Mendelssohn vs. Schoenberg

[karlhenning]

Does not compute.

The perfect response in this case, and no reflection on Mendelssohn at all ; )

[DavidW]

Schoenberg's SQs are wonderful so I voted for him.  By the time I remembered Mendelssohn's string quintets I had already clicked the button. 0:)

[Saul]

Here's a very informative interview with Riccardo Chailly discussing Mendelssohn.

http://www.youtube.com/v/37jeL5Axs6A

http://www.youtube.com/v/GaNcMexsiTs&feature=channel

[Ten thumbs]

I'm quite fond of some of Mendelssohn's works like "Symphony No. 3," all of his concerti, "A Mid Summer's Night Dream," and "Hebrides Overture," but that's about it for me. I don't put Mendelssohn up on a pedestal. Schoenberg, on the other hand, was a genius. He virtually created his own genre of music and he revolutionized music in the 20th Century and ushered a much needed change. While Schoenberg is far from my favorite composer, his importance and influence is much greater than Mendelssohn's.

I think you forget that Mendelssohn also created his own genre of music that was vastly influential throughout the 19th century - how many times have I heard of a composer being criticized for writing Mendelssohnian symphonies and I think you'd find it a time consuming task to catalogue the vast number of 'songs without words' that followed from him. Whether you like it or not, his importance in the history of music cannot be ignored.

Yea .. you touch on something here; is Mendelssohn's music ever really dark, intense, forceful or even disturbing ever? Does it really penetrate the consciousness in a big way? Sure, it's sunny, pretty & beautifully & exquisitely crafted but it often lacks depth or something, it's superficial sounding .. passive, buttoned up even frivolous.. it's the same sort of vibe I get listening to stuff like Mozart.

You are infected by the most nonsensical fallacy ever devised in music criticism: the nature of the emotional content, be it dark or be it sunny has no bearing on 'depth or something'. Do you perhaps equate deep with depressed and uplifting with superficial. If you insist then listen to Mendelssohn's Op. 80 Quartet.

[karlhenning]

Schoenberg's SQs are wonderful so I voted for him.

Full stop, je-je-je! : )

[karlhenning]

You are infected by the most nonsensical fallacy ever devised in music criticism: the nature of the emotional content, be it dark or be it sunny has no bearing on 'depth or something'. Do you perhaps equate deep with depressed and uplifting with superficial.

Aye, the misprision that if you aren't slapped in the face with a fish that's been dead for ten days, it doesn't mean anything.

Another piece of James's baggage is another fallacy, the dilettante's gambit that in order to feel discriminating, one must find a class of art to sneer at.

[Josquin des Prez]

Mendelssohn's music is not superficial, its just sterile. He is like Joachim Raff in that respect, except no where near as bad.

[karlhenning]

Mendelssohn's music is not superficial, its just sterile.

Go ahead: explain to us all how music can be "sterile."

[Franco]

I find this kind of thread pointless. 

Composers are not things to be compared, judging one above the other.  Each composer, just as each person, is absolutely unique, sui generis, and each composer has his unique mission in life, as we all do, and Mendelssohn's mission was not anything the same as Schoenberg's mission, and Mendelssohn was an absolutely great Mendelssohn, as was Schoneberg a great Schoenberg. 

You may prefer Schoenberg over Mendelssohn but that has nothing to do with each's purpose or mission and how well they fulfilled it.  In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission.  Our world would be infinitely poorer had Mendelssohn not existed, since his contribution to our world would have been missing and irreplaceable by any other composer.

Someone remarked fairly wittily, "be yourself, everyone else is taken" - a joke, sure, but one that contains a lot of wisdom.

[karlhenning]

Excellent post, Franco.

[Sergeant Rock]

I find this kind of thread pointless. 

No, the thread is not pointless: it inspires conversation and debate about music--sometimes even good conversation and debate. Witness your own post 

Sarge

[karlhenning]

Well said, Sarge! We are the makers of the point . . . .

[Saul]

I find this kind of thread pointless. 

Composers are not things to be compared, judging one above the other.  Each composer, just as each person, is absolutely unique, sui generis, and each composer has his unique mission in life, as we all do, and Mendelssohn's mission was not anything the same as Schoenberg's mission, and Mendelssohn was an absolutely great Mendelssohn, as was Schoneberg a great Schoenberg. 

You may prefer Schoenberg over Mendelssohn but that has nothing to do with each's purpose or mission and how well they fulfilled it.  In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission.  Our world would be infinitely poorer had Mendelssohn not existed, since his contribution to our world would have been missing and irreplaceable by any other composer.

Someone remarked fairly wittily, "be yourself, everyone else is taken" - a joke, sure, but one that contains a lot of wisdom.

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.

[Sergeant Rock]

...it's superficial sounding...like Mozart.

Mozart is only superficial sounding if you listen superficially. You need to know and understand the Classical language, which is quite different from the Baroque and Modern languages you prefer. Mozart is as "deep" as any composer. There is no room for debate about this. It is simply true.

Sarge

[Franco]

No, the thread is not pointless: it inspires conversation and debate about music--sometimes even good conversation and debate. Witness your own post 

Sarge

Okay, point taken. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Mozart is only superficial sounding if you listen superficially.

You need to know and understand the Classical language

Not necessarily. The genius of Mozart has actually very little to do with his classicism.

[cosmicj]

In any event, no one but Mendelssohn could fulfill his mission better than him, or in place of him, and he was not put here to fulfill any other composer's mission. 

Franco - I agree with your general point that comparisons between very different artists are truly pointless, but I disagree with the point about Mendelssohn perfectly fulfilling his promise.  I think Mendelssohn is one of those artists who failed to achieve to their potential - and M's was as tremendous as anyone else we can name.  I am a pretty big fan of M and think some of his later music is outstanding, but I think his work in the last decade is uneven and doesn't show the growth that other great composers have exhibited (yes, especially Mozart- that's for you James).  It's hard to attribute causes, but I think M wrote in a world which priviliged passion and angst, qualities which I think were ill-suited for his music, and perhaps his nature.  The music that tries to express this angst seems insincere.  (I am well aware of the difficulties associated with applying this adjective to music, but yet I feel it.)  I also believe he was plagued with health difficulties in the 1840s which affected his abililty negatively. 

[Franco]

Maybe you know what Mendelssohn's promise, or I prefer mission, was - I don't. 

I take it as a plain fact that what Mendelssohn accomplished is at least partly, if not entirely, what he was put here to do, and I do not quibble about what was not accomplished, since the explicit accomplishement is huge as it is. 

[cosmicj]

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

[cosmicj]

Two Mendelssohn compositions that I love are the e-minor Quartet (op. 44 no. 2):



and the 2nd Piano Concerto:



That Perahia performance is beautiful but the sonics of the disc are iffy, frankly (soft, rounded).  I don't view either composition as sterile in any way, although I think I understand that criticism being lodged against some other works (the Op. 80 String Quartet??).