# Why was Elgar relatively unpopular?



## davidchampion (Nov 4, 2017)

I keep hearing: "Elgar would be more recognised had he been from conintental Europe". 

Without sounding horribly silly, it can not have been anything to do with the fact he was British can it? 

A few have said it, even a BBC interviewer. I'm not quite sure what they mean.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Wiki, which I am sometimes reluctant to quote, has an excellent footnoted article on the composer, and there are critics who have a great misunderstanding or misinterpretation of his British roots.

"In 1967 the critic and analyst David Cox considered the question of the supposed Englishness of Elgar's music. Cox noted that Elgar disliked folk-songs and never used them in his works, opting for an idiom that was essentially German, leavened by a lightness derived from French composers including Berlioz and Gounod. How then, asked Cox, could Elgar be "the most English of composers"? Cox found the answer in Elgar's own personality, which "could use the alien idioms in such a way as to make of them a vital form of expression that was his and his alone. And the personality that comes through in the music is English."[121] This point about Elgar's transmuting his influences had been touched on before. In 1930 The Times wrote, "When Elgar's first symphony came out, someone attempted to prove that its main tune on which all depends was like the Grail theme in Parsifal. ... but the attempt fell flat because everyone else, including those who disliked the tune, had instantly recognized it as typically 'Elgarian', while the Grail theme is as typically Wagnerian."[148] As for Elgar's "Englishness", his fellow-composers recognised it: Richard Strauss and Stravinsky made particular reference to it,[44] and Sibelius called him, "the personification of the true English character in music ... a noble personality and a born aristocrat".[44]

Consequently, that's probably why some say he might have been more recognized had he come from Europe.

I consider Elgar a richly rewarding composer, because IMO there is a _deep psychological understanding_ and _portrayal of the human condition_ that I find illuminating and thoroughly _modern_. But for those who can't detect this beneath the surface, they often consider him as simply "old-fashioned".

My favorite work is his magnificent Cello Concerto that I originally heard on a _Jacqueline du Pré_ recording. I prefer her performance with Barbirolli rather than Barenboim because it's not quite as emotionally overwrought but still passionate and exciting. I just marvel at the rich depth of what Elgar was capable of bringing out in certain performers, and that's one of my definitions of a great composer. I would also add that a skillful performance of his works is absolutely essential or he can sound stiff, conventional and dull rather than passionate and intense. I always hear a big heart and sense of passion _with restraint_ at the core of his music but it took me awhile and careful listening to notice.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Unpopular where and among whom?

In England he was - among the musical elite - always seen as an outsider. At the very least he considered himself an outsider because he was from a humble background and was very largely self-taught (on the Piano, violin, bassoon) and not a product of the RCM or other institution. As Larkenfield wrote, he was not a composer in the usual vein of English composers of his period; nothing like Vaughan Williams. He'd been to concerts in Germany and his orchestral writing is influenced by Wagner, Strauss and also Brahms - particularly some of his chamber music. So he was never going to fit in among the English folk-song collecting pastoralists.

He was really seen as a minor composer before the huge success of the Enigma Variations and these, along with the Pomp and Circumstance marches, have come to define him for most people. So much so that among younger musicians after 1900 he was already seen as 'old-fashioned' by the early 20th century and certainly post WW1.

I can't remember where I read it, but the impression is that he could be rather rude and that it was down to his inferiority complex from feeling 'shut out' of the musical in-clubs. He seems to have been annoyed that a lot of his early life was "wasted" being the music director of amateur music societies and local bands - mostly outside London.

To be honest I don't really understand people who consider Elgar unpopular or dismiss him. I imagine they haven't heard much of his music apart from the Pomp & Circumstance/Enigma and end up just repeating that myth of him being a jingoistic empire composer.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Elgar seems to me about as popular as he should be. He wrote a number of fine and popular works, and a lot that aren't so popular. For many, his Edwardian style counts against him. I remember reading once (paraphrasing from memory) that his music sometimes evokes stale cigar smoke and slightly moldy wainscoting.

As for "that myth of him being a jingoistic empire composer," it will hardly be dispelled by listening to his _Crown of India _masque in full!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Elgar seems to me about as popular as he should be. He wrote a number of fine and popular works, and a lot that aren't so popular. For many, his Edwardian style counts against him. I remember reading once (paraphrasing from memory) that his music sometimes evokes stale cigar smoke and slightly moldy wainscoting.
> 
> As for "that myth of him being a jingoistic empire composer," it will hardly be dispelled by listening to his _Crown of India _masque in full!


His music _sounds _very much like jingoistic empire music. Which is ironic, because from the posts in this thread, I get the impression that was the English themselves, with their rigid class system, that kept him out of the mainstream because of his humble origins.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

brianvds said:


> His music _sounds _very much like jingoistic empire music. Which is ironic, because from the posts in this thread, I get the impression that was the English themselves, with their rigid class system, that kept him out of the mainstream because of his humble origins.


His music doesn't travel well. I like Enigma and the Cello Concerto. I also like his 3rd Symphony, but probably because he didn't write it. The First Symphony starts off nobly then there is 40 minutes of empty bombast before the opening theme, the only worthwhile tune in the piece, returns. The British love him and the rest of the world wonders why.
My usual reaction to hearing his music is to reach for my elephant hunting rife and to yell at the sepoys to fetch me a Gin and Tonic chop-chop! because the sahib is going to go hunting today


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Part of it may simply be a question of timing. Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and Grieg were a good 15 years older than him, while Mahler, Strauss, Sibelius and Debussy were just a few years younger. By the time he was hitting his stride and might have been considered fit company for the former, the latter were already making an impression in a less conservative style.
The dominace of Germans in music, and "land without music" attitudes, can't have helped, though.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Elgar seems to me about as popular as he should be. He wrote a number of fine and popular works, and a lot that aren't so popular. For many, his Edwardian style counts against him. I remember reading once (paraphrasing from memory) that his music sometimes evokes stale cigar smoke and slightly moldy wainscoting.
> 
> As for "that myth of him being a jingoistic empire composer," it will hardly be dispelled by listening to his _Crown of India _masque in full!


This is a repeat of the misconception though. Basically Elgar wrote in a late romantic idiom, but then so did many other composers of his period. If he'd been writing the same things in Germany no-one would be labelling him as 'a jingoistic empire composer', he'd be just another late romantic.

Success eluded him for a long while, so I quite understand that when some of his works gained popular recognition he complied by writing a few more. On the other hand he produced enough works that are not in the "patriotic" style to counterbalance this and many of them are also still in the repertoire.

William Walton wrote similar _bona fide_ patriotic works for the royal coronation: _Crown Imperial_, _Orb and Sceptre_ also his _March for a History of the English Speaking Peoples_ (a crib of his own Orb and Sceptre) and seems to have gotten away with it because it's thought to be a deviation from his usual style and that he was merely using the Elgar march style as a template.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I agree with Nereffid's comments about timing but conversely I think timing also worked in Elgar's favour, at least in his own country. In the late 1890s Great Britain was at its imperial peak and what with the omnipresent ballyhoo of the corresponding celebrations of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897 Elgar's output incrementally started to click with the celebratory spirit of those times.

In the late Victorian era British music's golden boy was Arthur Sullivan but by the end of the 19th century the mood was changing - the champagne-popping glory days at the Savoy Theatre with W.S. Gilbert and Richard D'Oyly Carte were suddenly a thing of the past, his own health was poor and it seemed like the nation with its post-Jubilee fervour now wanted music to puff the chest out to rather than merely laugh along with. The Mast of Musical National Identity needed a _serious_ composer's colours nailed to it this time, and despite the solid reputations earned by the likes of Charles Villiers Stanford, Alexander Mackenzie and Hubert Parry, Elgar found himself the chosen man.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

As for his acceptance in England, it certainly didn't help that he was a Catholic.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Part of it may simply be a question of timing. Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and Grieg were a good 15 years older than him, while Mahler, Strauss, Sibelius and Debussy were just a few years younger. By the time he was hitting his stride and might have been considered fit company for the former, the latter were already making an impression in a less conservative style.
> The dominace of Germans in music, and "land without music" attitudes, can't have helped, though.


The latter possibly, but one of his most noted early interpreters was Hans Richter, to this day many fine Elgarians aren't English or even British and there are a fair number of Elgar fans among my (many) American friends. All in all I can't help wondering how many of the statements made so far in this thread about Elgar's popularity or lack of it outside the UK would actually stand up to close scrutiny.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

For the life of me I cannot understand the relative neglect of the two symphonies. They are tremendous, life-affirming, beautiful works. Elgar's orchestration is second to none. His emotional range is stupefying - has anyone captured sheer terror as well as he did in the 2nd? The cello and violin concertos are marvelous, and the quality of Enigma is beyond dispute. So why is he not so well known or performed? I think it was his timing - his second symphony came out when the musical world was undergoing seismic shifts what with Debussy, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg pointing into new directions. He was seen as old-fashioned and only a few, all British, followers kept the flame going. Elgar wasn't alone. Glazunov and Franz Schmidt were also seen as out of date in this era, relegating their music to the back shelves. 

I attended a performance of the first symphony several years ago - a real rarity here. At the end the audience stood, whooped and applauded vigorously, obviously moved and touched by a profound symphony. The conductor then reached for the score and held it over his head - the audience exploded with approval. Such beautiful, passionate music should be played more often. But no, music directors are a lazy bunch and will continue to play, play, play the tired, worn out, frankly dull work of lesser composers.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

R3PL4Y said:


> As for his acceptance in England, it certainly didn't help that he was a Catholic.


On the other hand, they biggest adoration for Elgar is in the U.K.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Pugg said:


> On the other hand, they biggest adoration for Elgar is in the U.K.


The Brit critics are always saying, why doesn't Elgar get the attention he deserves? Of course he does -- in Britain.

Elgar proudly bore the banner of GB while it still shouldered the white man's burden. At a profit, of course.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> The Brit critics are always saying, why doesn't Elgar get the attention he deserves? Of course he does -- in Britain.


My point exactly.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_Elgar_ is performed globally and his reputation and popularity have already been established far beyond England, though he's most often played there. In 2017 alone there have been performances in Canada, Germany (many), Switzerland, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, France, Portugal, Holland, Poland, Macau, Slovakia, Estonia, China, South Korea, Vancouver, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Houston, and in many other cities and countries, including in South America -- 17 pages of performances of a variety of works. So, lo and behold, he's already being widely played around the world: http://www.musicsalesclassical.com/composer/performances/Edward-Elgar/70/1

Now some detractors will likely say: "Yes... but he's not as popular as _Mozart!_"


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2017)

There may be many fellow Englishman who do like Elgar, but I have to say that I've never been attracted to exploring his works.


----------



## Aecio (Jul 27, 2012)

Just my opinion, but from what I know 

- The Cello concerto and the Piano Quintet are really first rate
- The String Quartet and The Violin Sonata are OK

The rest of what I have listened (Violin Concerto, Symphonies, Enigma Variations, String Serenade...) have some nice moments in a too long composition, which made these pieces kind of boring. Elgar can eventually be as good as Brahms, but Brahms is never as dull as Elgar...


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

Surely the man who composed Nimrod is beyond reproach.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

It was very noticeable in the 1960s when the final stages of Imperial dissolution were taking place that Elgar as a composer was dismissed as one of its apostles, often by those who only knew the Pomp and Circumstance marches and nothing else. It was Jacqueline du Pre who really re-established his reputation with her recording of the Elgar Cello Concerto. Listeners began to see that there was much more in Elgar than an outdated Victorianism, a man who like that other apostle of Empire, Rudyard Kipling, saw the dangers of mindless jingoism in his warnings about empire melting away. If you listen to Elgar's mature works such as the Second Symphony you can sense beneath its triumphs, doubts and fears (especially in the Scherzo, a terrifying movement with its pounding rhythms) and above all a nostalgic yearning for something that is beyond reach.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

I'd have said it was the reputation of the Cello Concerto rather than that of Elgar generally that the du Pre recording reestablished. Agree otherwise.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

A great composer - who - like most other great English composers, like RVW, is unjustly neglected outside of the UK.

at least Britten is more or less accepted as one of the great 20thC composers.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> _Elgar_ is performed globally and his reputation and popularity have already been established far beyond England, though he's most often played there. In 2017 alone there have been performances in Canada, Germany (many), Switzerland, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, France, Portugal, Holland, Poland, Macau, Slovakia, Estonia, China, South Korea, Vancouver, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Houston, and in many other cities and countries, including in South America -- 17 pages of performances of a variety of works. So, lo and behold, he's already being widely played around the world: http://www.musicsalesclassical.com/composer/performances/Edward-Elgar/70/1
> 
> *Now some detractors* will likely say: "Yes... but he's not as popular as _Mozart!_"


who exactly do you have in mind?


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Maybe it's because his name is an anagram for "Wear red, sad girl".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arnerich said:


> Maybe it's because his name is an anagram for "Wear red, sad girl".


We need an anagram game!

But there are three letters left over -- r, s, and i...

"Drawled rage" gets the letters just right.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2017)

arnerich said:


> Maybe it's because his name is an anagram for "Wear red, sad girl".





KenOC said:


> We need an anagram game!
> 
> But there are three letters left over -- r, s, and i...
> 
> "Drawled rage" gets the letters just right.


Come on you two - make your mind up. "Edward Elgar" can't give us "Wear red, sad girl" - unless we add in "Sir". And "Edward Elgar" can't give us an 's' left over!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mea culpa! "Wear red, sad girl" does seem correct for "Sir Edward Elgar."


----------



## LP collector (Aug 6, 2016)

stomanek said:


> A great composer - who - like most other great English composers, like RVW, is unjustly neglected outside of the UK.
> 
> at least Britten is more or less accepted as one of the great 20thC composers.


Elgar is a most misunderstood composer. He is anything but a stiff upper lip Edwardian Englishman which he is often portrayed. It is a national characteristic not to wear your heart on your sleeve and Elgar is an embodiment of that. He is not part of the folk song inspired English music renaissance as has already been said. He stands alone as a great English composer, far and away the greatest in my view.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I guess it's a question of taste (as it always is) but to my ears Elgar is an interesting but not 'great' composer. I'd put him in the second division of British composers, along with (if we consider the late 19th and 20th centuries alone) RVW, Bax, Walton, Bridge, Tippett and Maxwell Davies. I appreciate his chamber music, the cello concerto, the symphonies, In the South, Sea Pictures, the Enigma Variations, The Dream of Gerontius and some nice and rather 'English' songs. None are really favourite works that I keep coming back to, though (maybe the piano quintet is a recent exception).

I'd place Delius and Britten in the first rank because of the distinctiveness of their compositional 'voices' and the volume and variety of their output.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I've never got on with Elgar's music. Fine if you like it, but to me it goes absolutely nowhere. I don't mind the Cello Concerto but the symphonies leave me cold. I've tried and tried but it just doesn't grip me and probably never will.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I love the music of Elgar but I have always thought he was a very conservative composer, no ground breaking stuff here.
Good but not great perhaps best sums him up for me


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I'd place Delius . . . in the first rank because of the distinctiveness of their compositional 'voices' and the volume and variety of their output.


I'm sure Delius would have been delighted to hear that. Personally, I agree with that comment also.

Once the Nashville Symphony performed something by Elgar, and a friend who was there commented that the stranger next to him saw the program and sighed, "Elgar the Endless."

It bothers me that I haven't clicked with this composer. I consider myself a fan of sacred music, but The Kingdom sits in my CD stack, relatively unplayed. I'm sad to say that I can't get past the first track without snoozing. But I'm warming up to his cello concerto. Maybe there's hope for me.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Elgar's larger pieces are often not straightforward and their thematic material requires more diligent listening to piece together. This is the case in one of his mightiest creations, the 2nd Symphony. Yet those who deride him as imperial or Edwardian have apparently never heard the Introduction and Allegro, Serenade for Strings, the Chanson de matin or suite from The Spanish Lady. There is a simplistic and sentimental side to this composer that is straightforward and easy to grasp.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm sure Delius would have been delighted to hear that. Personally, I agree with that comment also.
> 
> Once the Nashville Symphony performed something by Elgar, and a friend who was there commented that the stranger next to him saw the program and sighed, "Elgar the Endless."
> 
> It bothers me that I haven't clicked with this composer. I consider myself a fan of sacred music, but The Kingdom sits in my CD stack, relatively unplayed. I'm sad to say that I can't get past the first track without snoozing. But I'm warming up to his cello concerto. Maybe there's hope for me.


I can appreciate this - _the Kingdom_ and _the Apostles_ are, I feel, pretty static even though both contain fine music. The only one of Elgar's large-scale vocal/choral works I can really get on with is _the Dream of Gerontius_.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I find Elgar instantaneously recognizable in the nobility of his style, feeling and intensity—and I consider that recognizability an earmark of great composers. I would say this is also true of the much maligned Rachmaninoff. Except for his first symphony, which I feel is very much a student work, I find him entirely consistent within himself in style, intent and feeling, though his works vary over a wide range. This recognizability is noticeable if one has heard enough of their work. The lesser composers, the mediocre ones, you usually need a scorecard to tell who it is. But I’ve never had this problem with Elgar. I hear a distinct individuality, and that’s what I like in a composer.


----------



## LP collector (Aug 6, 2016)

Haydn man said:


> I love the music of Elgar but I have always thought he was a very conservative composer, no ground breaking stuff here.
> Good but not great perhaps best sums him up for me


There was little ground breaking from Mozart which didn't stop him being one of the greatest composers ever.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Whether or not Elgar was conservative can be contested ... but Mozart broke ground everywhere. He perfected the piano concerto, it was his "Paris" symphony, I believe, that first used woodwinds ahead of strings, his operas were the most perfect creations of their type ever created, his Requiem was more profound than any up to his time, etc. Had Mozart lived Beethoven's 55 years, it's hard to say where he would have gone -- but it would have stretched more boundaries beyond where they had been.

One thing about Elgar that cannot be contested: he created the new English school with his nobilmente style. Until he came along, English music had been based on folk music. He changed that. It wasn't a revolution but it was a new model everyone else followed.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

The only reason he's got the sticky label of establishment jingoist is because he was one of the few British composers that could truly compete with the Europeans of his time. We had to have one flagship source of musical pride after Purcell, and it was logical to choose Elgar because his music is actually rather brilliant and complex.


----------



## LP collector (Aug 6, 2016)

larold said:


> Whether or not Elgar was conservative can be contested ... but Mozart broke ground everywhere. He perfected the piano concerto, it was his "Paris" symphony, I believe, that first used woodwinds ahead of strings, his operas were the most perfect creations of their type ever created, his Requiem was more profound than any up to his time, etc. Had Mozart lived Beethoven's 55 years, it's hard to say where he would have gone -- but it would have stretched more boundaries beyond where they had been.
> 
> One thing about Elgar that cannot be contested: he created the new English school with his nobilmente style. Until he came along, English music had been based on folk music. He changed that. It wasn't a revolution but it was a new model everyone else followed.


To perfect something is not to break new ground. Haydn the father of the string quartet did that. He also set the template for the symphony which Beethoven followed. I agree with you up to a point with the piano concerto and possibly the violin concerto.

The only composer who reminds me of Elgar is Gerald Finzi but I'm sure there must be more out there.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Elgar is not unpopular. His _Pomp and Circumstance_ is extremely popular.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> Elgar is not unpopular. His _Pomp and Circumstance_ is extremely popular.


I think the questioner asked why Elgar _was_ unpopular. Like Bach, Elgar is being rediscovered 80 years after his death. You only have to look at a list of great the 20th century conductors who hardly ever performed his works like, Karajan, Reiner, Toscanini (apart from the Enigmas) Bernstein (ditto) Stokowski (ditto) Klemperer, Bohm, Celibidache, Furtwangler, Guilini, Jochum, both Kleibers, Mengelberg, Munch, Szell, Walter, etc to see how deeply unpopular Elgar's music was. It was only in the UK that conductors like Boult, Barbirolli, Davis, Handley etc kept the flame burning. Incidentally, shortly before his death, Karajan was spotted carrying a score of the Second Symphony under his arm. That performance would have been worth hearing.


----------



## LP collector (Aug 6, 2016)

David Phillips said:


> I think the questioner asked why Elgar _was_ unpopular. Like Bach, Elgar is being rediscovered 80 years after his death. You only have to look at a list of great the 20th century conductors who hardly ever performed his works like, Karajan, Reiner, Toscanini (apart from the Enigmas) Bernstein (ditto) Stokowski (ditto) Klemperer, Bohm, Celibidache, Furtwangler, Guilini, Jochum, both Kleibers, Mengelberg, Munch, Szell, Walter, etc to see how deeply unpopular Elgar's music was. It was only in the UK that conductors like Boult, Barbirolli, Davis, Handley etc kept the flame burning. Incidentally, shortly before his death, Karajan was spotted carrying a score of the Second Symphony under his arm. That performance would have been worth hearing.


You are right, beside Enigma - Monteux also recorded Enigma - non British conductors were not interested. Van Beinum did record "The Wand of Youth" and I think a few other pieces. The strangest one though is Svetlanov who with USSR SO recorded for Melodiya Elgar's 2nd Symphony. I cannot think of any others.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

I don't agree with the last two posts above. Other great conductors outside the UK besides those listed did perform Elgar and enjoyed doing so (Solti and Barenboim are two who spring to mind straight away) and that's not the only indicator of a composer's popularity or lack of it anyway. Elgar's appeal may not have been as universal as that of some other great composers, but to go to the extreme of describing him as "unpopular" pure and simple (deeply or otherwise) is, in my respectful submission, simply wrong.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I don't agree with the last two posts above. Other great conductors outside the UK besides those listed did perform Elgar and enjoyed doing so (Solti and Barenboim are two who spring to mind straight away) and that's not the only indicator of a composer's popularity or lack of it anyway. Elgar's appeal may not have been as universal as that of some other great composers, but to go to the extreme of describing him as "unpopular" pure and simple (deeply or otherwise) is, in my respectful submission, simply wrong.


I did emphasise _was_ unpopular. But it has taken an age for Elgar to become recognised as a great international composer. For instance, after financial worries and struggles for recognition in life, Bartok very soon became popular after his death and was generally acknowledged to be a great composer by about 1950.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

David Phillips said:


> I think the questioner asked why Elgar _was_ unpopular. Like Bach, Elgar is being rediscovered 80 years after his death. You only have to look at a list of great the 20th century conductors who hardly ever performed his works like, Karajan, Reiner, Toscanini (apart from the Enigmas) Bernstein (ditto) Stokowski (ditto) Klemperer, Bohm, Celibidache, Furtwangler, Guilini, Jochum, both Kleibers, Mengelberg, Munch, Szell, Walter, etc to see how deeply unpopular Elgar's music was. It was only in the UK that conductors like Boult, Barbirolli, Davis, Handley etc kept the flame burning. Incidentally, shortly before his death, Karajan was spotted carrying a score of the Second Symphony under his arm. That performance would have been worth hearing.


I'm glad these conductors left him alone, except those in the UK. I can't imagine any one of them being temperamentally suited to understand him-there are many layers of a deep honesty, integrity and sincerity under the surface that take time to absorb. Perhaps the old guard had to die off before he could finally be appreciated from a fresh perspective and that his music is far more universal than some have thought. The screaming anguish in the opening of this Cello Concerto is something that just about anyone from any country can understand, and yet I doubt that this long list of distinguished and busy conductors would had the patience to make that discovery, because they obviously didn't. Toscanini and Elgar? Bernstein and Elgar, and the others? I couldn't have possibly imagined it. They had other fish to fry at the time, such as the interest in Mahler that was very much on the rise starting around 1960 with the centennial of the composer's birth. As of now, Elgar is slowly gathering popularity around the world and not just his Symphonies and the Enigma Variations. I find it heartening because, regardless of the circumstances of his outer life, I think in some ways he was a very isolated and lonely man, very much inward but probing, and he very much believed in the dignity of Man. I always sit up a little bit straighter when I hear him.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

<<To perfect something is not to break new ground.>>

You're wrong about that. Ask anyone that uses Mr. Coffee if that was a groundbreaking invention.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Re foreign conductors and Elgar - not forgetting Vasily Petrenko's recent recordings of the two symphonies with the RLPO - but then he has become an honorary Scouser!


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

larold said:


> <<To perfect something is not to break new ground.>>
> 
> You're wrong about that. Ask anyone that uses Mr. Coffee if that was a groundbreaking invention.


My coffee grinder breaks new grounds everyday. :cheers:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

To perfect something, it’s not exclusive of brillliance, surprises and inventions. One can be an “innovator” but it doesn’t necessarily mean that one is that interested in hearing their innovations.


----------

