Donald Satz <[log in to unmask]> replied to me:

>>In general, though, it seems to me that for most composers, the violin
>>concerti constitute their weakest body of work.  The form seems to lend
>>itself to superficiality (either of the romantic kind or the flashy kind)
>>rather than depth.
>
>Sounds to me like a controversial opinion.  But before responding to the
>opinion, what is romantic superficiality?  Are we talking about overwrought
>romanticism?  Unfortunately, there are real people who slide right into
>this category.

Not necessarily.  I probably ought to have used "lightweight" rather
than "superficial".  And it's a comparative thing; a violin concerto
by a major composer is still generally a fine work - just not always
as great as most of the rest of their output.  (IMHO.)

Superficiality implies an insincerity or an absence of consideredness
in the emotional content.  I didn't mean to suggest that.  Something
related applies to Mendelssohn here, since his work doesn't appeal to
me either (with the possible exceptions of his early chamber works such
as the rather amazing Octet).  It's not a superficiality so much as a
lack of emotional complexity, something I believe to be an essential
characteristic of the finest composers.  Contrast Mendelssohn with
Schumann, to take one example, and the difference is marked, at least
for me.  I used to put it this way: when I listen to Mendelssohn, I feel
like I'm not hearing anything about life that I don't already know.

 - seb