I don't think it's any lack of musical quality that makes this piece rarely performed today, rather it's the form; the offspring of an unusual mating between a symphony and a cantata!
Oddly, Mendelssohn never called this piece his second symphony. When he published the Scottish in 1842, he gave it the number "3" without ever having published a no. 2. Scholars think he was saving the number "2" for the as yet unpublished Italian symphony which he had finished in 1833 but kept fussing over and revising (the revision still exists and it's not as good as the original). He died before the Italian was published and it wound up published posthumously with the number, "4." It was the editors of the complete Mendelssohn edition who, 20 years after Mendelssohn's death, shoveled the Lobgesang into the gap between the Symphony no. 1 in C Minor and the Scottish and slapped the number "2" on it. In the most current Mendelssohn edition, it's not even labeled a symphony anymore and has been placed in the "sacred vocal works" category.
All the numberings are weird. The Reformation Symphony was the second completed, and the Scottish is actually the last one. Really, they should be No. 1 (C Minor, correctly numbered); 2. Reformation; 3. Italian; 4. Scottish. Lobgesang is something else. Thankfully, all of the ones numbered weirdly also have titles! This makes referring to them unambiguously extremely easy. Just don't use the numbers. We could use the keys, too (since they're all in different keys) but then you also get into arguments about whether the Reformation Symphony is in D Major or Minor (I vote Minor, because the main section of the first movement is in D Minor, but that's a digression for another time lol). tl;dr: Mendelssohn symphony numberings are weird, use the titles instead. Except No. 1, that one's fine.
He would have turned 70 in the year this was written, and I suspect his style would have been a bit different than this by then, but then again, so might Mendelssohn's!
No. The first movement is symphonic, but the other 10 movements are a typical cantata in the tradition of Bach. Mendelssohn didn't consider this a symphony, and if you omit the first movement, it is very similar to his 42nd psalm.
IMHO the piece is being seriously let down by the performance - the tempi are often too slow to show off Mendelssohn's beautiful lines, and the choral entry completely misses the dramatic point Mendelssohn tries to make. It may be a nostalgic moment for me (and has a couple of shortcomings in the solo sopranos), but the Masur recording is much better - and Peter Schreier has a way of embodying care and emotion that's simply unmatched.
It was my intention to write a comment, but you wrote exactly what I meant to say. This performance is absolutely not giving justice to a masterpiece like this one.
I truly love mendelsohns music but let me lovingly give him some fire, his symphonies confuse me, he seems anti melodic, his developments never go anywhere and he diverts, as soon as he could climax he just simply DOESNT His sequential passages hidden in the counterpoint are almost annoying his symphonies sound like incomplete sketches that were made to fit the structure, orchestration is often stagnant despite his efforts Yet he’s always flowing, always upbeat, He does have some fire harmonies and decent “counterpoint” He can build some energy but where does it go? His attempts at dynamics are underwhelming Yet there’s something I love about his music, maybe it’s that I can’t predict it yet it still always flows I literally want to take his entire symphony and write a melody on top of its entirety I don’t want to be a hater here, for educational purposes only flame me back if you disagree maybe I’m totally wrong and it’s just a taste thing
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks he is neither truly melodic nor motivic He is semi melodic, if what he writes is melodic at all, it’s just because the notes default occupy the highest voice What melody of his is singable? None A Mendelssohn symphony is like a dressed up Beethoven sketch He intentionally diverts before melody can arise, his compositional swag is unforgivable Dude composes like if tschaikovsky was straight, which is somehow even gayer Dude has all these little unfruitful ARCS like Lestiny I say all of this as a joke with love
@@jacksonelmore6227 It's a bit strange what you write, because Mendelssohn is considered by many (myself included) as a great melodist. I can understand that this piece has not memorable themes, but the italian symphony?
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks the Italian symphony is AWESOME BUT it’s reveals Mendel is THEMATIC, as opposed to melodic His opening theme is a half melody, it’s virtually a Mozart sketch, if mozart, too, was deaf Then, his thematic development is over-reliantly carried SEQUENTIALLY, disguised as counterpoint The theme is barely memorable Mendelssohns developments do vibe not gonna lie, but if you consider HIM melodic, You’d consider a two-note rapper melodic You don’t have to be melodic to make great music But when I think melodic I think Tschai, or Mozart, or maybe Brahms Thank you for your feedback and work in general
@@jacksonelmore6227 It's probably because Beethoven, and not Mozart, has established the style of symphonies. Isn't the use of a leitmotif as a building block for the entire melody a procedure established by Beethoven? That said, the symphony 1 of Mendelssohn is quite melodic, don't you think? Don't you also think that Mendelssohn, like Beethoven, is more melodic in concertos? The chamber works of Mendelssohn are also quite melodic. Not to mention the Andante religioso in this symphony.
I don't think it's any lack of musical quality that makes this piece rarely performed today, rather it's the form; the offspring of an unusual mating between a symphony and a cantata!
Oddly, Mendelssohn never called this piece his second symphony. When he published the Scottish in 1842, he gave it the number "3" without ever having published a no. 2. Scholars think he was saving the number "2" for the as yet unpublished Italian symphony which he had finished in 1833 but kept fussing over and revising (the revision still exists and it's not as good as the original). He died before the Italian was published and it wound up published posthumously with the number, "4." It was the editors of the complete Mendelssohn edition who, 20 years after Mendelssohn's death, shoveled the Lobgesang into the gap between the Symphony no. 1 in C Minor and the Scottish and slapped the number "2" on it. In the most current Mendelssohn edition, it's not even labeled a symphony anymore and has been placed in the "sacred vocal works" category.
All the numberings are weird. The Reformation Symphony was the second completed, and the Scottish is actually the last one.
Really, they should be No. 1 (C Minor, correctly numbered); 2. Reformation; 3. Italian; 4. Scottish. Lobgesang is something else.
Thankfully, all of the ones numbered weirdly also have titles! This makes referring to them unambiguously extremely easy. Just don't use the numbers. We could use the keys, too (since they're all in different keys) but then you also get into arguments about whether the Reformation Symphony is in D Major or Minor (I vote Minor, because the main section of the first movement is in D Minor, but that's a digression for another time lol).
tl;dr: Mendelssohn symphony numberings are weird, use the titles instead. Except No. 1, that one's fine.
This symphony is so incredible and underrated! Thanks for uploading!
Only the first movement in symphonic. The other ten movements are a typical cantata, including a choral.
Fabulous performance, finally.
I was going to say the same
I think this piece sounds like Beethoven would live longer about 70 years old to compose a symphony.
same way of thinking when i first listened to it . beethoven soul is so powerful in this symphony !
He would have turned 70 in the year this was written, and I suspect his style would have been a bit different than this by then, but then again, so might Mendelssohn's!
@@Churchcantorjjjj
No. The first movement is symphonic, but the other 10 movements are a typical cantata in the tradition of Bach. Mendelssohn didn't consider this a symphony, and if you omit the first movement, it is very similar to his 42nd psalm.
Thank you very much for the score!
Lovely
Ach du grüne Neune! 10 Sätze :D
1:05:55
Inmemse Genius ...
Der 1. Satz ist die Sinfonie, der Rest ist Kantate.
IMHO the piece is being seriously let down by the performance - the tempi are often too slow to show off Mendelssohn's beautiful lines, and the choral entry completely misses the dramatic point Mendelssohn tries to make.
It may be a nostalgic moment for me (and has a couple of shortcomings in the solo sopranos), but the Masur recording is much better - and Peter Schreier has a way of embodying care and emotion that's simply unmatched.
It was my intention to write a comment, but you wrote exactly what I meant to say. This performance is absolutely not giving justice to a masterpiece like this one.
25:34
00:06
0:06
Mendelssohn has something in common with Dreamworks! Mendelssohn’s second symphony and Dreamworks’s second movie are both based on the Bible.
I truly love mendelsohns music but let me lovingly give him some fire,
his symphonies confuse me, he seems anti melodic,
his developments never go anywhere and he diverts, as soon as he could climax he just simply DOESNT
His sequential passages hidden in the counterpoint are almost annoying
his symphonies sound like incomplete sketches that were made to fit the structure,
orchestration is often stagnant despite his efforts
Yet he’s always flowing, always upbeat,
He does have some fire harmonies and decent “counterpoint”
He can build some energy but where does it go?
His attempts at dynamics are underwhelming
Yet there’s something I love about his music, maybe it’s that I can’t predict it yet it still always flows
I literally want to take his entire symphony and write a melody on top of its entirety
I don’t want to be a hater here, for educational purposes only
flame me back if you disagree maybe I’m totally wrong and it’s just a taste thing
Why antimelodic?
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks he is neither truly melodic nor motivic
He is semi melodic, if what he writes is melodic at all, it’s just because the notes default occupy the highest voice
What melody of his is singable? None
A Mendelssohn symphony is like a dressed up Beethoven sketch
He intentionally diverts before melody can arise, his compositional swag is unforgivable
Dude composes like if tschaikovsky was straight, which is somehow even gayer
Dude has all these little unfruitful ARCS like Lestiny
I say all of this as a joke with love
@@jacksonelmore6227 It's a bit strange what you write, because Mendelssohn is considered by many (myself included) as a great melodist.
I can understand that this piece has not memorable themes, but the italian symphony?
@@ClassicalMusicAndSoundtracks the Italian symphony is AWESOME
BUT it’s reveals Mendel is THEMATIC, as opposed to melodic
His opening theme is a half melody, it’s virtually a Mozart sketch, if mozart, too, was deaf
Then, his thematic development is over-reliantly carried SEQUENTIALLY, disguised as counterpoint
The theme is barely memorable
Mendelssohns developments do vibe not gonna lie, but if you consider HIM melodic,
You’d consider a two-note rapper melodic
You don’t have to be melodic to make great music
But when I think melodic I think Tschai, or Mozart, or maybe Brahms
Thank you for your feedback and work in general
@@jacksonelmore6227 It's probably because Beethoven, and not Mozart, has established the style of symphonies. Isn't the use of a leitmotif as a building block for the entire melody a procedure established by Beethoven?
That said, the symphony 1 of Mendelssohn is quite melodic, don't you think? Don't you also think that Mendelssohn, like Beethoven, is more melodic in concertos? The chamber works of Mendelssohn are also quite melodic.
Not to mention the Andante religioso in this symphony.