Talk:Felix Mendelssohn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wedding March

The Wedding March was played for the first time on January 25, 1858 at the marriage of Queen Victoria's daughter and the Crown Prince of Prussia.

Presumably this means it was the first time it was played at an actual wedding, not the first time ever. Anybody know for sure? --Camembert

The Incidental Music for Midsummer Night's Dream is his Opus 61, (the Hochzeitmarsch is #9) and was written for a production of Shakespeare's play in Potsdam in 1842 [1] - which would have been the first use at a pretend wedding - a triple one, at that. I'll see if I can find out if Vicky's wedding was the first occasion of its use at a real wedding. Mendelssohn was tremendously popular in England at the time, and the use of a Wedding March at a wedding is...not very innovative... and it's a long time between 1842 and 1858<G>. -- Someone else 01:44, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Grove gives the date of composition of the 12 numbers and finale as 1843. Not that this is particularly material to the question asked. — Stumps 15:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, how would we ever prove it was the first use? It certainly set the trend in wedding music choice (both the Wagner and the Mendelssohn, an interesting pairing in its own right<G>) so maybe we should content ourselves by asserting only that? -- Someone else 01:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I quote from the article: His success, his popularity and his Jewish origins, irked Richard Wagner sufficiently to damn Mendelssohn with faint praise, three years after his death, in an anti-Jewish pamphlet Das Judenthum in der MusikThis is, of course, the tripe we could expect from Wagner - I wish the international music community would rise up in indignation and give Wagner refuse to perform Wagner's music. -- 08:21, May 10, 2007 Rambux who didn't sign this rather irrelevant contribution

Yes, I suppose proving it is tricky - your edit looks good to me. I've just noticed that January 25 and 1858 carry similarly misleading info - maybe you could fiddle with them a bit? (I'd do it, but I'm too lazy... I mean busy.) --Camembert

I have fiddled. Now I smell the faint acrid scent of Rome burning... -- Someone else 01:11, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt the debate but it has just become irrelevant. I have removed the bit about Vicky being the first to use Mendelssohn's Wedding March at an actual wedding. The first such use was in fact by Dorothy Carew and Tom Daniel who wed at St Peter’s Church, Tiverton, UK, on 2 June 1847, 11 years before Victoria married. The other bit about the Wagner Bridal may well be true about Princess Vicky, but it obviously does not belong on the Mendelssohn page (and never did). JackofOz 09:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: "At seventeen he wrote an overture to Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, which is probably the earliest well known work by him" -- the article does not mention the Octet; wasn't he about 16 when he wrote that masterpiece?

First symphony or acknowledged symphony?

A picky statement about the caption of the image... by now his corpus of youthful substantial works, his twelve+prelude/fugue+arrangement string syms., his early concerti, ... ..., is well enough known to make the claim that he wrote his first symphony at the age of fifteen (1824) want for some amendment possibly? This is the date of the C minor op 11 true. Schissel : bowl listen 17:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Further comment, this time on changes that I made (I know, no one's remarked so why do so myself?) - just wanted to cover a few very obvious objections: the op 11 is the first published symphony (not so sure about acknowledged; he allowed performances of the earlier ones at the time, along with the early concertos - the D minor for violin, A minor for piano, the two for two pianos, the D minor for piano and violin, etc., and other early works. (Gah, though unlike some I like his later works very much too esp second str qnt and F minor str quartet, such a prodigy, but sorry - anyway ...) Might want to ask for definitions here of acknowledge. — Also, the Scottish and possibly the Italian symphony were withdrawn for revisions - the former was 'acknowledged' only temporarily as well in that sense and the latter also in that sense though Mendelssohn did not complete the revisions of the latter (as mentioned in program notes to a Tanglewood concert, 1987(?) summer, and also the basis of at least two conjectural recentish Italian-or-is-it symphony recordings. I have heard one of them a few times and whether it's the novelty or the actual changes I think the new version is interesting. So in this sense of the adjective... the only acknowledged symphonies after the opus 11 are nos. 2 Lobgesang and 5 Reformation. Only published (in the sense of not found among paper 130 years after death, etc.) does make more sense though it does throw out Dvorak 1 I think (admittedly perhaps a work of juvenilia too, though a huge one and I think a very interesting one- then again I think this latter of the later Mendelssohn str syms also)- well, on the other, there is no one-size-fits-all this is a valid work and this is a work of juvenilia... etc. Coherent, aren't I... Schissel : bowl listen 15:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago I changed the caption of the picture. The information does not fit to a picture of him as a 30-year-old. Besides, when I remember correctly, he wrote his first symphony at 11 or 12. --mst 14:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Breakoff point?

Since Mendelssohn wrote one of the two-piano concertos in the same year as his A minor piano concerto (1823) with strings (the other was in 1824) what's the basis for counting one but not the other? Tradition, time written, ...? Including the 12+change+with-winds string symphonies (as I was arguing) seems too drastic a change- except parenthetically- though it's done in practice admittedly. Still, including the 2-piano concertos and not the A minor (is there that great a jump of quality within the one year 1823? possibly) - does take a standard, I think. Schissel : bowl listen 02:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Christian names

Would not his first name be spelled "Jakob," in the German fashion, rather than "Jacob?" Anglius

Yes

Mendelssohn was Jewish

Curious censorship to delete Mendelssohn from category Ashkenazi Jews. Firstly, this is an ethnic categorisation. Secondly, the introduction to the List of Jews makes clear that it includes Jews who do not practise their religion; indeed, that list includes mendelssohn. Thirdly, he consciously identified himself as Jewish. When he gave the first performance of Johann Sebastian Bach's St. Matthew's Passion since Bach's death, he expressed the hope that people would remember that it was a Jew who revived this Christian masterpiece. 81.133.191.160 19:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he was baptized at the age of 7 and brought up accordingly, the whole family converted to Lutheranism. It is kind of strange that he is also on the List of Lutherans, and at the moment categorized as "jewish lutheran" (or "lutheran jew"?). Regards, Mst 22:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. this was certainly not meant as "censorship". I only think it peculiar to categorize people by their belief, this is not done in the German wikipedia. --Mst 22:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a pretty big stretch to call Felix Mendelssohn Jewish. While his grandfather is certainly a very famous and, in reform minded circle, respected Jew, if his father converted to Lutheranism and he never practiced Judaism, then not even Reform would call him a Jew. If his father married a non-Jew then according to the Orthodox he's not even ethnically Jewish. If someone can find out whether or not his mother was Jewish, or at the very least whether he engaged in public religious acts defined as Jewish, then you might have a leg to stand on, otherwise neither the religious nor ethnic identification of "Jewish" would be valid, halakhically speaking. --unixslug 119:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The maiden-name of his mother was "Lea Salomon". --Mst 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Then where does the "Bartholdy/Bartholdi" come in?

The name "Bartholdy" was adopted when the family converted to Lutheranism. --mst 16:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

While it's possible that only her father was a Jew, possibly someone who had left Judaism, based on the timeframe (and the name) it seems like a reasonable guess that both of Mendelssohn's parents were people who had left Judaism. As such, technically he could be considered Jewish, or at least an Israelite, but I still think it gives the wrong impression. But I wouldn't make an issue out of it. --unixslug 03:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Felix' parents (officially) converted much later to Lutheranism than their children, namely in 1822. All the children were baptized in 1816, May 21st. --mst 13:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Mendelssohn was not Jewish (by religion)

Both Felix's parents were Jewish, but he was brought up at first without religious education and then baptised as a Lutheran aged 7. Moreover his parents took the conscious decision not to have him circumcised. He therefore had no experience of the Jewish religion and never practiced it, and there is no doubt he was a sincere Lutheran.

Halachically of course he was Jewish but that meant nothing to him, only to students of Jewish law.

There was therefore no real meaning in thinking of Mendelssohn as 'Jewish' until the Nazi regime started defining who was and who wasn't Jewish. Just because the Nazis classified Felix as Jewish, there is no reason why we should follow them.

Smerus 25 December 2005

Thank you for clearing up that halachically he was Jewish. It can't be said with a NPOV that he's not Jewish then. As I stated in another case, the Conservative, Orthodox, and Traditional movements all believe he was Jewish. --Yodamace1 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Mendelssohn was ethnically Jewish, but not Jewish by belief. I have corrected the header of this section to reflect that. I apologise for my absence of clarity.- Smerus 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Terence

I recently heard that Mendelssohn made the first German translation of some of the Roman poet Terence's works, but I couldn't find anything on Google about it. Is this true? JackofOz 08:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Felix translated the Andria for his tutor Heyse in 1825. Heyse was impressed and had it published in 1826 as a work of 'his pupil, F***' --Smerus 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed, thank you Smerus. Do you have a citation that we can use to include this info in both biographies? JackofOz 11:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

R. Larry Todd, 'Mendelssohn: A Life in Music' (2003), p. 154, quoting from partial transcripts of letters from Lea Mendelssohn to Henriette Pereira Arnstein in the Bodleian Library. However, since Todd published, the original letters have been acquired by the Berlin Staatsbibliothek from their private owner and are now available for consultation for the first time - I haven't however looked at this one. Todd notes that the translation was given to Heyse on the latter's birthday on October 15th 1825 - the day Felix completed his Octet. I see the translation is also mentioned in Schubring's memoirs of Mendelssohn, so the story must have got about in Mendelssohn's own time.--Smerus 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Against Wiki Convention?

In the Biography section, is not the sentence "Mendelssohn is generally regarded as the greatest child prodigy after Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" against Wikipedia conventions? "Generally regarded." It is suggested that if someone expresses this opinion, one cites that person.

Ex. Smith regards Mendelssohn as the greatest child prodigy after Mozart.

In its present form, the sentence is not verifiable and subject to dispute. --Vegalabs 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Smerus, I didn't mean the particular formulation "generally regarded" but any general remark :). The current version is no different, in that it doesn't rest on an assertion made by a concrete person. It doesn't bother me much, but I can see it being contested. --Vegalabs 20:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, whilst generally regarded as the greatest might perhaps be contestable, the present version I think is fair. There are plenty who regard FM as a remarkable prodigy, but I can't think of any authority who says he was not, or who rates any musician apart from Mozart as more of a prodigy than FM. Biographers such as Werner and Todd rank him alongside Mozrt, but please don't ask me for page references just now as I am presently a long way from my books. 'General remarks' are not I think against Wiki coventions per se --Smerus 08:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. --Vegalabs 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But he is right, Mendelssohn was the greatest child prodigy after Mozart! In fact, He was the greatest child prodigy with Mozart, that's quite true. You say it is like an opinion, but He really was the most talented musician with Mozart. People have to know that, people have to understand. Let them know His glory. Mendelssohn's own music is so charming... --Mendelssohn (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

THE Violin Concerto??

I find this a bizarre use of language considering that two violin concerti by Felix Mendelssohn survive, the Violin Concerto #1 in D minor and the Violin Concerto #2 in E minor Op.64. If he wrote any others, they are currently unknown. Regardless of fame or personal opinion/taste of the author, it is inappropriate to call one "THE", as if it were the ONLY. - Smyslov 2 June 2006

I've changed the wording to specifically refer to the E minor. Stumps 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Stumps's rewording is helpful, but Smyslov is going overboard somewhat. They are not Concerto no. 1 and Concerto no. 2; Mendelssohn never acknowledged the earlier one as appropriate for publication or gave it an opus number, and when the E minor concerto was performed and published he did not call it no. 2. In terms of performance and recordings, the E minor is and always will be, to the public at large, 'Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto'. To call it 'no. 2' would be itself misleading.Smerus 16:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the piece exists, whether he or anyone else wills it or no. Denial of something that exists within reality is pointless. As far as "the public at large", well, the public at large thinks many false things, so that is of course no argument at all. Smyslov 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smyslov, the public is not thinking something 'false', it is just giving an opinion, exactly as you are.Smerus 07:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. That he wrote at least two violin concerti is a fact, not an opinion. Not calling them #1 and #2 is fine, just as Beethoven's 2nd piano concerto is actually the first, just as W.A. Mozart's Symphony #41 "Jupiter" is actually more like #54 or #55, Saint-Saëns' "Organ Symphony" #3 is more like his fifth, and so on. I have no real problem with that. But you can't say "THE" Symphony of Mozart, or "THE" Piano Concerto of Beethoven. Regardless of what you call it, there isn't THE Violin Concerto of Mendelssohn. Number it, don't number it, hate it, revile it, try to wipe it from the history books... none of that matters. The word "the" used in this sense, with a singular "violin concerto", is incorrect.Smyslov 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently playing one violin concerto at the moment and I would like to know more about it. What form would the movements of the violin concerto usually be? - User:Silverwolf athame

Is it a (Felix, not Alfred or Arnold) Mendelssohn violin concerto? Then the D minor is for violin solo and strings (and the key signature is one ♭ in the first and third movements, while the E minor violin concerto - for violin and larger orchestra, has one ♯ in the first movement (four of them in most of the last movement) and the three movements play with almost no break. The E minor violin concerto has opus 64 attached to it, probably in the top right of the score and parts. On the other, the D minor was discovered by Yehudi Menuhin in the early 20th century (he also discovered one of the Mendelssohn violin sonatas), and like many such posthumously discovered works, does not have an opus number attached at all. Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, Smyslov, I thought Beethoven's B-flat piano concerto was his 2nd, and his C major was the third (then fourth, fifth, sixth) (counting that 1798 E-flat one... there don't seem to be any others hidden in the mists. *crossing fingers*) Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence

Does it seems strange that both Fanny and Felix died as the result of strokes? I'm curious if there has there been any research into what might have caused their strokes. 66.171.76.237 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Strokes are often caused by genetic factors, so no: it does not seem strange at all that both died as the result of strokes, especially in an age where much less knowledge of lessening such possibility existed. --137.165.213.153 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Symphonic fragment

I don't think this counts as original research. There's the beginning of a symphonic movement, not one of the string symphonies and not the orchestral arrangement of string symphony number 8 either, found in a compressed (piano-reduced, more or less) version in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians edition 2 (whoops again, edit- referring to the 1904 2nd edition of the Dictionary, not the "Grove Dictionary" which is the recent one whose 2nd edition appeared in 2001.) (according to a friend- in their article on Mendelssohn, of course- a manuscript "which belonged to his elder daughter, the late Mrs. C. Victor Benecke, and is here printed by her kind permission. The MS. is in full score, and has been compressed for this occasion by Mr. Franklin Taylor, so as accurately to represent the scoring of the original. No clue to its date has yet been discovered." (pages 168-170 of that volume - beginning of the first movement? and a few bars of the slow movement, in C and G major respectively.) Anyone else seen this, heard a performance, anything? Think it worth listing anywhere if it can be reconfirmed? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: there's an article about this fragment, and its similarity to (perhaps it was subsumed partially into) later works by the composer, in Todd, R. Larry (July - October 1980), "An Unfinished Symphony by Mendelssohn", Music & Letters, 61 (3/4): 293–309, ISSN 0027-4224 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Symphony No. 3 in A minor

In this article it says that Felix Mendelssohn published the score of the symphony in 1842. In the article Symphony No. 3 (Mendelssohn) it says that the symphony was completed in 1842, and published the following year. What am I to believe? ChristianGL 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been completed on 20 January 1842, and the first performance was on 3 March 1842. It was published in 1842 in London as a piano duet, and in full score in 1843. (Details from online Grove) Antandrus (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Songs Without Words, with words

Has anyone ever attempted to set these piano pieces to words, and sing them as songs? If so, is there a recording? JackofOz 05:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mendelssohn wrote to his friend Souchay in 1842 resisting the latter’s attempts to give titles and subjects to the Songs Without Words: ‘The thoughts that are expressed to me by the music I love are not too indefinite to put into words, but on the contrary, too definite.’ He was against making any arrangements of the sort you enquire about; but there are examples - notably the 'Spring Song', which had numbers of 'settings'. I seem to recall Olive Oyl singing it to the words of 'Why am I so beautiful' in one of the Popeye cartoons.--Smerus 08:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hebrides opening bars written before or after visiting Fingal's Cave?

According to D. Martin of Edinburgh, see http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-mendelssohn-violin-concerto-sacd.aspx, Mendelssohn actually wrote the letter before visiting the cave. Since there is no citation given in the "Other orchestral music" section, I am not sure whether to edit it and cite my source or request a citation for the conflicting story. Perhaps some more experienced Mendelssohn experts can help.

The full text of the paragraph cited (from Sep.2002) is:

1829 also saw Felix embark on what can best be described as a Grand Tour. Shortly after the performances of the St Matthew’s Passion Mendelssohn left for Hamburg, and following a difficult crossing of the English Channel he arrived in London on April 21. Initially remaining in London, often performing at private gatherings (although he did conduct his overture to Midsummer Night’s Dream on Midsummer’s Day), Felix left London in late July to visit Scotland for a walking tour. It was at an assembly of bagpipe musicians at Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, that the inspiration for the opening of the Scottish Symphony (No. 3) came to him, and within two weeks he had the genesis of his Hebrides overture, which came to him while looking out at the Hebrides. A letter written to his family, dated August 7, 1829, includes the opening bars of the first theme in score. Although intimately connected with the work, it was not until the following day that Mendelssohn visited Fingal’s Cave on the island of Staffa.

This is seconded by the entry on the overture in Michael Kennedy's Oxford Compact Dictionary of Music, 2004 edition, by the way. Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Judensohn

After some discussion (see User talk:Sebastian Panwitz) 'a Jew's son' seems the most acceptable translation for 'ein Judensohn'. Mendelssohn certainly did not say to Devrient that he was 'a man of Jewish heritage' or any other 21st century politically correct formulation. --Smerus (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree--"ein Judensohn" means "Jew's son." It's best expressed that way. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a convert

I have removed the category Category:Converts to Christianity. Felix (like his sister Fanny and his other siblings) was never Jewish by religion. He was never circumcised, or given any Jewish education, and there is no record of his ever having even entered a synagogue. He was baptised at the age of 9. The category applies to Felix's parents, but no to him or his siblings.--Smerus (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not very related to the article, but I wonder, how did Wagner know about Felix's Jewish background if Felix never called himself or considered himself a Jew? Is it because the Mendelssohn family were known as a German-Jewish family who converted? Yuvn86 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes: Moses Mendelssohn was renowned as a philosopher in both Jewish and Gentile circles. The name Mendelssohn means in German 'son of Mendel' - Mendel being a Jewish name - so any German speaker would expect its bearer to be Jewish irrespective of whether he knew about Moses. Lastly - as Queen Victoria wrote in her Journal after meeting Mendelssohn for the first time - 'He is small, dark and Jewish-looking'. It should be noted that Felix himself, whilst a practising Lutheran, was proud of his Jewish heritage and never sought to cover it, or to dissociate himself from it.--Smerus (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

War Horses?

I question whether the E minor violin concerto should be described as a "war horse".

First of all, the term "war horse" is vague. I see that at answers.com it is defined as "Informal. A musical or dramatic work that has been performed so often that it has become widely familiar."

I think the term also has a negative connotation which is not included in this definition.

If the point is simply to say the work is "often performed", this can be conveyed without using the loaded term war horse.

But is it still true that the work IS currently frequently performed? Does an editor have access to statistics on this?

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A Question of Wording

Regarding the wording, in the Reputation section:

"The Nazi regime was to cite Mendelssohn's Jewish origin in banning his works and destroying memorial statues. Such avowedly anti-Semitic political opposition to Mendelssohn should of course be differentiated from expressions of artistic or aesthetic disdain for Mendelssohn's music such as those found in Charles Rosen's essay, which disparages Mendelssohn's style as "religious kitsch"; however, these opinions may also reflect a continuation of the attitude of Wagner and his musical followers."

and the alternate wording preferred by editor Smerus:

"The Nazi regime was to cite Mendelssohn's Jewish origin in banning his works and destroying memorial statues. Such avowedly anti-Semitic political opposition to Mendelssohn should of course be differentiated from expressions of artistic or aesthetic disdain for Mendelssohn's music such as those found in Charles Rosen's essay, who disparages Mendelssohn's style for "religious kitsch"; however, these opinions may also reflect a continuation of the aesthetic contempt of Wagner and his musical followers."

I think the length and complexity of the last sentence complicates the matter.

Having said this, IMO the first part of the last sentence has already focused attention on the "artistic/aesthetic disdain" of writers such as Charles Rosen. To use the last part of the sentence to remark on "aesthetic contempt" is redundant since "artistic/aesthetic disdain" is pretty much synonymous with "aesthetic contempt".

Unless the point of the last part of the sentence is stronger, it would be better omitted IMO.

Wanderer57 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. The purpose of my wording is to clearly distinguish the anti-Jewish contempt of Wagner for Mendelssohn (and for composers such as Meyerbeer), from his equally deeply felt aesthetic contempt. Otherwise you risk suggesting that Rosen, and others who share this artistic disdain, also share anti-Semitic opinions; and for this reason I propose my wording should remain. Smerus (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) w

Third opinion

Hey. First, I don't like the sentence, mostly because "should of course be differentiated from expressions of artistic or aesthetic disdain" evokes WP:OR. To comment on the opinions without sourcing is original research and/or a synthesis of sources. I'd back up Wanderer in the deletion of the sentence, though perhaps for different reasons. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The simple issue here is to make it clear that there are modern reputable critics (such as Rosen) who agree with Wagner's aesthetic critique of Mendelssohn's style, but who themselves are in no way anti-Jewish. (Rosen himself is Jewish).Smerus (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)