Repetition or Redundancy: Introductions by Mendelssohn and Mussorgsky
John GibbonsThe beginning of Mendelssohn’s “Lobgesang” symphony is completely inert, and therefore alarmingly dull, if I am permitted the oxymoron. As I’ve been studying this score recently for classroom presentation, I started from the assumption that the piece’s dullness was due to my own limited perception, probably related to the generic problems connected with this “symphony-cantata” as well as the stupefyingly poor text that Medelssohn employed in the work. Salvatore Cammarano’s book for Verdi’s Il Trovatore is a literary masterpiece compared to the shambles that Mendelssohn set in the cantata portion of his piece.
I adore Mendelssohn, and confess to being intimidated as well by the advocacy for this score by R. Larry Todd in his book on Mendelssohn that I’m using in the class. Todd is really careful to avoid personal enthusiasms and censures in his book, but the fact that he draws a structural diagram for “Lobgesang” and has several music examples constitutes advocacy. I also hope that I’m man enough to admit my limitations. But I think I’ve discovered something that lends credence to my negative assessment of the piece.
The first phrase of “Lobgesang” and the first phrase of Modest Mussorgsky’s (admittedly totally different and unrelated work conceptually and stylistically) Pictures at an Exhibition are similar. It’s not an uncanny similarity, but similar they are, and not because they share the same key signature and roughly the same thematic shape, which they do, but which is certainly coincidental, but similar in their rhetoric. Both are statement and response formulations, rather like a mass celebrant chanting something and being answered by a congregation. This is common in classical music. Brahms’ first piano sonata, Beethoven’s last symphony, Bach’s great mass, Rimsky’s Russian Easter Overture and most likely thousands of other works use this device. It is common, to say the very least. But Mendelssohn’s passage flops and Mussorgsky’s is immortal. Why?
It is because in Mendelssohn the responsorial harmonization of the original single note phrase merely confirms the harmonies that are obviously implied in the former. And then he adds new strophes to his passage, and each time the subsequent harmonization confirms the totally obvious. In Mussorsgsky, the harmonization, or at least the spacing is different each time, and even presents certain modal ambiguities; his opening promenade is definitely in B-flat, yes indeedy, but it is tinged by a lurking modal g minor, and sports as well the feeling of a premature move to the dominant, F major. If this seems technical, well, it is-but remember, music is a craft with its own procedural protocols. I can put it this way, non-technically: each time the listener hears the “celebrant” intone a phrase in Pictures, the listener is curious as to how the “responsorial” is formulated, and by the way, this interest does not diminish over repeated hearings. The “Promenade” is a unique thing. In Mendelssohn’s opening, you get exactly what is stongly implied each time. It’s boring the first time, and it approaches unendurable on subsequent listenings.
This should not sound immodest, because it is only basic musicianship, but I think I proved my contention in class yesterday. I improvised Mendessohnian sounding harmonizations of the responsorials at the piano , but used different spacings each time and employed proxy chords which were rational but less obvious then the chords in the actual piece. The passage was somewhat improved, but because I didn’t have an overarching conception of where I was going, it was still pretty bad. In other words, I improved the passage tactically but not strategically. If this seems like lese majestie, let me suggest that the alternative is that we all shut up, stop thinking and experimenting, and eat everything that is put on our plate. We shouldn’t eat everything that even a great master puts on our plate; we’ll get fat and complacent, and lose our powers of crititical discrimination. The Italian and Scottish symphonies are masterpieces, “Lobgesang is an also-ran, that’s the way it is, whether I am personally impertinent or not. I return to my profound rejection of the phrase, “You like it, I don’t, end of discussion” which an exceptionally intelligent friend of mine formulated during our conservatory days. We need standards and discrimination.
Finally, you may ask: “Isn’t repetition an often important unifying device, and therefore okey-dokey?” Oh my, yes. But repetition and redundancy are different things. If you don’t believe me, consult a reliable dictionary.
Reader Comments (5)
You're pretty tough on poor op. 52! However, I regrettingly agree that the piece doesn't work well. I think the explanation is quite simple: it doesn't have any fine tunes. This doesn't have to be bad at all of course - just think of Electra - but Mendelssohn's music is of a kind that only works with a good tune (maybe like Schubert). However, there some interesting recordings that make listening to the piece more rewarding than to Masur's rendition. First, try Abbado! He' playing the piece in a broad, almost late-romantic way. Somehow, it sounds just fine to me.
Second, try listening to Riccardo Chailly's recording from the last year. He is rendering the original Lobgesang which is much more dissonant than the better known late version. Especially the first movement sounds much more interesting.
With regard to text I can't agree with you. For me as a native German speaker Wagner's texts are absolutely awful, second only to most of Bach's cantata texts. Nevertheless, most of this music is absolutely brilliant.
That Chailly sounds really interesting, hope I come across it. As for "tunes", I must disagree. "Lobgesang"s melodic material seems pretty good,as far as it goes, and Mendelssohn (look at op. 44 and "Variations Serieuse" for instance) can get by without fine melodies, at least in sonata and variation forms. As for texts, while it's true that some of Bach's cantata texts stink, some are good; how could it not be so with such a vast corpus of works? Wagner? His texts are impossible as literature, they aren't even coherent, but of course they are not literature. And Wagner was a native German speaker also, so being a native speaker cannot be an argument-ender. The duets between Elektra and her sister, and Elektra and Orestes, seem to have some of Strauss's very finest melodies. I'm a little surprised that such an obviously well informed and generous spirited fellow such as yourself can't recall 'em to mind. Take a look at the score or spin a disc and you'll see what I mean. The DVD with Birgit Nilsson conducted by Levine is great,as is the splendid film by Goertz Friedrich, conducted by Boehm, both readily available. By the way, should I spell out letters implied by umlauts, or just leave the umlaut out? My keyboard doesn't have an umlaut key. Maybe I can import an umlaut as a character, but that sounds like a hassle...although dealing with so much German repertory, maybe I better. As always, thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response.
You are right, I wasn't precise enough. The Variations serieuses and the f-minor quartet do not expand on a "good tune", but, as you surely agree, they are not typical for Mendelssohn as being dark-hued and even desperate in expression. The Lobgesang, obviously, is totally different as it is "affirmative" music such as op. 42 which is a wonderfully inspirated masterpiece. Normally, Mendelssohn writes beautiful melodies and I think his melodical inventiveness is second to no other composer. But in case of the Lobgesang the melodic material makes a mediocre impression on me and I bet that most people would agree with me.
With regard to the quartets 44, I don't understand what you think is wrong with the tunes. In my ear, the e-minor and the D-major abound in tunes - the E-flat doesn't, that's true. And although I love the latter best (especially because of the central movements not because of the lengthy finale), I am absolutely sure that it will never become popular.
I didn't mean to belittle Electra! I think it is maybe Strauss's greatest achievement, but so far it occured to me that horror and chaos (of course well calculated by the composer) rather than melody are driving the piece. However, I admit that I should listen more closely to the pieces you suggested.
By referring to myself as a native speaker I didn't mean to end any argument but it is widely accepted even among German wagnerites that Wagner's texts are rather awkward. This doesn't affect their love for Wagner's operas however. The same is true for the Bach cantatas of which some have absolutely ridiculous texts. Sometimes I have to read the English translation to understand what is meant.
I don't care about the umlauts, however if you wish to spell German words correctly, you can transcribe all of them by writing the following letter combinations:
ä = ae
ö = oe
ü = ue
How to type non-English characters on a US keyboard in Windows, without installing an alternate keyboard layout: Open the Character map (in the System Tools folder) and note down the keystroke shortcut for the letters you commonly use. For example...
ä = ALT-0228
ö = ALT-0246
ü = ALT-0252
ß = ALT-0223
Thank you for the explanation. It is a very important point.