Skip to main content

Mendelssohn: Symphony #3

Over the next two posts, we will finish off the remaining two Felix Mendelssohn's symphonies on my 3-CD collection of his Five Symphonies. Today, we'll cover his Third, the "Scottish" Symphony.
**********************
Herbert Von Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker
Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847)
Five Symphonies

Deutsche Grammophon, 1973
**********************
In my view, Mendelssohn's Third Symphony is the best one I've listened to yet, after having listened to his First, his marathon Second, and his Fifth.

And my boy Felix himself backs me up on this one: according to the unusually well-written liner notes accompanying this CD (written by Ivan March), Mendelssohn "valued the 'Scottish' Symphony above the others."

Mendelssohn was inspired to compose this work after a visit to Scotland in 1829, and the introductory theme of this symphony burst into his mind upon seeing the famous Holyrood Abbey ruins.

It's interesting, however, that my primary classical music reference source, David Dubal's The Essential Canon of Classical Music, barely mentions the Third. Only Mendelssohn's Fourth Symphony warrant any discussion. That's a significant oversight in my view.

I'll see for myself how well Mendelssohn's Fourth stacks up against his Third in my next post. I can tell you right now, however, that it's going to be a challenge to beat out this wonderful symphony.

Listener notes for Mendelssohn's Third Symphony:
1) Most of the drama in this symphony happens in the surprisingly long first movement, and there are some really intriguing harmonies and unusual melodies here. Right away, this symphony sounds more intriguing, and has a lot more drama and torment, than Symphonies 1, 2 and 5 combined.

2) Listen to the unusual chord the orchestra plays at the 0:21 mark, and in particular, listen to the note that the french horn plays in that chord. I can't remember enough music theory to tell you what that chord is exactly, but it is a chord that doesn't belong in the year 1842, especially from someone seen as a conservative among the Romantic-era composers. I'm beginning to develop more and more appreciation for Mendelssohn's compositional risk-taking.

3) Also, listen at 5:54-6:10 in the first movement--there's an almost modern-sounding violin part. This guy sounds more like he's ahead of his time, not behind it.

4) A comment on the structure of the first movement: it appears to have an extremely long, Haydn-style introduction, with the true theme not starting until almost four minutes into the movement.

5) After that long and tense first movement, the second movement practically seems like an amuse-bouche.

6) When I listen to the third and fourth movements of this symphony, I can't help but appreciate how Mendelssohn can drive quite a bit of power out of just a smallish orchestra--it makes you think that composers like Mahler cheat a little bit by scoring their music for supersized symphonies.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Does Bach Suck?

It's not often that you see a classical music-related comment that makes you spit out your coffee : "Bach sucks because he was not a true composer. A true composer hears the music before he writes it. Bach composed using a mathematical system of numbers which he tought[sic] his students. After his death one of his students published a book “How to write a menuet[sic] with little or no musical knowledge”. Frankly, the result of his work is not musical, the opening bars always sound musical because he copied someone else’s melody, broke it down into numbers and wrote counterpoint from it. Handel did not even like Bach, because Handel wrote music. Anyone who does like Bach does so because they are told to. For a comparison, listen to music by Frescobaldi, Rameau, or Couperin, then listen to Bach. The difference? Something that is musical throughout the entire piece, and something that is musical for 10 seconds and quickly loses interest." Once I'd finished mopping the co

Why Classical Music Writing is So Difficult to Read

Have you ever read the liner notes of a classical music CD and scratched your head wondering what the heck the writer was trying to say? Or attempted to read a classical music concert review in your newspaper and felt totally illiterate? One of the things that frustrates many people about classical music is its perceived elitism. It's unfortunate, but most of what gets written about classical music only worsens that perception. Most of the classical music writing I see out there--either in symphony concert program books, in concert reviews in major papers like the New York Times, or worst of all in the little essays in the booklets accompanying most classical music CDs--is quite simply terrible. Often, it is pretentiously written, it is full of industry jargon (yes, even the classical music industry has its own jargon), and it reads like an intellectually insecure liberal arts student's PhD thesis. There are a few reasons for this. First, there's the fundamental difficulty

Schubert: Symphony #3

I have a confession to make. Today's CD is not only further proof of my need to start this blog, but it is perhaps the most embarrassing example of how mindless and uncontemplative my life had become over the past several years. This CD sat on my shelf with more than a hundred other CDs for years, unlistened to, unnoticed, and collecting dust. It was just like all the rest of my CDs, except, uh, in one key respect: It was still in its cellophane wrapper. I had been so out of touch with myself that I bought CDs that I forgot I bought. I must have wanted to listen to this CD at some point, but apparently in the time between buying the CD and putting it on the shelf, I got distracted. For ten years. That is a prime, and admittedly foolish-sounding, example of why I'm taking a break from my career, and why I started this blog. I guess I didn't want to wake up in another ten years and hear myself making excuses for myself like "I work too hard and make too much money to