I define "canon" as simply those works of music that are truly indispensable, ones that are performed very frequently and that all young players have to come to terms with. Ones that listeners consistently seek out decade after decade. The canon is always in flux, of course, as composers wax and wane in the estimation of musicians and audiences. Concert promoters and orchestra managers are always reviewing attendance figures to see what music and what performers are popular. If your music remains unpopular or receives unenthusiastic response for long enough, you will slowly fall out of the canon.
I think that this is what is happening with Mendelssohn, though this may be just a personal opinion. What is happening with him is that he used to be in the front rank of composers based on a lot of very charming music and a wide appreciation of his whole oeuvre. More and more, however, much of his output has fallen by the wayside. Some of his symphonies are rarely performed. His "Songs Without Words" for piano used to be much more popular than they are. What does get performed is a pretty short list consisting of the Violin Concerto, the Overture to A Midsummer Night's Dream, a couple of symphonies and the Octet. This is how a composer fades, with only a few works remaining in the active repertory. (Please vehemently disagree with me in the comments.)
Some other composers slowly fight their way from obscurity to prominence and one of these is Shostakovich. I was having lunch with a patron of the arts last week and she declared that Shostakovich was one of her favorite composers. This was not always so! When I was an undergraduate he was never studied and rarely mentioned except in connection with a supposed satire of him in the Bartók Concerto for Orchestra. Now his symphonies, concertos and string quartets are performed in virtually every concert season and music festival.
Schubert, now in the very front rank of composers, was once considered to be second rank at best. He was known only for a couple of symphonies and a host of lieder. But in recent decades his stature has grown and grown as his chamber music and piano music has become better and better known.
But Beethoven, since his debuts in early 19th century Vienna, has been, along with Bach, simply the most important composer in classical music. With the exception of opera, where he only wrote one significant work, he looms large in every genre: his symphonies are unexcelled, as are his string quartets, piano sonatas and concertos. He is at the center of musical thought and the only reason that more musicologists are not cranking out books on him is simply that they have written so many already. The one piece of music that seems to lie at the core of classical music is the Symphony No. 9 of Beethoven whose theme is used as the anthem of the European Union. I am rather looking forward to hearing the Vienna Symphony perform it in August at the Salzburg Festival as I have never heard it in concert.
While other composers rise and fall, for the last two centuries Beethoven (yes, along with Bach and Mozart) persists. He will be with us for a long time to come. So why do I call him an "iconoclast"? For a long time, the basic narrative assigned to Beethoven, based on some empirical evidence, was that he was a revolutionary, someone who uprooted music and rewrote all the rules. This, while containing a grain of truth, is only part of the story. If we consult Donald Francis Tovey we find the other side of the coin: for him, Beethoven's music was built on a solid foundation of musical "normalcy" not tortured dysfunction. What Beethoven did more and more as he developed as a composer, was delve into the very depths of musical expression and structure. As his music became more transcendent it became more profound--just one of those contradictions we find in art.
This is Riccardo Muti conducting the Chicago Symphony:
5 comments:
I don't have a dog in the fight but Here are the Bachtrack upcoming listings for Mendelssohn and Schubert respectively. Felix has 280 listings while Schubert has 380. By way of comparison Mahler has 380 listings, Robert Schumann 302 listings, Dvorak 236 listings. If anything I think Dvorak is in a bit of a down cycle but these things fluctuate as you say. I think the Mendelssohn fadeout occurred earlier in the post WW2 era when he was really out of favor.I think he has actually come back a bit.
https://bachtrack.com/find-concerts/category=1;composer=67;medium=1,3
https://bachtrack.com/find-concerts/category=1;composer=97;medium=1,3
Beethoven will indeed be with us for a long time. Shostakovich's oeuvre is certainly being more and more recognised in the concert hall, and so it should. I went to see a performance of his first Violin Concerto last year, and it was an unexpectedly transcendent experience. I would love to see Mendelssohn's piano concertos performed; both are underrated and highly energetic with lovely slow movements. And Bryan, what do you think of Hummel? His is one of the most curious cases. As a contemporary of Beethoven, his work was highly-thought of during his lifetime, but is hardly known these days and barely performed. I particularly enjoy his chamber works. His overall output may not possess the profundity of Beethoven, but whose does?
Thanks for a bit of statistical cold water, Maury! It looks as if Mendelssohn is a bit more popular than I estimated. Looking at the list, I see that just the works I mentioned, particularly the violin concerto, are most prominent, but I am a bit surprised to see his string quartets performed as often as they are. Mind you, I am equally surprised to see the Schumann string quartets being programmed so much. It is not so much the raw numbers that are revealing, I think, as where works are being performed and by whom. For example, after reading your and Anonymous' comment I sought out performances of Mendelssohn and Hummel piano concertos. Oddly, I found Stephen Hough playing them both (mind you, Yuja Wang also seems to have played Mendelssohn concertos). Hough seems to be rather a utility pianist. The Hummel was mildly interesting, the Mendelssohn mere note-noodling.
There is nothing so common as uninspired, craftsmanlike composition. The Mendelssohn piano concertos, at least the one I listened to, is a perfect example. A gifted, well-trained composer can turn out well-crafted compositions on command. And they are pleasant to listen to. But in comparison with the really great works such as the piano concertos of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Liszt, Prokofiev and a few others, they are merely good music, not great music.
Yes, I think Dvorak is on a bit of a downward trajectory as well: what is performed is shrinking to a few warhorses.
I wasn't trying to throw cold water on your article. I don't think there is any question that Mendelssohn is not in the topmost rank. I agree his piano work, like Dvorak unlike Schumann, is his weakest area. But he was a very fine writer for strings and I myself have warmed up to his string quartets in the past 25 years. I think the violin concerto's overwhelming popularity has helped revive his other symphonic and non- piano chamber music. I think Schumann is on an up cycle as even his string quartets are being performed more as you noted up above. Dvorak is very pleasant but the formal weakness of many of his chamber works is more of a detriment there than it is with his orchestral works. He does have one big opera to his credit as well, unlike Mendelssohn or Schumann. So I don't think any of these three will sink out of sight since all have a few masterworks.
Let's leave you with the last word on this!
Post a Comment