F. Mendelssohn - PIANO QUARTET NO. 1 in C Minor, Op. 1 (With Score) 

I was a real slacker, and didn't compose my first piano quartet until I was 17!

@@christopherfleming7505 im almost 17 and im just starting to do the same...

Geez! Being able to play the thing as well at 13?.Makes on wonder about genius doesn't it?

It sure is!!

I am far from being able to bealive it o.o Schumann expressed himself right, he really was the Romantic Mozart!!

Mendelssohn was just as much of a child prodigy as Mozart.

@@tonyhdz1379 And yet, is he really a full-blooded Romantic? I've always felt that Mendelssohn, given the conservative way he was trained, was the very last of the Classicists. He certainly wasn't a Romantic the way Schumann and Chopin were, for example - very different, and yet they lived at the same time. I'm weird though - I think Beethoven and Schubert, while being touched with Romanticism later on, were both Classicists as well.

​@@JLeeGrahamno i agree not weird there is definitely a lap over in their music

@@JLeeGraham i think Schubert is like the best of classical and romantic. Basic chord progressions but added suspensions, dissonance, and extreme expressiveness

When Beethoven heard Mendelssohn's piano quartet, his only comment was: "Lauter!"

You're right!! I should definitely do that, I thought it had already been uploaded. And btw I can actually find the complete score for the second quartet as well!

@@carl.christiansson Oh, marvelous! Thank you so much!

@@talavb9301 Will try to upload the second one tonight!

Amaaazing

@@talavb9301 didn’t have time to finish but will upload in the morning 👍

Too busy doing school homework...

I think you may like early Romantic music more than Rococo/early Classical music and that may be coloring your perception. Mozart wrote a full scale opera buffa at 12 and a full scale opera seria at 15. He also wrote a string quartet at 15.

@@mohammedpasha1715 Yes but how often are these operas played ? Same applies for the early symphonies, string quartets, serenades (here I am defining early as pieces with K less than 200). It is charming music indeed, but its not close to the sublime, high classical style he'll achieve in his later years. Contrary to that, Mendelssohn was a finished product at 13. His musical style in the late classical, proto-romantic tradition was fully developed at 13 didn't change that much till his death. That is why, I consider Mendelssohn to be a bigger child prodigy (sometimes) than mozart

@@mohammedpasha1715 I see what he's saying here. Of course, saying that Mendelssohn was a greater prodigy than Mozart should not detract from Mozart's talent and skill as a child, but Mozart's music was so much more simple during his early years, and took up until nearly his death to reach the full maturity of his writing style. In Mendelssohn's case on the other hand, his music was on a level with other fully developed composers, I would say Mendelssohn's early writing style was nearly as developed and matured (From a standpoint of complexity) as the later music of Schubert, which took him until the end of his life to achieve.

@@jojomj ok, 1. Mendelssohns late works are much better than his early ones. This work can not compare to his piano trios and cello sonatas. 2. Mendelssohn was a great composer, but in the grand scheme of things, his place in the history of music is inconsequential. Schuberts song cycles and piano works dwarf everything Mendelssohn wrote. And his contemporaries Schumann and Chopin were more revolutionary than him. 3. Mozarts early works are better quality wise than anything Mendelssohn wrote. They arent performed as nearly as they should because of peoples revulsion to galant music. They are actual masterpieces, and they were still surpassed by later Mozart. Stop punishing Mozart for being a better composer than Mendelssohn.

​@@mohammedpasha1715 Music scholars have been arguing about this for ages. I don't think we'll be able to come to a conclusion.

Lyssna på pianosolot vid 21:53, alla sus-ackorden asså

@@carl.christiansson Mycket fett!!! Vill kunna spela piano så bra...

@@yom8239 P R A C T I C E

you?

just remember he wrote this at 13

In my mind there's no doubt Mendelssohn was the greater prodigy. Apart from the three piano quartets written between 13 and 15, the following year at 16 he wrote his extraordinary Octet (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0peHzvVE1xs.html), and a year later at 17 the Overture to the Midsummer Night's Dream, both of which continue to have major places in the repertoire. Unlike Mozart, however, Mendelssohn didn't keep pushing toward even further growth stylistically, although he continued to write great music.

@@knd1940 Agreed - while both were youthful miracles, only Mendelssohn managed to get several pieces into the 21st century masterpiece & regularly-played repertoire. Where as Mozart's masterpieces only really came in adulthood. Paradoxically - where as Mozart was getting better & better & better with every year he lived - and therefore his death at 35 was a sore loss to the music world - Mendelssohn didn't really get much better after his teenage years -- yes there were more masterpieces to come, but also quite a lot of uninspired conservative music - and crucially - he failed to push the boundaries of music forward after his teenage years - in a way completely opposite of Mozart. Mendelssohn died at only 38 years old but few articles write with any authority or objectivity on the masterpieces of his we could have missed out on. Indeed his sister Fanny arguably developed considerably more during her lifetime!

You are not looking at the big picture. I love Mendelssohn as much as I love Mozart, but if you look at the big picture, it's clear that Mozart has been the greatest genius of western music. No one can be compared to him.

@@schubertuk The Symphony No. 25, which Mozart wrote when he was 17 years old, is a masterpiece, so even Mozart has a masterpiece among his teen works.

He died five years after Mendelssohn composed it!

This is certainly not on par with his Octet. But it is unbelievable competent, and well structured for someone so young. Pleasant, not ground-breaking, not a masterpiece - but an amazing piece of history never the less.

​@@schubertukI do think it's groundbreaking. What other piano quartets were there at the time ? Mozart's g minor and e flat major. Both amazing, but Mendelssohn goes a step closer. The equal role given to each instrument, the development section with amazing reversible counterpoint, even the very beginning with the strings alone no piano is extremely original, something you don't see anywhere else in a such formation before Mendelssohn. In my opinion the 3 quartets are better than Schumann's, and arguably as good as Brahms's.

@@arielorthmann4061 I fully understand my opinion may not be in the majority. I also accept that from a technical point of view - it is a masterpiece in that area, for the reasons you state. However - for me - and it is just my opinion, I find in the musicality area it fails to move me, hence me being slightly cool to it. If it is an unmitigated joy to you - hurrah! That is why I love music and I do not need nor desire everyone to agree with my opinions!

Not that fast, at least the first movement. I’ll listen to the remaining movements.

Do you not know what triplets are? They aren't a speed, they are a division of the beat. They can be as fast or slow as you want them, so long as they hold their metric function.