# Elgar 3



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I couldn't find a thread on this but maybe there is one somewhere.

I am a fan of the Anthony Payne's completion of Elgar's 3rd symphony. When it first came out it attracted a fair amount of interest and praise, and there have been at least four recordings of it. But, unlike the various completions of Mahler 10, it seems to have disappeared. OK, maybe Mahler is a greater composer but Elgar is certainly significant and there is not so much of his top flight music to listen to. What do Elgar fans think of this work? Is it worthy to stand with the two symphonies that Elgar finished?


----------



## Biffo (Mar 7, 2016)

From past discussions I know I am in a minority but I think it would have been better if Elgar's wishes had been followed and the sketches burned. Payne's completion is at best Elgar-flavoured. Quite why and experienced Elgarian like Sir Colin Davis recorded it is beyond me. 

The most positive thing I can say is let those who enjoy it continue to do so, it is their choice but I won't be joining them.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

As an ardent fan of the first two symphonies, I was champing at the bit to hear the "3rd" when it came out. Alas, it's not Elgar. I know the opening pages really are his - but Elgar's method of composing was so unique, his sound so special, that making a completion was impossible. It's interesting, and as a musical work certainly worthy of attention. Unfortunately, at least in the US, Elgar's symphonies rarely show up on concert programs. In 50 years of going to the symphony I've only encountered the 1st twice, the 2nd never (although that changes next month) So what chance does this oddity have? Surprisingly to me, I've actually played the 3rd twice (contrabassoon part) once with a decidedly amateur orchestra and once with a semi-pro group. It was a lot of fun to play, but it became clear that this was at best echt-Elgar. I will say this: it's still better than most symphonies written by the serialists and other modern composers!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Ah well, I can't really agree with these assessments, even though they have some truth. I think there are several touches through the piece that are sufficiently inspired to be Elgarian. There are also passages that clearly are not. But, as an elaboration based on Elgar's sketches, I do think the piece has considerable merit and I am not so surprised that Colin Davis played and recorded it (he has recorded far less successful music!). You probably have to use it to "imagine" how the work would be but I feel it makes that task easy. I find listening to it more satisfying and meaningful than much "second-tier" (but genuine) Elgar!

It's strange but I have long been less convinced by the various completions of Mahler's 10th. I've heard many recordings and some are better than others but none seem that close to what Mahler would have done. I guess Mahler always moved forward in big steps and you can certainly hear in the completions of 10 that he would have done again. But there was no model for how he would have injected the "inspirations" into the new idea. 

And, in general, I am not a fan of completions that I have heard. I like what Berio did with Schubert in Rendering (not a completion at all but a new work) but dislike formal attempts to "complete" his other symphonies.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I feel the same about Beethoven's 10th. There might be some of the original composer in there but the rest is, at best, a bad guess and at worse a huge face-palm.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The key difference between the Elgar 3rd and the Mahler 10th is that Payne was working from various incomplete sketches and so had to do a lot of reconstructive work whereas Mahler left the entire symphony complete in short score with 1 movement completely scored, 2 others partly plus various orchestration notations. As to my view of the Elgar, I have enjoyed it but I rarely go back to it.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Becca said:


> The key difference between the Elgar 3rd and the Mahler 10th is that Payne was working from various incomplete sketches and so had to do a lot of reconstructive work whereas Mahler left the entire symphony complete in short score with 1 movement completely scored, 2 others partly plus various orchestration notations. As to my view of the Elgar, I have enjoyed it but I rarely go back to it.


Shifting through piles of half finished sketches was Elgar's way of building a large work. When Willie Reed, the leader of the LSO, popped over to play through the incomplete violin concerto for the composer, he found the room covered with scraps of MS which he had to dart between to play the musical patchwork quilt. The mastery was Elgar's vision in pulling all these disperate elements together to make a cogent work.
Apart from its disappointing ending, I like the 3rd Symphony. It's overlong - longer than Elgar's 'proper' symphonies - but there are many moments of vintage Elgar (or vintage Anthony Payne!) that I find satisfying and moving.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

...or to put it in paleontological terms, the difference between the Mahler & Elgar is like the difference between finding a complete skeleton with patches of skin vs. a collection of scattered bones and having to put them together in the right order without ending up with an Apatosaurus with the head of a Camarasaurus.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ Strangely, that image of a partially skin-covered dinosaur skeleton helps me to get what I am hearing when I listen to Mahler 10!


----------

