Don Satz:

>Both Schumann and Mendelssohn are highly popular composers essentially
>born at the same time.  But, which composer wrote better music?:

Although I can think of few exercises more futile (or feudal, for that
matter) than ranking one superb composer over another, I'm not entirely
without a sense of humor.  So I'll follow Don's lead.

>Solo Piano Works - Schumann has a huge advantage here.  He's likely
>one of the four or five most masterful composers for solo piano; all
>of Mendelssohn's solo compositions could disappear and most folks would
>hardly notice (I wouldn't) - 3 points for Schumann.

While I can't disagree with the general conclusion, I must point out that
Mendelssohn's Preludes and Fugues and Lieder ohne Woerter are hardly
chopped liver.  Still, Schumann does have the longer reach.

>Chamber Works - Not a strong suit for either composer.  Personally, I
>enjoy Schumann's works, but I can't deny that they are not very memorable.
>Mendelssohn's chamber works, including the octet, are on a par with
>Schumann's - Draw.

This one I definitely disagree with.  Schumann has the masterpieces of the
Piano Quintet, the string quartets, and Piano Quartet.  But Mendelssohn
has undoubtedly one of the greatest chamber works ever - the Octet.  In
addition, Mendelssohn has a superb catalogue of chamber music, too little
known: the cello sonatas, string quartets, piano trios, and piano
quartets, to name just a few.  I'm willing to grant par to most of it,
but the Octet alone pushes Mendelssohn ahead.

>Concertos - Each composer has his "great" concerto - the remainder are
>forgettable - Draw.

I definitely disagree on this.  Schumann - leaving aside the (to me) weak
violin and cello concerti - nevertheless comes back with a roar with the
Konzertstuecke for four horns and for piano. Schumann the clear winner
here.

>Symphonies - I much prefer Schumann's, but the Mendelssohn symphonies
>certainly are very popular.  Also, there are those early string symphonies
>which are nice - 1 point for Mendelssohn.

Schumann takes the Mendelssohnian symphony to its height.  Mendelssohn
wrote one masterful symphony (the Italian) and one very interesting, though
flawed symphony (the Reformation), but Schumann may have written the three
finest symphonies between Berlioz and Brahms.  Nevertheless, he not only
uses Mendelssohn's procedures, but to a great extent appropriates his
idioms.  A draw, perhaps the edge going to Schumann.

>Vocal works - A healthy advantage for Schumann based on his lieder.
>Neither composer was stunning when it came to vocal works with orchestra;
>Mendelssohn's best effort was in tinkering with Bach's Passion - 2 points
>for Schumann.

Oh, heavens.  Elijah not stunning? Infelice not dazzling? On the other
hand, the Schumann Lieder are glories of the repertoire, and there's a
terrific vocal ensemble chamber work, the Spanisches Liederspiel, which
influenced several works by Brahms, including the Liebeslieder Waltzes.
 The Scenes from Goethe's Faust are interesting, but it really is a work in
progress and, excepting the demons' chorus, no better than Mendelssohn's
Erste Walpurgisnacht.  The Peri puts *me* to sleep, at any rate, although
your mileage probably varies.  The fragments of Mendelssohn's Christus are
beyond anything I know in Schumann's vocal output.  Schumann has great
stuff, but Mendelssohn's reach is much greater in this genre.

>The clear winner in a ten round decision is Schumann.  How did that happen?

You didn't listen to the right works.  I score it a draw.

Steve Schwartz