I am very impressed by her symphonies and chamber music, at least what I've heard of them so far. I was anticipating her piano concerto, but when I heard it, I was severely disappointed. Not only did it bring no originality to the genre, it sounded like it could have been composed 50 years earlier.
I regret to say I can find no logic in that stance, Jim. Would it have been any better or worse a piece if it had been composesd fifty years earlier? Let us suppose that Mendelssohn had lived to be 80 and produced his Violin Concerto in the 1880s instead of the 1840s: would that make it any less beautiful or masterly? What's more, I can't get my head around the idea that a piece has to demonstrate 'originality' (however you define that) to be worthwhile. A piece of music either appeals to me or it doesn't. All other considerations are, to my mind, irrelevant
