the floor with Mendelssohn.  :-)

better call Saul...

Schumann  - his piano music has prevailed but I really appreciate Mendelssohn who was much more important composer than we usually think.

Quote from: Sammy on October 03, 2013, 06:26:52 PM
I'm confident his numbers will go up soon.  Based on my perception of general consensus, the vote will be quite close.

I sure was wrong about this one, thinking that Mendelssohn is much more popular than the vote totals reveal.

The one thing that tips Schumann over was his other activity as a very influential musical journalist in Germany.  Just by a hair.  The pleasure I get from Mendelssohn is very high.