Praise for Praise - best Lobgesang?

[Radio64]

Morning all!

Any suggestions for Mendelssohn's Symph No. 2 aka Lobgesang (Hymn of Praise)?

What's your fave Felix?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Any suggestions for Mendelssohn's Symph No. 2 aka Lobgesang (Hymn of Praise)?

Don't bother with the last movement?

[Radio64]

Don't bother with the last movement?

Why so?

Sorry, I meant any suggestions for good recordings of abovementioned.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Sorry, I meant any suggestions for good recordings of abovementioned.

I know - I was being fassishus ... facee ... fasseetiou ... a smart arse.

The first three movements are very good; it's as soon as the choir joins in that (for me) the work loses impetus and purpose, getting increasingly drearier and going on and on (and on and on) until a final burst as if expressing even the composer's relief that it's finished at last. Can't really give a whole-hearted recommendation, but the recordings of the first three movements that I most enjoy are those conducted by Karajan and Edo de Waart.

But Mendelssohn's works for choirs are unpleasant experiences for me.

[Radio64]

Cool. Cheers.

[Stanfordian]

Morning all!

Any suggestions for Mendelssohn's Symph No. 2 aka Lobgesang (Hymn of Praise)?

What's your fave Felix?

Hiya Radio64,

Of all the great Austro/German masters I believe Mendelssohn is the most neglected. He wrote around 120 works with opus numbers and a number without opus numbers but inexplicably it's only a handful of compositions that keeps Mendelssohn’s name in the spotlight namely: the Violin Concerto, Overture to a Midsummer Nights Dream, Hebrides Overture (Fingal's Cave), Scottish Symphony’, Italian symphony, the oratorio Elijah, the Octet and the piano pieces The Songs Without Words.

[Pulcinella]

Somewhat off topic, but given the comments on Brahms' Choral Music elsewhere, has anyone any views on this box set?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mendelssohn-Sacred-Choral-Works-CDROM/dp/B005JWX8OO/ref=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1406540535&sr=1-3&keywords=mendelssohn+choral

Sang in the Lobgesang fairly recently, but we performed ONLY the choral movement.
I think I'm with FHG in the (lack of) appreciation stakes.
But then I feel the same about Beethoven 9!!
(Ducks and runs for cover, though I think I have some fellow-travellers!)

[aeolium]

The first three movements are very good; it's as soon as the choir joins in that (for me) the work loses impetus and purpose, getting increasingly drearier and going on and on (and on and on) until a final burst as if expressing even the composer's relief that it's finished at last. Can't really give a whole-hearted recommendation, but the recordings of the first three movements that I most enjoy are those conducted by Karajan and Edo de Waart.

But Mendelssohn's works for choirs are unpleasant experiences for me.

Charles Rosen, in The Romantic Generation was harsher: "Mendelssohn is the inventor of religious kitsch in music...[which]...substitutes for religion itself the emotional shell of religion. It evades all aspects of controversy, of dramatic conflict. It does not comfort, but only makes us comfortable...[stimulating] in the listener the illusion of being present at a religious service." Although it might be argued that that was no more than the way religion itself had developed in the C19.

I love Mendelssohn's work principally for the chamber music, some of the lieder, some of the concertos and the Italian symphony*. That said, I do enjoy some arias and choruses in Elijah and, whether it is religious kitsch or not, Mendelssohn is always a fine craftsman.

*Ed: and the overtures, and the music to A Midsummer Night's Dream

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Somewhat off topic, but given the comments on Brahms' Choral Music elsewhere, has anyone any views on this box set?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mendelssohn-...elssohn+choral

I have that set as part of the 40CD box Mendelssohn: the Masterworks. I think it was largely the soul-sapping experience of playing through these works that made me reluctant to invest in the Brahms set. If you are more enthusiastic about the works, these performances and recordings have all the merits of the superb Brahms set - with the exception of the quality of the Music, IMO.

I'd sort-of invert Stanf's appraisal and say that, of all the undoubtebly great composers in the Austro-German tradition, Mendelssohn has the largest number of dull works in his catalogue. I prefer to dwell on the Octet, the 3rd & 4th Symphonies, the Piano Trios (in fact - all of his Chamber Music), the Piano Concertos, the Violin Concerto, the MSND Music, the Overtures ... There's plenty there to provide balm for the spirits - as opposed to enbalming them as do the choral works.

[ahinton]

Charles Rosen, in The Romantic Generation was harsher: "Mendelssohn is the inventor of religious kitsch in music...[which]...substitutes for religion itself the emotional shell of religion. It evades all aspects of controversy, of dramatic conflict. It does not comfort, but only makes us comfortable...[stimulating] in the listener the illusion of being present at a religious service." Although it might be argued that that was no more than the way religion itself had developed in the C19.

I love Mendelssohn's work principally for the chamber music, some of the lieder, some of the concertos and the Italian symphony*. That said, I do enjoy some arias and choruses in Elijah and, whether it is religious kitsch or not, Mendelssohn is always a fine craftsman.

*Ed: and the overtures, and the music to A Midsummer Night's Dream

Charles Rosen was right, I believe (as he usually was). To me, it's Mendelssohn's chamber music that rises to the top of his not inconsiderable output, the octet, the two piano trios and the six quartets in particular; the last quartet seems to be so far and away above everything else that he wrote as to be almost embarrassing. Yes, craftsmanship is something upon which can always depend where he's concerned, although I wonder if that was at least part of what Daniel Barenboim had in mind when he wrote, in his 2011 piece on Elliott Carter:


Elliott Carter is an interesting figure in various respects. There are composers who wrote wonderful music but did not influence the development of music over time. Mendelssohn, for example, is a great composer who wrote many masterpieces; we would be much poorer without the Octet, the Songs Without Words, and other works. To be perfectly honest, however, if Mendelssohn had never existed on this earth, the development of music would have been the same. He did not contribute to a new direction in music. Someone like Berlioz was a less perfect composer whose works are not all on the same level—even within one piece different levels of compositional skill are evident—but he made it possible for Wagner to proceed. What I mean to say is that the historical importance of a composer does not always go hand in hand with the quality of his works.

[Pulcinella]

But we have Mendelssohn to thank for (re)introducing us to the works of JSB, don't we?
Our choir has scheduled Cantata 6 of Mendelssohn's 8 Chorale Cantatas (Vom Himmel hoch) for Christmas 2016 I think; it is included in the box set mentioned above, and I was pleasantly surprised to discover it. Haven't ploughed through the other CDs yet, though. Now not sure if I want my soul sapped or not.

[aeolium]

Elliott Carter is an interesting figure in various respects. There are composers who wrote wonderful music but did not influence the development of music over time. Mendelssohn, for example, is a great composer who wrote many masterpieces; we would be much poorer without the Octet, the Songs Without Words, and other works. To be perfectly honest, however, if Mendelssohn had never existed on this earth, the development of music would have been the same. He did not contribute to a new direction in music. Someone like Berlioz was a less perfect composer whose works are not all on the same level—even within one piece different levels of compositional skill are evident—but he made it possible for Wagner to proceed. What I mean to say is that the historical importance of a composer does not always go hand in hand with the quality of his works.

I don't disagree with what Daniel Barenboim writes here, though to me the historical importance of a composer is his/her least important quality, as if the only value of music is in its teleology. There are plenty of composers whose music I value who have had no discernible lasting impact on the great historical movements within music. Yet they have contributed works of distinction and with the impression of their own personality. And even those composers who do exert an influence, like Berlioz, are more interesting (for me) in their own right than because e.g. they make the music of Wagner possible - it is Berlioz's "Berliozness", the unique character of his music, that affects me. And even a half-forgotten composer can sometimes have delayed and unnoticed effects, like the impact of a small pebble in a large lake - his music may be rediscovered a century or more later by another composer who is strongly affected by it.

[Roehre]

Hiya Radio64,

Of all the great Austro/German masters I believe Mendelssohn is the most neglected. He wrote around 120 works with opus numbers and a number without opus numbers but inexplicably it's only a handful of compositions that keeps Mendelssohn’s name in the spotlight namely: the Violin Concerto, Overture to a Midsummer Nights Dream, Hebrides Overture (Fingal's Cave), Scottish Symphony’, Italian symphony, the oratorio Elijah, the Octet and the piano pieces The Songs Without Words.

His output with opus numbers has to be split into two: opus 1-72 is by Mendelssohn (essentially chronologically ordered), 73-114 are posthumous in an almost at random chronological order, and then of course the works without an opus numer, including a range of concertos, all the string symphonies, a host of choral works and a whole range of chamber music, most, but by far not all, juvenilia.

His works were influential throughout Europe.
Nevertheless I am afraid his neglect is not completely undeserved IMO.
With FHG I am not a great fan of his choral works

His style showed very early on already very recognisable audible fingerprints; in his prodigy-composer-years he composed a lot, but then, and also throughout the rest of his composing career, his style and his fluency halted him in creating really great works IMVHO.

[Roehre]

Somewhat off topic, but given the comments on Brahms' Choral Music elsewhere, has anyone any views on this box set?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mendelssohn-Sacred-Choral-Works-CDROM/dp/B005JWX8OO/ref=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1406540535&sr=1-3&keywords=mendelssohn+choral

Sang in the Lobgesang fairly recently, but we performed ONLY the choral movement.
I think I'm with FHG in the (lack of) appreciation stakes.
But then I feel the same about Beethoven 9!!
(Ducks and runs for cover, though I think I have some fellow-travellers!)

I know that box very well, and was only confirmed in my recollections of and earlier established opinions re Mendelssohn.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But we have Mendelssohn to thank for (re)introducing us to the works of JSB, don't we?

Sort of. Mendelssohn was the most celebrated of the Musicians who were interested in reintroducing Bach's Choral works (the Keyboard works were well-known to performers from at least the time of Mozart - don't know of Mendelssohn's relationship to the orchestral works) and his performance of (a somewhat truncated and [IIRC] re-orchestrated) St Matthew Passion and the B minor Mass were the catalyst in turning these works from a matter for enthusiasts to something for the wider public. (In fact, it is partly Mendelssohn's popularity that started the "Big Choir" Bach performing tradition - he'd originally intended to perform the work with a small choir, but so many people wanted to take part ... )

Now not sure if I want my soul sapped or not.