# Edward Elgar



## Edward Elgar

What do you think of the man?

The highlights for me are the symphonies, concertos and minature works, although there is so much more this composer has to offer.

Was he the saviour of British music, or just another link in the chain?

Debate opened! Enjoy!


----------



## ChamberNut

I rather like some of the works I have heard composed by Elgar, although they aren't many.

Of course, his Cello Concerto, Enigma Variations and Pomp & Circumstance March.

Yesterday, I heard his Violin Sonata in E minor for the first time, and really enjoyed it.

That's the extent to what I've heard of Elgar so far. I still need to hear his symphonies and more chamber music.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

I'm a big fan of the Enigma Variations and _In The South_; however, as for British composers, I tend to put on Britten more often than Elgar. The latter, however, composed one of my favorite serenades, the Serenade in E minor.


----------



## Edward Elgar

For me, Britten is the weaker composer because his talent for melody is poor, and no British composer can surpass Elgar's talent for orchestration. This is all in my opinion.


----------



## ChamberNut

Elgar is by far my favorite British composer.


----------



## World Violist

For me it's kind of between Elgar and Vaughan Williams. My favorite piece by Elgar is the Cello Concerto, second being the E minor String Serenade. He wrote some gorgeous stuff!


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Williams is really great, too. I think Elgar and Williams are superior to Britten for orchestral works, but Britten's vocal works (especially the operas, like Peter Grimes) are some of the best in the British canon.


----------



## Kezza

Absolutely love his cello concerto. I listen to it almost everyday. It's just beautiful and moving. A good contrast to shostas Cello concerto which I listen to nearly everyday as well


----------



## SamGuss

I have really gotten into his Cello Concerto. Awesome sauce.


----------



## PostMinimalist

The Second English Musical Renaissance which brought to light composers such as Herbert Howells, Vaughan-Williams, Gustav Holst, Charles Villiers Stanford, John Ireland, Frank Bridge, William Walton and many others somehow evolved parallel to Elgar and not building upon him (at least historically, due to this tradition being an academic one where as Elgar was self taught). Musically however I think the SEMR would be much the poorer if it were not for the unsung heroic foundation of Elgar's music. If you like Elgar then you might try some Howells, particularly the 'music for Strings' CD recently released by Chandos which contains some masterpieces.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Elgar is among my four or five favourite composers, seriously. He probably is the greatest English composer, but I wouldn't put RVW, Britten or even Tippett aside. 

His music is in fact terribly melancholic, as was he himself. But I like melancholic music. For example, Elegy for Strings, Sospiri, Cello Concerto...

Symphonies and concertos rule, but what about his chamber works? I think they're perhaps Elgar at his most profound. Both Adagios of the String Quartet and the Piano Quintet, and the final movement of his Violin Sonata.


----------



## confuoco

Edward Elgar said:


> For me, Britten is the weaker composer because his talent for melody is poor


Interesting, I think his vocal works bear witness against it.

If my notice is right, here in the middle Europe, Britten is consider to be the greatist English composer. Elgar isn't performed very frequently and his works aren't familiary known for common concert visitors (of course with exception of Cello concerto). That's why I have heard to only few his works yet. But I have his cello concerto with du Pré and J. L. Webber and also Enigma variations with VPO and Gardiner and saw some videos on the youtube and I like it very much...especially Nimrod is so wonderful piece of music, unbelievable. It corresponds with my nature. So I'm going to find his other works soon, surely.


----------



## purple99

Elgar's music has been hijacked by the political right, similar to the British National Party/National Front/sundry Nazis purloining the Union Jack. Look at this huffing and puffing last year from the Daily Telegraph:



> The decision to refuse the grant has reignited concern that Elgar's music is being blacklisted by the arts establishment because its inherent patriotism is regarded as a throwback to Britain's imperial past.
> 
> Source


From the British National Party website:



> With this [Land of Hope & Glory] he gave the country its unofficial second national anthem - for which the liberal-left have never forgiven him. It is therefore not surprising that outside of classical music circles the 150th anniversary of last month went almost unnoticed, not least by the Arts Council England, which refused to help fund any notable celebration including a contribution for £174,000 towards a series of youth concerts.
> 
> BNP


So Elgar's a political hot potato, with the far-right claiming him as their own and the establishment, apparently, refusing to fund the old duffer's anniversary. Is that Elgar's fault? Yes and no. No, because he can't be held responsible for how Nazis behave now in relation to his music. Yes, because he chose to set the following words to music. Don't forget he was influenced by Wagner, Hitler's favourite composer.

Dear Land of Hope, thy hope is crowned.
God make thee mightier yet!
On Sov'reign brows, beloved, renowned,
Once more thy crown is set.
Thine equal laws, by Freedom gained,
Have ruled thee well and long;
By Freedom gained, by Truth maintained,
Thine Empire shall be strong.

Land of Hope and Glory,
Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee,
Who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider
Shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet.

Thy fame is ancient as the days,
As Ocean large and wide
A pride that dares, and heeds not praise,
A stern and silent pride
Not that false joy that dreams content
With what our sires have won;
The blood a hero sire hath spent
Still nerves a hero son.

The reference to extending the British Empire's boundaries refers to the Boer War, recently won at the time. So Elgar was celebrating the British military stealing land in Africa and helping establish the apartheid state. You can see why British Nazis like him.


----------



## Rachovsky

When I went to London I also saw that he was on the back of one of the pounds. Charles Darwin and Elie the Fry were on the other two ... -.-


----------



## Lisztfreak

Disgusting! To make Elgar and his work a matter of politics! What in the world might he have to do with nazism? Those Englishmen really have some serious problems... 

I personally am a liberal, a leftist, almost a Marxist. But I have no problem listening to Elgar. Even the words (which of course he didn't write) I don't find bad or evil or whatever. Isn't every other national anthem like this Land of Hope and Glory? 

There's been and there always will be a very thin line between patriotism and nationalism. Nationalism is a dreadful thing. Patriotism is just fine.


----------



## Rachovsky

Lisztfreak said:


> Disgusting! To make Elgar and his work a matter of politics! What in the world might he have to do with nazism? Those Englishmen really have some serious problems...
> 
> I personally am a liberal, a leftist, almost a Marxist. But I have no problem listening to Elgar. Even the words (which of course he didn't write) I don't find bad or evil or whatever. Isn't every other national anthem like this Land of Hope and Glory?
> 
> There's been and there always will be a very thin line between patriotism and nationalism. Nationalism is a dreadful thing. Patriotism is just fine.


:S Would Croatia be a country without nationalism? Are you a croat?


----------



## Lisztfreak

Ha! Croatia a country without nationalism! Good one! 

No, of course there's a lot of it here. I still think it's very bad. Black people, Chinese, Roma etc. aren't popular at all. I mean, most of the people are normal, but there is always a minority of primitive ******** who find it hard to be human.
But I didn't mean _all_ Englishmen by 'those Englishmen'. I have nothing against the British. You can be sure of it - I'm quite of an anglophile in fact. 

And yes, I am a Croat.


----------



## purple99

Land of Hope and Glory is rolled out in Britain once a year. Here it is from 2007. Patriots and nationalists sing the words of the middle verse four times (at 2:55, 4:54, 6:10 and 6:54) becoming more excited each time. The camera cuts from London to the North of England to a blonde girl with a bosom packed into a Union Jack t-shirt.






Land of Hope and Glory,
Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee,
Who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider
Shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet
God, who made thee mighty,
Make thee mightier yet.

I get two main messages from those words: (a) God's an Englishman and (b) it's A Good Thing for the British Empire to spread wider and wider. Imagine if a bunch of Germans were singing those words, once a year, four times, with increasing excitement, demanding _Lebensraum_. Or Serbs. Or - with the greatest respect - Croats. Hasn't there been a spot of trouble in the Balkans with various groups (a) thinking God is on their side and (b) seeking to spread their bounds 'Wider still and wider'?

Poor old Elgar. See how he's been hijacked? The British, now a highly multi-ethnic society and with no empire left, are split on whether such hijackings are desirable.


----------



## purple99

p.s. It's best when there's also a fat lady belting it out.


----------



## confuoco

purple99 said:


> Land of Hope and Glory,
> Mother of the Free,
> How shall we extol thee,
> Who are born of thee?
> Wider still and wider
> Shall thy bounds be set;
> God, who made thee mighty,
> Make thee mightier yet
> God, who made thee mighty,
> Make thee mightier yet.
> 
> .


Everything is relative...from another point of view this is beautiful patriotic song...It is typical for nationalist and other groups that they find new and hidden meanings in things in order to express their opinions in legal way...it is very typical. Elgar has no responsibility for that.


----------



## Lisztfreak

purple99 said:


> I get two main messages from those words: (a) God's an Englishman and (b) it's A Good Thing for the British Empire to spread wider and wider. Imagine if a bunch of Germans were singing those words, once a year, four times, with increasing excitement, demanding _Lebensraum_. Or Serbs. Or - with the greatest respect - Croats. Hasn't there been a spot of trouble in the Balkans with various groups (a) thinking God is on their side and (b) seeking to spread their bounds 'Wider still and wider'?


Several points:

True, the words are a bit over the top, if you apply them to Britain, or any particular country. But let us close our eyes, be somewhat naive  and imagine that the poem is refering to the Empire of Humankind! That the _Land of Hope and Glory _is in fact our dear Earth, or precisely, all of it's parts where humanity and reason rule. Then this is a good poem!

Secondly, I hate when God is drawn into politics or used as an excuse for dubious deeds. I'm not religious really, but I still have respect for religion, and 'using' God in achieving various egoistic goals is quite a sacrilege, IMO.

Thirdly, I must say you have a relatively objective view of the 'Balkan War' (the Third one, in fact - although people around here hate being called Balkanians). Although I wouldn't say Croatian people tried to grab additional Lebensraum - the boundaries of the country today are historical and haven't really changed since the end of Turkish (Ottoman) invasions. Serbs were indeed the agressors in that war. But I was too little at the time, and I have no problem with the Serbian people at all. Unlike many of my fellow countrymen.

Fourthly (if there is such a word  ), it is also true that a lot of God was drawn into that war too. Wrongly, of course. See my 'secondly' section.

And lastly - let us be back to Sir Edward Elgar OM Bt GCVO!


----------



## purple99

Lisztfreak said:


> But let us close our eyes, be somewhat naive  and imagine that the poem is refering to the Empire of Humankind! That the _Land of Hope and Glory _is in fact our dear Earth, or precisely, all of it's parts where humanity and reason rule. Then this is a good poem!


You've won me over. 



Lisztfreak said:


> Secondly, I hate when God is drawn into politics or used as an excuse for dubious deeds.


There's a scene in (I think) the WW1 musical 'Oh! what a lovely war' where an attack is planned for the next day so British troops are called to a church service where the chaplin informs them that God is on their side. The camera then pans over no-man's land to the German trenches where - you've guessed it - a German clergyman is informing German troops that God's on _their _side.


----------



## Bach

purple99 said:


> Don't forget he was influenced by Wagner, Hitler's favourite composer..


I think you'll find it difficult to find any composer since the late 19th century who wasn't influenced by Wagner.


----------



## jhar26

Edward Elgar said:


> What do you think of the man?
> 
> The highlights for me are the symphonies, concertos and minature works, although there is so much more this composer has to offer.
> 
> Was he the saviour of British music, or just another link in the chain?
> 
> Debate opened! Enjoy!


I love The Dream of Gerontius, the Cello Concerto and the Violin Concerto. I like some of the shorter pieces like Sospiri, Elegy for Strings, Pomp & Curcumstance No.1 and Salut D'Amour also - the guy could definitely write a good tune.

I'm struggling somewhat with the Symphonies though - I don't dislike them, but I don't truly love them either. Maybe I just haven't heard the right recording(s). But I have them on a recording from Andrew Davis and I'm told that he's a wonderful Elgar conductor, so it's probably just me.

As for Elgar being the best British british composer - I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with many of the key works of those that would be considered the other main contenders to have an informed opinion. I'm a bit surprised that nobody so far has mentionned Purcell though. I don't know if he's "the best", and maybe it's hard to compare a baroque composer with late romantic or modern composers - but he's definitely important enough to be counted among the elite group of British composers IMO.


----------



## Elgarian

I think I may find myself posting quite a lot in this thread, and it's really hard to know where to start. I was sixteen when I first heard the _Introduction and Allegro for Strings_, which music seemed to emanate from a place that was at once deeply rooted within me, yet also seemed to imply that there was some place 'out there' that I needed to find. So I was bound to make my way to the Malvern Hills eventually (though I grew to know a lot more of his music before that), and at first when I arrived there I thought 'this is the place'. And in a strictly biographical sense, of course, the Malvern Hills and countryside are, indeed, 'the place'. But over time I realised that 'the place' was really all of England, and Malvern was a kind of symbolic focus for that. And then again, later, I realised that this 'England' was really only a kind of focus for something still deeper and more profound. (I think it's Gimli, isn't it, at Helms Deep, who stamps on the ground and says something like 'this place has strong bones'? Well, this idea of 'England' seemed to be like that.) So this 'England' itself was not so much a place as an idea - like Blake's 'Albion'. It has nothing to do with nationalism; it's partly, but by no means wholly, to do with patriotism; it has something to do with landscape, but also more than just landscape - something to do with roots, and belonging, and certain kinds of ideals (noble and heroic ideals, some of them), mingled with a kind of indefinable sadness.

And the point about Elgar is that his music is like an admission ticket into this place/idea. So which, I now force myself to ask, is the best ticket? The symphonies are wonderful - I've loved them for decades. The chamber works, so very very different, yet so recognisably Elgar, mark another high point. The cello concerto, the violin concerto - sheer magic, and on and on I could go (and probably will at some other time). But _the_ work by Elgar that I would choose above all others is _The Spirit of England_ (most perfectly and powerfully represented by the Alexander Gibson/Scottish National Orchestra recording with Teresa Cahill as soloist).

It's a vocal/choral work lasting about half an hour. It's hardly ever performed, I think. I suspect the three currently available recordings sell poorly (though I don't know). But here's Elgar at his most profound. It may not be his greatest _music_ in a technical sense - I'm not competent to judge that. But I believe it's his greatest work of art, in the broadest, most humanistic sense. It's based on three poems by Laurence Binyon, but the literal meaning of the words is really only a kind of rough guide to the meaning of the whole work, which expresses Elgar's deepest feelings about the anguish of war; the nobility of sacrifice; the despair created by the loss of thousands upon thousands of brave young men, and the sheer determination and need to come to terms with that and above all, to remember them appropriately; and the frightening mixture of beauty and pain that inhabits the making of music that deals with such profound thoughts and feelings. I find it impossible still, to listen to it without tears, and without feeling that this may be the most profound work of art I know.

If someone told me I could only listen to one more piece of music, (with silence to follow forever after), I'd choose Elgar's _The Spirit of England_ to be that final piece.


----------



## jhar26

Beautiful post, Elgarian.


----------



## Elgarian

Oh that's very kind - thank you. (I was afraid I might have been a bit too much of an old softie, but I knew it all had to be said, somehow, however imperfectly.)


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> I love The Dream of Gerontius, the Cello Concerto and the Violin Concerto. I like some of the shorter pieces like Sospiri, Elegy for Strings, Pomp & Curcumstance No.1 and Salut D'Amour also ... I'm struggling somewhat with the Symphonies though.


I wonder what it is about the symphonies that's causing the problem? I'm sure the purists would be horrified at what I'm about to say, but have you tried tackling them just one movement at a time, and picking and choosing? For instance, the slow (second) movement of the second symphony might, I think, more closely resemble the aspects of Elgar you like, than the rest. Just a shot in the dark, really, but maybe worth trying.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> I wonder what it is about the symphonies that's causing the problem? I'm sure the purists would be horrified at what I'm about to say, but have you tried tackling them just one movement at a time, and picking and choosing? For instance, the slow (second) movement of the second symphony might, I think, more closely resemble the aspects of Elgar you like, than the rest. Just a shot in the dark, really, but maybe worth trying.


Yes, maybe - as you say, it's worth trying.


----------



## Elgarian

I wanted to add a few extra details about _The Spirit of England_, and here they are.

Despite being one of Elgar's major works, this cantata is little-known and hardly ever performed. It's been suggested that if it had been titled _For the Fallen_ rather than _The Spirit of England_ it might have fared better in public perception. Indeed, if you're imagining something like the Elgar of the _Pomp and Circumstance_ marches, you're way off beam. This is music both beautiful and harrowing; noble and proud, yet trying its utmost to keep despair at bay. Surprisingly, in view of its deep unfashionability, at the present moment there are three recordings available. One of them, in my view, is outstanding - namely, this one:










It's available on Amazon for a ludicrously low price, here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elgar-Choral-Works/dp/B000000A9N/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1226851229&sr=1-1

None of the recorded versions are poor, but in this wonderful version Teresa Cahill, singing with the Scottish National Orchestra and Chorus under Sir Alexander Gibson, demonstrates an insight into the meaning of this music than none of the others can match.

Then there's this one:










This one won't break the bank either, though the second section ('To Women') has a tenor singing the solo role which doesn't work for me. Details available here:

http://www.duttonvocalion.co.uk/proddetail.asp?prod=CDLX7172

Lastly, there's the Hickox/Felicity Lott version on EMI:










Felicity Lott sings it beautifully, to be sure, but for my money misses the profound depths of meaning that are to be found in the Cahill/Gibson performance (above). It's available on Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elgar-Coronation-Ode-Spirit-England/dp/B0000DB55B/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1226851229&sr=1-5

_The Spirit of England_ is based on three poems by Lawrence Binyon, the full texts of which can be found here:
http://albionsmusic.tripod.com/id18.html

And finally, here's the webpage provided by the Elgar Society, devoted to _The Spirit of England_:
http://www.elgar.org/3spirit.htm


----------



## jhar26

I've listened to *Falstaff* for the first time a few days ago. Interesting piece. I think it's as good as the *Enigma Variations*, or close anyway.


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> I've listened to *Falstaff* for the first time a few days ago. Interesting piece. I think it's as good as the *Enigma Variations*, or close anyway.


Now you see, that's really interesting. _Falstaff_ is very highly regarded, I know; and yet it's one of those extremely rare things - a major piece of music by Elgar that I've never really been able to warm to. It's a while since I last listened to it; I'll blow the dust off it and try again.


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> Now you see, that's really interesting. _Falstaff_ is very highly regarded, I know; and yet it's one of those extremely rare things - a major piece of music by Elgar that I've never really been able to warm to. It's a while since I last listened to it; I'll blow the dust off it and try again.


It reminds me a bit of the Strauss tone poems.


----------



## Lang

Elgarian said:


> Now you see, that's really interesting. _Falstaff_ is very highly regarded, I know; and yet it's one of those extremely rare things - a major piece of music by Elgar that I've never really been able to warm to. It's a while since I last listened to it; I'll blow the dust off it and try again.


I love Falstaff, I really think it is one of Elgar's finest works. But it is complex music, and it's very susceptible to unsympathetic performance.

Incidentally, I have followed your advice and bought The Spirit of England in the version you recommend. I'll let you know what I think of it when it arrives.


----------



## Elgarian

Lang said:


> Incidentally, I have followed your advice and bought The Spirit of England in the version you recommend. I'll let you know what I think of it when it arrives.


Good luck. At least the experiment won't leave you seriously impoverished.

_The Spirit of England_ is preceded on the CD by the _Coronation Ode_ which (unless you're a fan of the pomp & circumstance side of Elgar, and know it already) might be best left till later. I've always felt it was an odd coupling ...

Haven't had chance to give _Falstaff _another airing yet.


----------



## Elgarian

Elgarian said:


> Haven't had chance to give _Falstaff _another airing yet.


But now I have - Elgar's version:










I wonder how many times I've listened to this, in one version or another? Twenty times, maybe? More, even. I don't feel that with this latest listening I'm any closer to making any meaningful contact with it. Elgar's characteristic touch is everywhere, of course, and yet - it seems so restless and unsatisfying. Listening to it is like reading a novel by a favourite author, brilliantly written, and yet with unattractive subject matter. I suspect I just find the character of Falstaff a bore (as indeed I do), and that my failure to enjoy the music is because the music evokes him so successfully.


----------



## Kuhlau

Edward Elgar said:


> Was he the saviour of British music?


I see Elgar as a popular 'spokesperson' for what's referred to as a second English musical renaissance ('second', to distinguish it from the Tudor period), which began in the late 1800s. But it's the likes of Stanford, Wood and Parry that I credit with reviving English music and preparing the way, so to speak, for the greatness of Holst, Howells, Bax, Britten, Vaughan Williams, Tippet, Finzi and countless others who, for me, stand head and shoulders above Elgar.

What disappoints me most about Elgar - regardless of how much I enjoy some of his better-known works - is that I feel he lacked a unique voice. At times, you hear him sounding like Parry, then Stanford; even shades of Delius creep in. Many of his works seem to me littered with references to the music of those who went before him - despite the fact that he never studied composition with anyone.

I'm even prepared to venture that his lack of formal training may well have limited what he was able to achieve. Though of course, we mustn't dismiss what he _did_ achieve. But to put him up there with Britten or Vaughan Williams? No, I think not.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> I see Elgar as a popular 'spokesperson' for what's referred to as a second English musical renaissance ('second', to distinguish it from the Tudor period), which began in the late 1800s. But it's the likes of Stanford, Wood and Parry that I credit with reviving English music and preparing the way, so to speak, for the greatness of Holst, Howells, Bax, Britten, Vaughan Williams, Tippet, Finzi and countless others who, for me, stand head and shoulders above Elgar.
> 
> What disappoints me most about Elgar - regardless of how much I enjoy some of his better-known works - is that I feel he lacked a unique voice. At times, you hear him sounding like Parry, then Stanford; even shades of Delius creep in. Many of his works seem to me littered with references to the music of those who went before him - despite the fact that he never studied composition with anyone.
> 
> I'm even prepared to venture that his lack of formal training may well have limited what he was able to achieve. Though of course, we mustn't dismiss what he did achieve. But to put him up there with Britten or Vaughan Williams? No, I think not.


I think Parry's sadly neglected symphonies, from the second onwards, are full of little proto-Elgar moments - though I've never investigated to what extent Elgar might have been directly influenced by them. Even so, and much as I love them, Parry's symphonies surely pale in comparison to the two great Elgar symphonies? Elgar's symphonies (to focus purely on them in this instance) have sustained me for a lifetime in a way that only the greatest music can do. But it would be pointless to embark on one of those 'which is the greatest composer?' debates, wouldn't it? I would really hate to put Elgar in the boxing ring with RVW, Parry, Stanford et al, and ask them to slug it out.

The business of whether he had a unique voice, however, needs some comment, I think, if only because I personally regard Elgar as the single most distinctive musical 'voice' I know. These things are very subjective (short of a technical analysis that I wouldn't be capable of), but it seems to me that whereas Parry (say) leans heavily on Brahms's shoulders much of the time, with his own voice sometimes pushing through that, Elgar goes much further. The influences of others seem to be synthesised, through Elgar, into something entirely new. You couldn't have Elgar without Wagner, for instance (and of course one could say the same about any composer and his influences), but it seems to me that the influence of Wagner has been used as bricks and mortar to make a different kind of building altogether.

I love Parry's music, so I don't actually want to make these comparisons; but I could never think of it as life-changing stuff, whereas my entire involvement with classical music and its potential began with, and developed, through Elgar. His music has been a constant and really quite profound lifetime companion, and if it were as lightweight as you suggest, I don't think that would have been possible. I'd have 'seen through it' by now.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian, you might want to edit your post and requote me - I've substantially rethought my position on Elgar (or at least, rethought my post about my position on Elgar). 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> Elgarian, you might want to edit your post and requote me - I've substantially rethought my position on Elgar (or at least, rethought my post about my position on Elgar).


Thanks for the tip off. I've added quite a bit to my post in response.


----------



## Elgarian

I thought I'd continue the process of talking about some of Elgar's most unfashionable works by taking a look at _Caractacus_. Although I've loved Elgar's instrumental music almost as long as I can recall, for a long time I was resistant to his choral works. But when the barriers between them and me finally fell, they fell with a vengeance; and _Caractacus_ was one of my earliest and most delightful discoveries.

Is it a work of great genius? I'm not competent to say, but I don't think so. Is it packed with great tunes? Yes. Is it full of drama and interest? Yes. Is it ever performed these days? I doubt it, though there are two recordings available, each as a 2CD set. There's the Charles Groves/Liverpool Philharmonic version on EMI Classics at an irresistible bargain price:










and then there's the Hickox/LSO version on Chandos:










I don't really have a clear preference myself, but you can't go wrong with the Groves, if only because it costs so little (but still comes with a booklet containing all the words). Among the delights awaiting you are Eigen's beautiful 'At eve to the greenwood, we wander'd away'; the haunting 'Thread the measure' of the druid maidens; and the highly controversial but magnificent finale - more of which later. There's also (looking at the downside for a moment) a tune which reminds me irritatingly of 'Oh My Darling Clementine'!

_Caractacus_, however, is a work that's capable of extending into your life in an extra-musical way, simply because we know so much about how Elgar came to write it, and exploring the landscape that inspired it brings all sorts of extra insights into one's appreciation of the music. The British Camp, so-called, at the top of the Herefordshire Beacon in the Malvern Hills, is an ancient hill fort that (legend has it) was defended by Caractacus against the Romans. Would it not be possible, Elgar's mother had asked him, to write something about that? Here's the camp, in the distance, towards the right (you can see the earthworks encircling the summit), viewed from the Worcestershire Beacon, looking south:










Elgar walked the hills and the surrounding countryside and in the course of his walking, came across a small cottage called Birchwood Lodge, set among woodland a few miles north of the hills. He rented it, and much of the woodland-flavoured music in _Caractacus_ was written there, or inspired by the location. The cottage is still there, somewhat changed, but very recognisable:










A great deal has been said and written about the finale of the work, dismissing the libretto (written by H.A. Acworth, not Elgar) as jingoistic. Certainly some of the words are hard to take, from the vantage point of the 21st century, though much of the criticism stems partly from a kind of chronological fallacy (there's no point in criticising someone for being a man of his time), and partly from a misunderstanding of Elgar's conception of British Imperialism and the chivalric ideal. But if you really want to get to the heart of the matter, try doing what I did. Climb to the top of the British Camp at late afternoon, taking a portable player with you, and a recording of _Caractacus_, and watch the sunset, from the summit, while listening to the finale. If the breeze up there doesn't make your eyes water, the music will.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> The business of whether he had a unique voice, however, needs some comment, I think, if only because I personally regard Elgar as the single most distinctive musical 'voice' I know. These things are very subjective (short of a technical analysis that I wouldn't be capable of), but it seems to me that whereas Parry (say) leans heavily on Brahms's shoulders much of the time, with his own voice sometimes pushing through that, Elgar goes much further. The influences of others seem to be synthesised, through Elgar, into something entirely new.


I listened today to recordings of Bax's first two symphonies (the late Bryden Thomson in charge of the London Philharmonic Orchestra on Chandos - thoroughly recommended). And in between marvelling at Arnold's clarity of orchestral textures, it occurred to me why it is that Elgar, for me at least, lacks a unique musical voice.

The reasons are three-fold, actually. Firstly, Elgar (when in symphonic mode - and I include the Violin Concerto in this) could write rather densely. A similar charge might be laid, incidentally, at the door of Rachmaninov (and I'll suggest another connection between these two composers in a moment). I've heard such density in Elgar's orchestral writing defended as the composer being consciously 'complex', even 'sophisticated'. If this is true, then I throw up my hands and confess I simply don't 'get' it.

But listening to Bax earlier today confirmed for me why arguing for Elgar's complexity and sophistication just doesn't hold up. To be blunt, there's almost a clumsiness in Elgar's treatment of orchestral voices, as though he wants every player to feel included. The first movement of the Second Symphony (a work I generally dislike) and the first movement of his First Symphony (a work I genuinely LOVE), both seem to suffer from a lack of 'air' around the thicker orchestral passages. The music is crying out for lucidity; and it sounds, at times, as though the whole ensemble are trying to play at once. This is what makes me wonder if Elgar wouldn't have benefited from formal compositional training.

The second of my reasons has to do with what I hear as Elgar's rather 'backward-looking' sound. Never mind that his marvellous First Symphony was hailed by Richter as the greatest modern work by the greatest modern composer (or somesuch). There are swathes of Elgar's music which to _my_ ears hark back to the sound-worlds of Parry and Stanford. I'm not suggesting this is deliberate imitation; more that Elgar naturally absorbed the idiom of his forebears and couldn't help but write in a way that reflected at least part of their achievements. It's here that my other Rachmaninov connection comes in. Neither he nor Elgar wrote_ i__ntentionally_ in a style that flew in the face of the emerging Modern period in serious music - they simply couldn't write otherwise. Not a criticism, just an observation.

My third reason is the one which, IMO, seals the issue of Elgar's lack of a distinctive voice. Let's go back to Bax for a moment. Or indeed, to Britten. Or Walton. Or even Vaughan Williams. What do you notice about their music? What I notice is that all of these men were capable of expressing their emotions honestly through their writing. They didn't hold back, whether dealing with romance, or terror, or humour, or whatever other emotions can be found in their scores. They gave it to us as it felt to them. At least, this is the way I hear things. But not so Elgar.

This old Edwardian gent epitomises the English 'stiff upper lip'. There's far too much reservation in his music where emotions are concerned. And where I _do_ find something emotional, it usually sounds contrived. Yes, the slow movements in the first two symphonies are heartbreakers. True, the Violin Concerto's _andante_ can tug at one's heart. Conceded, the first movement of the Cello Concerto is racked with emotional intensity (I'll let Elgar off here: I think this is a good example of him genuinely letting his guard down). And of course, it's a cold heart indeed that's not warmed or stirred by either the _Introduction_ to the First Symphony, or Nimrod from the Enigma Variations.

But listen more carefully. Doesn't it sound like all this 'emotion' is a bit too calculated? Like there's been a decidedly self-conscious attempt to _create_ emotion, rather than simply _express_ it? To me, this insincerity (if that's what it is) loses Elgar points. Especially when such contrivances are added to my other two reasons above.

What I hear in Elgar is a composer who undoubtedly had his triumphs, but who - when weighed against giants like Britten and Vaughan Williams, or compared with geniuses like Bax, Holst, Howells and yes, even Finzi - possessed a musical voice more artificial than authentic. Had he let loose his feelings, studied compositional technique with the greats who came before him, and perhaps also incorporated a little of the idiom that replaced the one to which he instinctively clung (despite the fact that it was disappearing rapidly), Elgar may have become for me a composer with a voice so unique that no matter which composition of his I heard, I could say instantly, 'What a distinctive sound that Elgar had.'



Elgarian said:


> ... if it were as lightweight as you suggest, I don't think that would have been possible. I'd have 'seen through it' by now.


Just for the record, I didn't suggest Elgar's music was 'lightweight'. 

FK


----------



## PostMinimalist

If anyone's interested I'm playing co-principal bass on this recording of the 'Introduction and Allegro' made in 2004 with Chris Warren-Green.
http://www.borders.co.uk/cd/various-works-(megaron-orchestra-camerata-athens)/2257658/


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> And in between marvelling at Arnold's clarity of orchestral textures, it occurred to me why it is that Elgar, for me at least, lacks a unique musical voice.
> 
> The reasons are three-fold, actually. ...


I find myself in a difficult position for several reasons.

First, I have no desire (even if I had the ability) to _defend_ Elgar's music. My strong inclination is not to defend it, but to celebrate it.

Second, I feel very uneasy about making comparisons (favourable or otherwise), with other English composers. When I say that I find the music of Bax and Finzi almost completely uninteresting (though in different ways), I mean no disparagement to these men. I merely mean that I don't 'get' it. I'm telling you a lot about about me, and not very much, if anything, about them.

Third - and most importantly - I've long been convinced that almost any intuitively-arrived-at opinion (favourable or unfavourable) about any artist can be defended by what seem to be rational reasons, but where really the underlying assumptions have been chosen (perhaps unconsciously) so as to support the defended position and make the outcome inevitable. It's possible, for example, to make an excellent case for Constable to be one of the greatest English painters, and perhaps even _the_ greatest. It's equally possible to argue convincingly that his art is parochial and narrow. The conclusions of all art criticism are always dubious. For me, its only value lies either in the criticism itself (where it rises to the level of great art, such as in the writing of Ruskin), or (and this is most important) in its ability to send the reader back to the work under discussion, and perhaps engage with it more meaningfully as a result.

Let me take one of your comments to extend this:


> The second of my reasons has to do with what I hear as Elgar's rather 'backward-looking' sound. Never mind that his marvellous First Symphony was hailed by Richter as the greatest modern work by the greatest modern composer (or somesuch). There are swathes of Elgar's music which to _my_ ears hark back to the sound-worlds of Parry and Stanford.


You said yourself that this is an observation rather than a criticism, but I'd go further. I see it as a strength; it's one of the things I most admire in Elgar's music. It's part (not all) of the reason why the feeling underlying his music runs so deep. But then, this is exactly the kind of thing that I _would_ admire. Like all of us, I presume, I inhabit several worlds. One important one is the world of science - based in the present, looking forwards; another equally important one for me is the world of nineteenth century scholarship, based in the past, looking backwards. Indeed, one part of me is saturated in the art of the nineteenth century - the world of the Preraphaelites, Ruskin, and Parry. These things are part of the fabric of who I am, as I face my own trials of the present. So it's hardly surprising that I find a kindred spirit in Elgar, whose music is filled with his Arthurian, chivalric longing, his sense of place in history, his response to the world as it changed around him. All these things come together in works like _The Spirit of England_, which squarely face the horrors of the present in the context of the broken ideals of the past. The later works - the chamber music, the cello concerto, and so on - are (among other things, I'm sure) profound meditations upon the consequences of all that.

So, to quote you again:


> This old Edwardian gent epitomises the English 'stiff upper lip'. There's far too much reservation in his music where emotions are concerned.


When you say this, I have no way of understanding what you mean. There's control, yes, as there must be in all great art (otherwise we just get a puddle), but reservation? I can't hear that. I can't hear any reservation in the restless seeking that goes on in the (surely extraordinary?) cadenza of the violin concerto. So much of Elgar runs so deep, far deeper than tears, for me. The love of the land and its history; the bittersweet anguish of his (and our) existence; the longing for things (and people) just out of reach; the almost despairing hope for some kind of resolution; the moments of bombast when we think we've cracked it, but deep down we know we haven't really; the aching for beauty, true companionship and acceptance. I find all these in Elgar, over and again, like no other composer. Their presence in the great works (and clearly we do agree, thankfully, that some are indeed great), lends interest (for me) to almost all the lighter, more insubstantial works, just because of the occasional glimmers of priceless jewels that one gets.

When a composer's music touches your soul like this - and you must know this yourself, with regard to other composers - no amount of arguing over whether this is great music or not is going to get anywhere. You reach a point where you just know what you know; and take refuge in Wittgenstein: 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent'.


----------



## PostMinimalist

One thing to keep in mind when comparing Elgar to other British composers of his time (MacKenzie, Parry etc) is that he was more European. His whole musical language seems more robust and tutonic than the twee Suites of Parry and flighty tone poems of Makenzie and Bantock. Playing Elgar you get the impression that you are playing something by Richard Strauss. Harmonically E. is way ahead of his contemporaries in England, his handling of the string band is infinitely superior to what was knocking around at the time despite the misconception that english string writing dates from Handel. It took a revolution (of which Elgar was not really a part because he was so far in advance of what was around him) for English music to catch up to him. I'm talking about the English Second Musical Renaissance. Howells, Vaughan-Williams, Holst etc. Had E. as a role model for 20 odd years before even going to college! It's not really pertinant to compare E. with Finzi since the latter is two musical generations later than Elgar. (I'm another two generations down the line from Finzi being a student of Kenneth Leighton but that's another story) 
Elgar's music will always be taken out of context because it's so hard to realise the total poverty of the English music scene at his time. (Think Gilbert and Sullivan and then imagine Wagner popping up out of nowhere!)
Cheers
FC


----------



## SPR

Elgarian said:


> ... I've long been convinced that almost any intuitively-arrived-at opinion (favourable or unfavourable) about any artist can be defended by what seem to be rational reasons, but where really the underlying assumptions have been chosen (perhaps unconsciously) so as to support the defended position and make the outcome inevitable. It's possible, for example, to make an excellent case for Constable to be one of the greatest English painters, and perhaps even _the_ greatest. It's equally possible to argue convincingly that his art is parochial and narrow. The conclusions of all art criticism are always dubious. For me, its only value lies either in the criticism itself (where it rises to the level of great art, such as in the writing of Ruskin), or (and this is most important) in its ability to send the reader back to the work under discussion, and perhaps engage with it more meaningfully as a result.


I cannot add anything to this thread, but I wanted to comment that I found that above comment to be brilliantly stated and I want to enthusiastically agree.

However, to backpedal slightly... what you say nearly infers that anything that anyone calls 'art' is therefore immune (that is the wrong word) from any 'intuitive' criticism - positive or negative since it is all founded on potentially bias or incorrect or pedjudicial assumptions. It this fair to say?

Is my negative criticism of.. perhaps, a small pile of poop mounted on a pedastal in a gallary merely a vehicle to further conversation of said poop?

I am being completely serious.


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> what you say nearly infers that anything that anyone calls 'art' is therefore immune (that is the wrong word) from any 'intuitive' criticism - positive or negative since it is all founded on potentially bias or incorrect or pedjudicial assumptions. It this fair to say?
> Is my negative criticism of.. perhaps, a small pile of poop mounted on a pedastal in a gallary merely a vehicle to further conversation of said poop?


That's a fascinating question, and a huge one; but if we try to talk about it here, we'll destroy this thread about Elgar (possibly beyond recovery), which would be ever so sad. How would you feel about using your post (or a slightly edited version of it, to explain what we're at) to start a new thread somewhere appropriate, and we can take it from there?


----------



## Elgarian

post-minimalist said:


> If anyone's interested I'm playing co-principal bass on this recording of the 'Introduction and Allegro' made in 2004 with Chris Warren-Green.
> http://www.borders.co.uk/cd/various-works-(megaron-orchestra-camerata-athens)/2257658/


I missed this earlier. The _Introduction and Allegro_ is one of the most characteristic expressions of Elgarian Englishness that I know - it seems inexhaustible, to me. As deep as England. It's one of the pieces where I can most understand that comment he made about his music being in the air around him, and he just takes what he needs. And that other one - you know? - about 'the trees singing my music; or am I singing theirs?'

I have no conception of what it must be like actually to be there, playing, in the midst of it, part of it. I know I'm asking the impossible, but I wonder if there's any way you can describe the experience?


----------



## Kuhlau

There's much in this thread that I now feel I need to respond to (and also, much fresh consideration to be done, perhaps, regarding my position on Elgar). However, other commitments will prevent me from posting here more fully until next week. I'll be sure to consider my words carefully before I next do. 

FK


----------



## Kuhlau

I felt I had to post this before I forgot how it was first phrased in my head.

If Parry and Stanford were the inaugural paving stones in the path that led to the Eden that was British music's renaissance in the first half of the 20th century, then Elgar must surely be the final slab. But for me, he remains mostly outside of the garden's gates, with only an edge reaching beyond them.

That edge touches Delius, Wood* and Bantock - who together represent a widening of the path - until the path reaches those who constitute an 'edifice' of composers which might be likened to a magnificent fountain. This is ornate with the works of Vaughan Williams, Walton, Bax, Rubbra, Holst, Bridge, Howells, Bliss, Finzi and others.

And on top of that fountain? Possibly the single most significant (and aptly named) composer Britain has ever produced: Benjamin Britten.

FK



*I mean, of course, Charles - not Haydn, Henry or Ralph - included in my list above not for his compositions but for his educational influence on Vaughan Williams and Howells.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Elgarian said:


> I have no conception of what it must be like actually to be there, playing, in the midst of it, part of it. I know I'm asking the impossible, but I wonder if there's any way you can describe the experience?


Well here goes:
you know that playing music in ensembles requires a hightened awareness, even in a rehearsal you have to be pretty alert to what's going on around you. The Introduction and Allegro is one of those pieces that never lets up, you are in the hot seat from start to finish! There are passages where you can sit back and rellish the part you have to play but those are mostly at the beginning after the initial out burst up to the viola solo. The Allegro is great fun but it's not easy (this is one of Elgar's european pointers - how hard the parts are! No punches pulled here.) and the fugue at the end takes a tremendous effort not to drag and even playing all the right notes is a major task. When you are taking part in a recording of a piece like this it can be very tiring and nerve-racking but if all goes well and the band can make sonething magic happen then it's one of the most exciting experiences you can go through. We had to play the piece twice in concerts in the week before the recording (along with the other material on the CD - this is quite usual.) so we were quite geared up for it but the final tweeking and detailed work that Chris pulled out in the session was wonderful to see! There was a thread recently here kind of trashing recording techniques but anyone who has lived this situation knows that it's very different. As I said 'remember I made this recording for you.' This has to be in your mind all the time when playing such emotionally charged music in a recording situation becuase you can go over board in a concert and scoosh thing up too much but whe you know that the public will hear the same performance every time they put on the CD you have to be very detailed and measured indeed. Imagine hearing my exaggerated vibrato on the top G in the fugue theme (which can be thouroughly riviting in concert) the same everytime. you'd soon go off the predictable melodramatics. 
These are a few things that go through your head while waiting for the red light to go on for another take. I hope that has given you an insight into what it feels like to record something like Intro&All.
FC


----------



## Elgarian

post-minimalist said:


> I hope that has given you an insight into what it feels like to record something like Intro&All.


That's a far, far better reply than I had any right to expect. Thank you! (It sounds utterly terrifying, to me! I imagine a state of complete exhaustion at the end....)


----------



## Kuhlau

Having now had more time to listen to Elgar anew since last posting to this thread - and indeed, to hear again works by his contemporaries and near-contemporaries - I think I've identified what it is about _some_ of Elgar's music which, when I consider it in the context of the period in which it was composed, jars with me.

Put simply, I feel that Elgar unintentionally caricatured what it meant to be British in the early 20th century. Bax, Britten, Walton and others seemed to better capture the spirit of the age in which they were writing. It's not until I come to the final third of Elgar's career that I hear the composer start to reflect - rather than _affect _(to return to my earlier assertion that Elgar sometimes sounds emotionally insincere to these ears) - the mood of the so-called Modern period.

Perhaps this makes a little more sense of what I said about Elgar sounding like Parry and Stanford. It's entirely appropriate and understandable that strains of the works of both men should be apparent in Elgar's earlier output. But such references, however mild, seem to me somehow out of place in works composed firmly inside the 20th century. For example, the finale of the brilliant and tragic (and otherwise quite Modern) Cello Concerto of 1919 suggests a reluctance on the part of its composer to relinguish past musical influences.

But be all this as it may, I must stress that I _do_ enjoy Elgar's music; and I'd rather this be a thread in _praise_ of the composer's many excellent compositions, rather than a place for me to air my rather inconsequential and unacademic niggles.  So I shall say no more unless invited to - and I'll end by adding that anyone who hasn't heard _this_ CD really ought to correct that error by buying it immediately:










FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> I feel that Elgar unintentionally caricatured what it meant to be British in the early 20th century. Bax, Britten, Walton and others seemed to better capture the spirit of the age in which they were writing. It's not until I come to the final third of Elgar's career that I hear the composer start to reflect - rather than _affect _(to return to my earlier assertion that Elgar sometimes sounds emotionally insincere to these ears) - the mood of the so-called Modern period.


A number of questions come to mind, here. First, looking at your first sentence: can we specify what it meant to be British in the early 20th century? It seems to me to be an unanswerable question, 'early 20th century Britishness' covering a very wide spectrum indeed. Second, I find (and this is no more than a personal response of course, though it runs counter to yours) that Elgar actually speaks directly and deeply to my own 21st century Britishness: he transcends his time, while remaining securely rooted in it (which seems to be a characteristic of most great artists). Third, the scope of Elgar's work is so broad - ranging from the blatantly patriotic (Pomp & Circumstance) to the mystical (Intro & Allegro) - that I'm not sure what part of it is the caricature that you think you've identified.

I think - and you'll correct me if I'm wrong - that what may be causing you to have reservations about Elgar is probably related to his concept of _nobilmente_. That's what might be misidentified as 'stiff upper lipness', perhaps, though it would be closer to descibe it as a deliberate 'loftiness' - an attempt to rise above the particular, the narrowness of the moment, and transcend it. I've said it before, but the chivalric ideal is an essential part of Elgar, and his music is flooded with its influence. To someone who is suspicious of it, the music may indeed be problematic when that influence comes through.



> For example, the finale of the brilliant and tragic (and otherwise quite Modern) Cello Concerto of 1919 suggests a reluctance on the part of its composer to relinguish past musical influences.


On a different tack altogether, I can't see why this is a problem, unless one sees the history of music (and all art, perhaps) as a gradual progression towards some higher, yet so far imperfectly formed, ideal. Those historic influences that make you uneasy lie at the heart of Elgar's music, in the same way, surely, as folk song lies at the heart of RVW's. Indeed, one could 'explain' reservations about RVW (if I had them, which I don't) in very similar terms: one might argue how, even in his finest work, there is still that regrettable influence of folk music that he never quite let go of, in order to more fully represent the 20th century....'

Do you see what I mean? Both you and I would agree that such a statement would be nonsense. But if we were unconvinced about RVW's greatness, we might well find ourselves saying such things to justify our misgivings. That there is something in Elgar which you have serious reservations about is evident; but I think the reservations are basically subjective and intuitive, however much one might suppose there are rational, objective reasons for them.


----------



## SPR

Elgarian said:


> ...That there is something in Elgar which you have serious reservations about is evident; but I think the reservations are basically subjective and intuitive, however much one might suppose there are rational, objective reasons for them.


Hmm. As a point of argument, I am not completely comfortable with perhaps discounting someones reservations simply because the sentiment does not contain what you percieve as 'rational, objective reasons'.

example: "I dislike Matthew Bartholomew Marblegonads. I think his music is tedious and boring".

response: "That is merely an intuive, emotional, subjective observation and not a rational, objective reason. Though his music consists of slapping frogs together and gargling, your statement carrys no weight with me."

Sorry. Elgarian - you offered to take that discussion to another thread... looks like I will have to do that. 

carry on.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> First, looking at your first sentence: can we specify what it meant to be British in the early 20th century? It seems to me to be an unanswerable question, 'early 20th century Britishness' covering a very wide spectrum indeed.


Obviously, there's no easy nor single answer to this. I think what I mean is that whereas many other British composers of the early 20th century sound _to me_ as though their writing is more representative of the wide spectrum of Britishness to which you refer, Elgar seems somewhat narrower in focus - more concerned, I'd argue, with Britain's imperial past and the 'glories' of years gone by than with the social, political, cultural and economic realities that prevailed in the first three decades of the 1900s.



Elgarian said:


> Second, I find (and this is no more than a personal response of course, though it runs counter to yours) that Elgar actually speaks directly and deeply to my own 21st century Britishness: he transcends his time, while remaining securely rooted in it (which seems to be a characteristic of most great artists).


We'll have to agree to disagree on this.  In my view, the music of Elgar sounds _very_ far from relevant to our current times.



Elgarian said:


> Third, the scope of Elgar's work is so broad - ranging from the blatantly patriotic (Pomp & Circumstance) to the mystical (Intro & Allegro) - that I'm not sure what part of it is the caricature that you think you've identified.


I always feel with Elgar that perhaps he focused on all the noble qualities for which Britain was best known at that point in history, accentuated these in his music, and disregarded some of the darker, grittier truths. The result, for me at least, is an unrealistic portrait of Britain: recognisable as British, but not _truly_ representative. Maybe this was his aim?



Elgarian said:


> I think - and you'll correct me if I'm wrong - that what may be causing you to have reservations about Elgar is probably related to his concept of nobilmente. That's what might be misidentified as 'stiff upper lipness', perhaps, though it would be closer to descibe it as a deliberate 'loftiness' - an attempt to rise above the particular, the narrowness of the moment, and transcend it. I've said it before, but the chivalric ideal is an essential part of Elgar, and his music is flooded with its influence.


You might well be right about this. Perhaps I want my music less 'idealised'. It's like the difference I discern between the music of Mozart and Beethoven: that of the former seems too divinely perfect, while that of the latter is a perfect marriage of the divine and the human.



Elgarian said:


> On a different tack altogether, I can't see why this is a problem, unless one sees the history of music (and all art, perhaps) as a gradual progression towards some higher, yet so far imperfectly formed, ideal. Those historic influences that make you uneasy lie at the heart of Elgar's music, in the same way, surely, as folk song lies at the heart of RVW's. Indeed, one could 'explain' reservations about RVW (if I had them, which I don't) in very similar terms: one might argue how, even in his finest work, there is still that regrettable influence of folk music that he never quite let go of, in order to more fully represent the 20th century....'


I think I've failed to make myself clear on this. Those 'past musical influences' I hear in the Cello Concerto's finale aren't a problem, but they _do_ jar a little for me in an otherwise Modern-sounding work. As for Vaughan Williams, he - like Bartok - absorbed folk song into his music in a way that, to these ears at least, doesn't sound like he's pastiching the past. Elgar was possibly aiming for a similar level of integration of musical influences from days gone by, but his attempts at such seem to me to stick out more obviously.



Elgarian said:


> But if we were unconvinced about RVW's greatness, we might well find ourselves saying such things to justify our misgivings. That there is something in Elgar which you have serious reservations about is evident; but I think the reservations are basically subjective and intuitive, however much one might suppose there are rational, objective reasons for them.


Again, a slight misunderstanding seems to have crept in here. I'm not disputing Elgar's greatness - just giving my reasons (wholly subjective, certainly) for not considering this composer _so_ great when I weigh him against other British composers from the first half of the 20th century. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> Hmm. As a point of argument, I am not completely comfortable with perhaps discounting someones reservations simply because the sentiment does not contain what you percieve as 'rational, objective reasons'.


No, no, that isn't what I meant at all. I'm not discounting anything Kuhlau said; in fact I have the greatest regard for what he says, even where I disagree with it (as I believe he knows). My point here is that what _looks _like a rational argument is really no such thing (which you seemed to agree with when I mentioned it in an earlier post). These apparently rational arguments are the things we construct in support of a conviction about a work of art which is actually subjective and intuitive. If you like, they represent another way of expressing our pleasure (or displeasure), but they're no more reliable than the subjectively determined premisses on which they're based. If we love a work of art, we will always be able to find a good 'rational' reason for doing so. If we detest a particular work of art, we can always find a rational defence of that, too.

To the mid-nineteenth century French academician, an Impressionist painting really was a disgrace, and he could find a hundred good reasons for saying so, yet all of them were really only expressions of his deeper, intuitively-held assumptions about what good painting is. Responding passionately to most of Elgar's music, as I do, I see his ability to carry the past with him into the future as a strength. Yet Kuhlau identifies it as a weakness. The real difference between our positions lies further back, and farther in: beyond the rational.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> My point here is that what _looks _like a rational argument is really no such thing. These apparently rational arguments are the things we construct in support of a conviction about a work of art which is actually subjective and intuitive. If you like, they represent another way of expressing our pleasure (or displeasure), but they're no more reliable than the subjectively determined premisses on which they're based. If we love a work of art, we will always be able to find a good 'rational' reason for doing so. If we detest a particular work of art, we can always find a rational defence of that, too.


On this, we agree absolutely.  It is, after all, part of what makes music criticism so much fun (and so infuriating) to read. We'll never see eye to eye with everyone on everything. I, for one, see that as a good thing. How dull life would be otherwise. And of course, there's always the possibility that we might switch our views some day and see things the other way about. Or from both sides. This makes art much more valuable to me than anything it might fetch at auction. 



Elgarian said:


> Responding passionately to most of Elgar's music, as I do, I see his ability to carry the past with him into the future as a strength. Yet Kuhlau identifies it as a weakness.


I think 'weakness' is too strong a word. I want to replace that with 'limitation', but that isn't right, either.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> As for Vaughan Williams, he - like Bartok - absorbed folk song into his music in a way that, to these ears at least, doesn't sound like he's pastiching the past. Elgar was possibly aiming for a similar level of integration of musical influences from days gone by, but his attempts at such seem to me to stick out more obviously.


I haven't time to do justice to all that you've written here (though I've read it carefully), but I'd like to pick up on this point because it seems to me to be central. I agree entirely (of course) that RVW doesn't sound as if he's pastiching the past. But for someone who admired RVW a lot less than we do, and who was casting around for a rational argument to support his lack of enthusiasm, this is the kind of thing he might seize upon. 'Yes,' he might say, 'it's that dratted reliance on folk music that held him back from real greatness. If only he could have shaken it off.' In other words, what to you and me gives deep and profound roots to RVW's music (because we love it), could be taken down and used in evidence against him by someone who dislikes it.

Elgar straddles the 19th and 20th centuries in a very particular way; he's positioned on a kind of musical and social cusp, witnessing the death of established old ways and being well into middle age when the centuries turned; his music is _bound_ to reflect that. But RVW was still a young man at that time. His music sounds more 'modern', surely, because he simply _is _more modern, by an accident of birth - being born fifteen years (and a pretty crucial 15 years) later.

My point is that these aren't actually strengths or weaknesses; we may speak of them as if they are, but all we're doing is trying to find a justification for a subjective preference.


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> I think 'weakness' is too strong a word. I want to replace that with 'limitation', but that isn't right, either.


I know _exactly_ what you mean, but I can't think of a better word either.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> In other words, what to you and me gives deep and profound roots to RVW's music (because we love it), could be taken down and used in evidence against him by someone who dislikes it.
> 
> ... all we're doing is trying to find a justification for a subjective preference.


I don't think either of us is under any illusion as to what's playing out between us in this thread, Elgarian. We're each arguing for the side in which we most believe, but neither of us would be stupid enough to claim that we're 100% right in our assessments.

My work in advertising has taught me that one can spin anything, any way. If I so chose, I could mount a robust defence against my own 'attacks' on Elgar; and in much the same way, you could do something similar with your defence case to date. Though I'm sure such would break your heart. 

Beyond points of technicality or incontrovertible, historically established facts, there's no right or wrong in art. However, if we merely accepted this, our exchanges would amount to little more than:

'I like Elgar. His music is so moving.'

'Yes, I like him, too. Especially that Nimrod bit.'

'But I think Bartok sucks.'

'Yeah, his music's really ugly'

... etc, etc.

Obviously, I'm over-simplifying here, but you take my point. Just as in every stageplay, film or novel there has to be conflict to create tension and drama (and therefore, interest), so in discussions about art there must be opposing views. Otherwise, everything's either 'great' or 'rubbish'.

FK


----------



## SPR

Elgarian said:


> To the mid-nineteenth century French academician, an Impressionist painting really was a disgrace, and he could find a hundred good reasons for saying so, yet all of them were really only expressions of his deeper, intuitively-held assumptions about what good painting is.


That, Is a very good analogy sir. I accept it.


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> Beyond points of technicality or incontrovertible, historically established facts, there's no right or wrong in art.


Yes indeed ... and yet, there is _rightness_ in our _experiences_ of art. The person who is transported, changed, elevated, moved to tears, by music that I can't bear, is having a 'great' aesthetic experience, even if I believe the music to be dreadful, myself. (My negative response would seem incomprehensible, to him, at such a moment). It's to make possible such moments of deep engagement and communication that the art exists in the first place. You and I _know_ that RVW, say, is a great composer - not because someone has argued a case for it, but because we've experienced its greatness for ourselves. There was a sense of _rightness_ in that experience that lies beyond all rational discourse.

Incidentally, it's for this reason that I feel far more secure in trusting positive assessments of art, than negative ones. If someone says he can't bear RVW's Sea symphony, then he's the last person to talk to if I'm trying to get to grips with that symphony myself. If I'm looking for help in that area, I need someone who's _tasted_ its greatness; someone who knows it, in the deepest sense of knowing. Someone wanting to get into Finzi or Delius needs to talk to _you_; I'd be useless to them.


----------



## Kuhlau

Finzi I know reasonably well, but Delius is another British composer with whom I have 'issues'. You'd probably like the latter's music a good deal.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> Finzi I know reasonably well, but Delius is another British composer with whom I have 'issues'. You'd probably like the latter's music a good deal.


Ah, I thought I remembered him as being among your list of favourite composers much earlier in this thread, but now I've checked, I see that I was wrong. I should have said Bax, instead, perhaps, to make my point.

Alas, given the choice between Delius's music and silence, I'd choose silence every time. But that's a statement about me - not a comment on the stature of Delius's music.


----------



## SPR

Elgarian said:


> Alas, given the choice between Delius's music and silence, I'd choose silence every time. But that's a statement about me - not a comment on the stature of Delius's music.


Its comments like that, that make me want to tear my hair out in clumps.


----------



## Kuhlau

Yes, there's something aimless and meandering about Delius' music that I've never quite grasped. Those better versed than I in his work tell me he's well worth getting to know. Frankly, I'm happy to take them at their word but leave them to it for now.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

SPR said:


> Its comments like that, that make me want to tear my hair out in clumps.


But surely it's only one among many expressions of difference between us all, isn't it? Remember, I wasn't passing judgement on Delius (one only has to read the obviously heartfelt comments by others about him to recognise that he's a fine composer) - I'm merely remarking that I'm not temperamentally inclined towards that kind of music. That fact in itself renders me incapable of making any meaningful comment about how good his music is. Indeed, this is really at the heart of almost all that I've been saying in this thread.

The loss is mine. No need for you to tug at your hair.


----------



## PostMinimalist

It is quite interesting that Delius gets singled out for this treatment amongst all the English composers of the period. I think Delius just couldn't find himself in his flitting to and fro across the various bodies of water that surround Britain. There is something French and yet american in his music and I don't mean Copland but rather Duke Ellington! His overtly rich harmonic language does not go out a kind of extended diatonic area enough to really be considered impressionistic. His harmony is 'third' based with upper extentions more resembling jazz chords than the fourth and second based experiments of Debussy and Ravel. I personally find his works cold and rather empty. 
He tried to run an Orange farm in Florida but went bust! Probably the most exciting fact about the man. Eric Fenby's contribution to his output is always in question as is the prosthesis of any amunensis. (that sounds painful).


----------



## PostMinimalist

I just realised that my previous post has nothing to do with Elgar. So how about this: Finzi (the pupil of a pupil of Elgar) sucsessfully managed an Apple farm! So the 'fruit' concection to Delius stands up then?
FC


----------



## Kuhlau

As soon as Barber's Violin Concerto has stopped playing into my ears through my headphones, I shall dig out some Delius and try to hear some meaning in his music.

Wish me luck ...

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> As soon as Barber's Violin Concerto has stopped playing into my ears through my headphones, I shall dig out some Delius and try to hear some meaning in his music.
> Wish me luck ...


I do. You're just the man we need to start a 'Delius' thread .... (clearly we need one).


----------



## Kuhlau

Hate to say this, but after initially warming to the opening of Delius' Paris: The Song of a Great City, I found the music started to get on my nerves. I appreciate the piece was written as a musical portrait of the diverse French capital with which he was very familiar (he made Paris his home for many years), but it rubbed me up the wrong way. That said, I wasn't in a British music frame of mind last night. I'll try again soon ...

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Dragging this thread back on topic ....

I was reminded of this discussion yesterday during a conversation in which someone remarked that one of the signs of Shakespeare's greatness was his ability to 'connect public and private' worlds so successfully, and I was thinking about this rather difficult but very interesting piece of insight when I realised that it was possible to say the same thing about much of Elgar's music. Moreover, that it expressed, far better than I had done, some of the ideas I've been trying to talk about in this thread.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the violin concerto, where there is a whole spectrum of musical discourse ranging from the public, at one end (Elgar's '_nobilmente_' is one aspect of it) to the intensely, intimately private (the second windflower theme), at the other. I am wondering, now, whether the entire concerto can't be seen as an exploration of this connection between the public and the private. There is the face of Elgar the public man - the one that he presents to the world; the one that stands for his country and his time. And there is the inner heart of Elgar; the insecure, deeply troubled, aching, longing individual mind. Of course we all have our own versions of these components, but what Elgar did - and here lies one of the reasons for his greatness - was to express them so completely. That's why the violin concerto tears us to pieces.

The first movement is full of expressions of such public/private moments, but nowhere does this come through more clearly than in the last movement, where he's so obviously winding up to a conclusion after about 10 minutes - preparing to return us to the public arena, if you like - when the music falters, the private intervenes, and as that closing cadenza begins we realise the depths of uncertainy within that private world, despite all the surface confidence that's been hinted at. The two windflower themes seem to repeatedly lose each other, then find each other (fleetingly), then lose each other again. There are times when the music falters and almost dies, as if all momentum, all reason for continuing, has been lost. Surely this is one of the most deeply introspective pieces of music ever composed? Elgar is exposing normally hidden aspects of his longing for the _feminine,_ expressed through his love-but-not-quite-love for Alice Stuart-Wortley.

And then, after ten minutes of this intense working out of these innermost, heartfelt themes, this dark but beautiful struggle, he somehow finds some resolution; I don't understand whether some _musical_ resolution is found - but a personal one certainly is. The struggle (that is, the long cadenza) is brought to an end; the window on Elgar's soul is closed, within just a few bars; and we're left once more with the public, optimistic face, with a curious feeling of uneasy acceptance of the insecurities to which we've just been made privy.

That violin concerto is not just one of the greatest pieces of music I know. It's one of the greatest works of art - of _any_ art - that I know. We are _all_ in there - our struggle between the need to perform publicly in the world, in the face of private turmoil. I'd never quite understood (though I'd _felt_ it, obviously) the source of its universality until now.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgar's Violin Concerto is one of those works of which I have more than one version, but with which I've never truly connected. Which performance would you suggest I hear, Elgarian, in order to get the most from this work?

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> Elgar's Violin Concerto is one of those works of which I have more than one version, but with which I've never truly connected. Which performance would you suggest I hear, Elgarian, in order to get the most from this work?
> 
> FK


The violin concerto is a very slow burner. I remember when I first heard it - I'd be 17, 18 maybe - I found it disappointing. At that time I was searching for the Elgar of the _Intro & Allegro_, _Enigma_, the cello concerto, etc - and I found the violin concerto too difficult. I now see why. I wanted to wallow in Elgarian English Landscapeness, and that isn't what the violin concerto is offering. I grew into it slowly, over years; and even then, for a long time I really only felt deeply touched by the second movement. It's only in the last few years that its true greatness - the universality of it, the deeply felt humanity of it - has begun to seep in. Even now it seems to stretch out before me like a great mystery that I'll never be able to plumb, properly. I just pick up little extra glimpses with each listening.

But I've still to answer your question. I've yet to hear a _bad_ performance of it on record. The obvious place to begin is what might be thought of as the definitive version, conducted by Elgar himself, with the young Menuhin as the soloist, but (and this is purely an expression of personal taste, not a judgement upon it) it's never been a favourite of mine. The two Nigel Kennedy recordings are spectacular and tremendously virtuoso performances, but he doesn't, for me, get into the real heartbreakingness of the slow movement.

I've been very taken, in recent years, by the version by Dong-Suk Kang on Naxos - really because of its uniqueness; there's a strange, almost gypsy-like quality to it, which comes over in a rather refreshing way that reminds me there's more than one way to approach Elgar. But the one to which I always return, is Hugh Bean/Charles Groves. It's not as spectacular as Kennedy, not as strange as Kang, but quietly gets at the heart of it. This is the one I've listened to most, over the years. But I say this as a matter of personal affection, rather than with any clear notion that anyone else would agree.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elgar-Violi...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1228492234&sr=1-7


----------



## Kuhlau

Thank you, Elgarian. 

As an aside, I picked up this today in a charity shop for £1:










Wish me luck (again) ...

FK


----------



## Elgarian

One of the most delighftful books about Elgar is Dora Powell's _Memories of a Variation_. She was 'Dorabella' of the _Enigma Variations_, and my copy of her book was the first edition of 1937. However, there's a later edition of the book, substantially expanded; and I bought one of these recently. I took it with me to read while I was sitting in a cafe over a cup of tea and found myself not reading the 'new' material, but rather dipping in here and there to some favourite incidents from the already familiar. One of these is the walk she took with Elgar up to the British Camp on the Malverns, when they talked about Caractacus. I was reminded of my earlier post in this thread (#41), and thought it might be entertaining to have Dorabella's comments here:










"Next day we spent most of the morning on the British Camp. ... Walking along the earthworks we imagined Caractacus and his forces going down the hill-side to their disastrous encounter with the Romans, the forest glade where Orbin met Eigen, and the final betrayal of Caractacus and his family into the hands of the enemy. I need hardly say that the story lost nothing in the telling. The whole scene was quite unforgettable. The glorious view over miles and miles of country, the solitude and aloofness of the place, and above all hearing him tell of what had so recently filled his mind - there, on the very spot, the centre of the story.

That afternoon I went into Great Malvern in the brake and chose photographs to put into my copy of _Caractacus_ ... That evening I produced the photographs I had bought and mounted ready for the vocal score, and after a good deal of patience and persuasion I induced him to write the title of each under the pictures; but he badly wanted to put 'The British Scamp' (I saw that he had written it on his blotting pad) under the British Camp picture, and then he tried to put it under his own portrait." 

My goodness, I would love to have been able to wander around that grand and ancient place, like this, talking to 'The British Scamp' about Caractacus .....


----------



## LindenLea

Marvellous post Elgarian, and a super thread on the great Sir Edward, only RVW stands above him in my affections. And Elgarian, I do enjoy reading your thoughts on Elgar. We actually recently had visitors from Germany, and we stayed a few days at Ombersley in Worcestershire and took them to the birthplace museum at Broadheath (which I was amazed to see has been transformed with a huge visitors centre from when I was last there 10 years ago) and they were even happy to have their pictures taken standing alongside that lovely statue of Sir Edward in the charming elevated gardens in the middle of Great Malvern High Street just around the corner from the Priory (far more appropriate I feel than the the more famous one outside Worcester Cathedral, which is as I recall at the entrance to a shopping precinct with it's backdrop of Woolies and Marks and Spencer!!)

Despite all the classic recordings, I think my preferred performance/recording of the Elgar Violin Concerto is actually the quite recent one by James Ehnes and the BBCSO/Andrew Davis, which to put it mildly is glowingly recorded and very lyrical indeed, the andante is quite miraculous.


----------



## Elgarian

LindenLea said:


> We actually recently had visitors from Germany, and we stayed a few days at Ombersley in Worcestershire and took them to the birthplace museum at Broadheath (which I was amazed to see has been transformed with a huge visitors centre from when I was last there 10 years ago)


Yes! The great thing about the visitor centre (apart from being full of interest in its own right) is that it takes a lot of pressure off the cottage itself, so that it's very easy to find moments when the cottage is quiet, and it's possible to potter about undisturbed. The Birthplace Museum is one of my very favourite places - and it's so good to know how important it was to Elgar himself, and that there could _be_ no better place for a museum.



> Despite all the classic recordings, I think my preferred performance/recording of the Elgar Violin Concerto is actually the quite recent one by James Ehnes and the BBCSO/Andrew Davis, which to put it mildly is glowingly recorded and very lyrical indeed, the andante is quite miraculous.


I haven't acquired that one yet, though I will, of course, at some stage - though I look at the heap of different recordings of it that I have already, and wonder at what stage it's sensible to stop!

Thank you for reading my posts in this thread. I can't separate the composer from the man, nor the music from his love of the land, and I've tramped those hills from end to end many times over the years. So I'm aware that some of my posts are inclined to be a bit nostalgic and self-indulgent, and it's nice to know that they're being read sympathetically.


----------



## Elgarian

Dorabella (Dora Penny, later Powell) was incredibly privileged, to be not only one of the _Enigma Variations_, but also to be there when some of the other great works were being written. On one of the occasions when she visited, the Elgars were staying at Birchwood - the cottage they rented, just north of the Malvern Hills. He was writing _The Dream of Gerontius_ at the time of this visit:










"Most vividly do I remember a third visit, 31 July 1899, this time to Birchwood, on a very hot summer day. I had cycled from Wolverhampton, forty miles, and arrived, rather warm and dusty, at the cart-track leading up through the woods to the house. When I was nearly there I thought I would rest, out of sight, and get cool. I heard the piano in the distance and, not wishing to lose more of it than I need, I soon went on. In a moment I came in sight of the Lady [Alice Elgar] sitting on a fallen tree just below the windows. She had a red parasol. I think she sat there partly to warn people off - particularly people with bicycles who had been known to commit the awful crime of ringing a bell to announce their arrival. Leaning the bicycle against a tree, I went and sat down by her without speaking. He was playing the opening of Part II [of _Gerontius_], and those who know the music well will understand what it was like to hear that strangely aloof, ethereal music for the first time in such surroundings. Each time I hear it I think of that beautiful place and that glorious day with the sunshine coming through the lace-work of greenery and branches and the deep blue sky over all."


I haven't had the luck to photograph Birchwood on a hot summer day such as Dora describes. So a reposting of this one, taken on a dull, overcast late afternoon, will have to do for now.


----------



## Kuhlau

I'm about to be an utter bore, and what I have to say may even be better tackled in a thread outside of this one - which I shall create if correspondents here wish it so. But I feel I've recently hit on an important detail that supports my arguments in this thread about Elgar being out of step with his contemporaries. Allow me to elucidate.

Earlier in this discussion, I made mention of the fact that many of the composers who were writing at the same time as Elgar managed to capture the spirit of their age in a way that, for me, Elgar didn't. It was suggested that my choice of contemporaries - which included Bax, Howells, Finzi and more besides - was perhaps unfair; and names like Parry, Stanford and MacKenzie were advanced to demonstrate that, compared to _these_ men, Elgar was rather more pioneering.

Now, I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to place Elgar above these last-three-enumerated composers (although I continue to contend that, in places, his music sounds somewhat derivative of theirs). But I _will_ take issue with the idea that they - and they alone - were his contemporaries.

I bring this up now because in a recent discussion in another classical music forum, it was argued (satisfactorily, in my view) that one mustn't confuse 'contemporaries' with 'people belonging to the same generation'. One's contemporaries - in art or any other field - *are those working at the same time as one is also working.* Whether or not said contemporaries are _also_ from one's own generation is, frankly, irrelevant.

So, if we now go back and look at the writing of Elgar's contemporaries from the early 20th century, then look again at Elgar's own writing over the same time span, I think that my original assertion can bear some scrutiny. Not necessarily, I hasten to add, when we're talking about compositions pre-dating the First World War, but certainly when considering those which came _after_ that great tragedy.

Yes, this all makes me look like the world's biggest pedant. But I thought this point important because I'm sure there are those who, when discussing art, erroneously dismiss any given artist's contemporaries on the basis that such did not belong to the same generation. I now see a clear distinction between these two groupings, and as such, argue that we need to bear this in mind when considering in context Elgar's _later_ works.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> One's contemporaries - in art or any other field - *are those working at the same time as one is also working.* Whether or not said contemporaries are _also_ from one's own generation is, frankly, irrelevant.


Yes, as I suggested in the Grosse Fugue thread, this general area is where the real difference lies in our two respective approaches to all this.

You know in advance at least part of what I'm going to say, which is: "but does it matter?" And of course it matters to you to get this clear; but it doesn't matter to me. My recognition of Elgar as a great composer doesn't depend on his place in the development of music. It depends on my experience of listening to his music over a lifetime. There are many additional strings tied to that, of course, and we can have conversations (which are indeed interesting) about how he relates to his contemporaries, both old and new. But when all the talking is done, the interaction between the listener and the music (and, via the music, the composer) is the only thing that counts. That's my basic position; and that's why, I think, we reach different conclusions.

I think it's interesting that a recent book by Jerrold Northrop Moore places Elgar firmly in the English mystical/pastoral tradition that runs (in the visual arts) from Blake's famous tiny pastoral wood engravings, through the work of Samuel Palmer and the 'Ancients', to people like Graham Sutherland, Paul Nash, and David Jones in the 20th century. At the heart of the work of these men is that mystical/pastoral thread. That's what powers them, regardless of the vagaries of changing styles and techniques through the decades. That's what makes their art timeless.

Now, I think Moore has got this right. When I read his book making this link, I felt (as one often does when a great truth dawns) that I'd really known it all along, but had never actually put it into words. Elgar (like all these artists) is a visionary composer, but his vision has nothing to do with foreseeing or anticipating the future of musical development. It's about the mystical link with the land; with history; and with the chivalric ideal. Like Blake, like Palmer, like Nash, he is at once identifiably an artist of his time - and yet he stands in some ways outside the flow.

To return, finally, to your discussion of how artists relate to their contemporaries: when Turner was revolutionising Romantic landscape, Blake was still sitting at home composing his poetry and making his illuminated books. His figures are unmistakably drawn from his earlier neoclassical training; he shows no awareness of, nor interest in, the developments that would transform English art in the 19th century. His beyond-all-words-masterpiece, _Jerusalem_, is, in terms of the Grand Progress of Art, a dead end. But who is going to be brave enough to say that Blake is a lesser artist for failing to adapt to the discoveries of his younger contemporaries? The parallel with Elgar is rather close, I think.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian, to appreciate art - any art - simply for what it is, is a wonderful thing indeed, and not something onto which I pour even so much as a drop of scorn. After all, I appreciate art in this way myself. But to extend that idea and suggest that it's sufficient to see one work of art in isolation from all other works of art that are contemporary with it strikes me as rather curious. But of course, it's fruitless to argue about the way in which individuals value art. I made my recent point in this thread only to clarify my earlier citing of composers whom, it was suggested, weren't contemporaries of Elgar because not of his generation. Let's leave that where it lies.

There is, however, a troubling inference in your last post which comes in your final three sentences. Do you imagine me to think of Elgar as inferior to other composers whom I cited earlier in this thread? If so, let me make it very clear that I think no such thing. I'm simply challenging the idea (not brought up in this thread by anyone but me, and only then because I'm tired of hearing Elgar hailed as the greatest British composer of the 20th century - something I've heard a lot over the years) that Elgar has a relevance to music of the early Modern period; especially when one hears his music in the context of that of his contemporaries. But if we're arguing for Elgar's relevance to British music of the late _19th_ century, then I'm on the side of those who acknowledge his relative greatness.

You, of course, will argue that all of this matters not a jot. I, OTOH, will argue that this is where you and I must agree to disagree. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> But to extend that idea and suggest that it's sufficient to see one work of art in isolation from all other works of art that are/were contemporary with it strikes me as rather curious.


But this is a different matter altogether. [It's as if we're setting off towards each other to meet on what we think is the same road - and then missing each other, discovering that they were two roads after all.]

I agree that one can't sensibly isolate works of art from the context of their time. (It was the failure to understand that fact which led to the absurd claims about Turner as a precursor of abstraction, for example). That isn't what I thought we were discussing, though. Let me back off and try again.

I agree that to understand Elgar fully, we need to know something of the historical context in which his music was created. My misgivings are not about that, but about making a _value judgement_ on his music based on comparisons with what the next generation did. One can learn something about Elgar by listening to Parry; I'm not sure we learn anything much about Elgar (at least, I don't) by listening to Vaughan Williams. In the same way, and for the same reasons, I can learn a lot about Cezanne by considering the Impressionists, but not much by considering Cubism.

It seems to me that this focus on 'the artist as precursor' leads, itself, to a kind of critical cul-de-sac. Blake's _Jerusalem_ is a window on the infinite; it only looks like a dead-end from the point of view of the Grand Progress of Art (which for me is a kind of critical phantasm).



> I'm simply challenging the idea ... that Elgar has a relevance to music of the early Modern period; especially when one hears his music in the context of that of his contemporaries. But if we're arguing for Elgar's relevance to British music of the late 19th century, then I'm on the side of those who acknowledge his relative greatness.


I don't think I'm clear about the use of the word 'relevance' here. If you mean that Elgar's roots are essentially in the 19th Century, then yes - of course that's true. Elgar is closer to Parry than he is to Vaughan Williams. But if you mean that because of those C19th roots, then _The Spirit of England_ (let's say) isn't relevant to the context of the trauma of the First World War, then I'd be shocked beyond measure by that suggestion. It's an entirely different response to Vaughan Williams's, of course - but that doesn't detract from its value as an artistic utterance of the utmost integrity by a man, raised in the nineteenth century, facing the dissolution of his (and the nation's) hopes and ideals, and rising to meet it in the only way that he can. It seems profoundly relevant - in that context - to me. But like Blake's _Jerusalem_, it can be made to seem like a cul-de-sac.


----------



## Kuhlau

We are, indeed, still misunderstanding each other (how much simpler this would be if we could meet in a country pub in the Malverns and discuss it over some good English ale ).

To address your comment about making value judgements, I don't question the value of Elgar's work if we're discussing it in the context of late 19th century British music, as I've already said. But I _do_ regard his music as playing perhaps a less important role in the development of early _20th_ century British music. Why? Not because of the subjects of his writing, certainly - The Spirit of England was entirely appropriate to its historical context - but because of Elgar's musical _language_. It's _this_ that I'm getting at when I speak of his 'relevance'.

Elgar's contemporaries (not necessarily those of _his_ generation - I note you brought up the generation thing again in your last post) wrote using a language which, to these ears at least, seems to better capture the emotional spirit of the first three decades of the 1900s. Elgar, OTOH, stuck largely with what he knew in his late writings - tethered, it seems, to the musical language of the late 1800s. Now I don't judge him for this. But neither do I value his music as highly as that of, say, Bax, precisely _because_ of this.

Let's face facts: in the early 20th century, Elgar was out of step _musically_ in much the same way as was (and I've said this before) Rachmaninov: both men incapable of going beyond the musical language that began with their forebears. As such, their music was, to some extent, anachronistic when considered in the light of the then-radical changes in art music that were sweeping Western Europe at that time.

Have I made my thinking clearer now?

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> Have I made my thinking clearer now?


Yes. At least, we're back where we were a few posts ago, having explored a few dead ends of our own. We need those pints of beer.



> in the early 20th century, Elgar was out of step musically in much the same way as was (and I've said this before) Rachmaninov: both men incapable of going beyond the musical language that began with their forebears. As such, their music was, to some extent, anachronistic when considered in the light of the then-radical changes in art music that were sweeping Western Europe at that time.


I'm not competent to assess the merits of the radical changes in music that were taking place, but I think I'm happy to accept that by comparison, Elgar's music was anachronistic. I just don't see why it matters. Again, at the risk of being boring, I draw my parallel with Blake who - if the same kind of principles were applied - would lose a lot of marks for not keeping up with the times. If I have to choose between Blake and a set of aesthetic principles that seems to diminish his art, then I'm with Blake every time. Perhaps this is why I don't understand your point about _The Spirit of England_ and Elgar's musical language. (The piece is one of the finest examples of a unified work of art that I know: the musical language seems exactly appropriate to what is being expressed.)

I was reading through what you said earlier, and suddenly picked up on this:


> I'm tired of hearing Elgar hailed as the greatest British composer of the 20th century


Now, it's true that in a moment of exhilaration, at the close of the 1st symphony, I might be inclined to shout out of the window that Elgar is the greatest composer whoever lived; but that would just be an explosion of joy. I'd never seriously suggest that Elgar is the greatest British composer. Indeed, I'd regard as nonsense the whole debate about whether there was a 'greatest' composer of any kind, anywhere, anytime. How do you measure greatness in art? I know it when I see it - but to establish degrees of greatness in art is beyond me. Is Turner a greater artist than Blake? I might as well ask if an oak tree is greater than a steam engine. I can reach any result I want purely by the way I decide on the rules of engagement.

I have an intense love for Elgar and his music, some of which I believe is good enough to stand alongside the great artistic achievements of the world without seeming small, but that's really the only claim I'm making in these discussions. Vaughan Williams, Britten, Bax - these are great composers too, each in his own inimitable and intensely valuable way. (With the exception of RVW, I need to rely strongly on the opinions of others in order to make that statement, but I'm happy to do that). No less than Elgar, they were men of their time, and wrote fine music appropriate to it. We can invent a system of analysis that makes them look better than Elgar, or another system that (maybe) makes them look worse - but I suspect that all we really end up doing is reinforcing our own prejudices.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> I'm not competent to assess the merits of the radical changes in music that were taking place, but I think I'm happy to accept that by comparison, Elgar's music was anachronistic.


I don't think it's a question of assessing (or indeed, being able to assess) the 'merits' of those artistic changes. It's enough to know that they were happening and that certain artists working at the time of their incoming weren't embracing them, and so falling 'out of step' - and possibly, out of fashion, too.



Elgarian said:


> I just don't see why it matters. Again, at the risk of being boring, I draw my parallel with Blake who - if the same kind of principles were applied - would lose a lot of marks for not keeping up with the times.


It matters only to those for whom it matters - namely, me.  And I wouldn't want to bring this down to the level of scoring points. Blake, Elgar and Rachmaninov were all great artists in their own right - a fact that I think is beyond dispute. I've merely sought to contextualise the achievements of Elgar and show that his greatness has its place ... but that that place isn't, arguably, in the 20th century. 



Elgarian said:


> ... I don't understand your point about _The Spirit of England_ and Elgar's musical language. (The piece is one of the finest examples of a unified work of art that I know: the musical language seems exactly appropriate to what is being expressed.)


Now, *THIS IS IMPORTANT* (well, to me, anyway). I'm going to assume you've heard music from all the major academically assigned periods (Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, etc ... ), and that you can, without too much difficulty, distinguish between them if you heard something played but didn't have the CD to hand to furnish you with any details. With such as a given, listen to as much music as you have from the first half of the 20th century - particularly, but not exclusively, British music. What do you notice?

What I'm _hoping_ you'll notice is that the *language* used by most composers writing in that period of history is very different from that of the late 1800s: the period in which Elgar's music has its natural home. His writing never moved on, even when his subjects - like those that informed The Spirit of England and the Cello Concerto - were very much contemporary.

You'll likely accuse me of splitting hairs at this point, but that's the best way I can describe what I hear as an important difference between Elgar's music and that of many of his contemporaries - and the reason why I insist he was treading a step or two behind them.



Elgarian said:


> Now, it's true that in a moment of exhilaration, at the close of the 1st symphony, I might be inclined to shout out of the window that Elgar is the greatest composer whoever lived; but that would just be an explosion of joy. I'd never seriously suggest that Elgar is the greatest British composer. Indeed, I'd regard as nonsense the whole debate about whether there was a 'greatest' composer of any kind, anywhere, anytime. How do you measure greatness in art? I know it when I see it - but to establish degrees of greatness in art is beyond me.


Fret not, dear correspondent: I wasn't suggesting that you were declaring Elgar the greatness of them all. But I have, seriously, heard it claimed that Elgar stands as a leading light of early British 20th century music. Needless to say, I find this a nonsense for all the reasons I've already given.



Elgarian said:


> I have an intense love for Elgar and his music, some of which I believe is good enough to stand alongside the great artistic achievements of the world without seeming small ...


Agreed. 



Elgarian said:


> Vaughan Williams, Britten, Bax - these are great composers too, each in his own inimitable and intensely valuable way. No less than Elgar, they were men of their time, and wrote fine music appropriate to it.


Agreed. 



Elgarian said:


> We can invent a system of analysis that makes them look better than Elgar, or another system that (maybe) makes them look worse - but I suspect that all we really end up doing is reinforcing our own prejudices.


Agreed ... as long as we _also_ agree that neither of us is inventing any such system to try to dispute or exaggerate Elgar's relative 'greatness'. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> I don't think it's a question of assessing (or indeed, being able to assess) the 'merits' of those artistic changes. It's enough to know that they were happening and that certain artists working at the time of their incoming weren't embracing them, and so falling 'out of step' - and possibly, out of fashion, too.


There's a huge difference between us here - in that you see it as important to keep 'in step', but I don't. (If Blake had tried to keep 'in step', we'd have lost him. He wasn't a 'keeping in step' kind of artist.) Nothing more to be said, really, except record our difference.



> And I wouldn't want to bring this down to the level of scoring points.


I don't believe either of us is (like Johnson) 'arguing for victory'. For my part, I'm trying to clarify my own appreciation of Elgar in the light of your comments.



> Now, *THIS IS IMPORTANT* (well, to me, anyway). ... What I'm _hoping_ you'll notice is that the *language* used by most composers writing in that period of history is very different from that of the late 1800s: the period in which Elgar's music has its natural home. His writing never moved on, even when his subjects - like those that informed The Spirit of England and the Cello Concerto - were very much contemporary.


When you say that it 'never moved on', I can't agree. One only has to compare the chamber music with what went before to realise that important - indeed crucial - changes were being made. But the 'moving on' was within the context of Elgar's character as an artist. It was his own kind of 'moving on' - not the kind of 'moving on' that makes reference to innovations that others were making. Elgar sounds like Elgar, and not like Vaughan Williams or Bax. How else would we have it?



> You'll likely accuse me of splitting hairs at this point, but that's the best way I can describe what I hear as an important difference between Elgar's music and that of many of his contemporaries - and the reason why I insist he was treading a step or two behind them.


I don't think you're splitting hairs. I know it really matters to you - but I just can't understand why. Or at least, I can't see why you single Elgar out from other great artists (Blake is the best example, but he's by no means alone) whose careers follow similar paths - particularly when living through times of great change. When Matisse and his friends were inventing Fauvism, Monet didn't stop painting waterlilies and haystacks in order to keep in step. What happened to Elgar happens to great artists all the time.



> But I have, seriously, heard it claimed that Elgar stands as a leading light of early British 20th century music. Needless to say, I find this a nonsense for all the reasons I've already given.


Well, I don't really mind about all this '20th century' labelling, unless it's being used as a stick to beat Elgar with. So ... if we modify that sentence to: 'Elgar stands as a leading light of British music', then I think we have something we can agree on?



> as long as we _also_ agree that neither of us is inventing any such system to try to dispute or exaggerate Elgar's relative 'greatness'.


Oh heavens, I wasn't suggesting that. I meant that analytical systems in art criticism tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. They're invented (though we often don't acknowledge it) to bolster conclusions that have already been reached on intuitive grounds.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> There's a huge difference between us here - in that you see it as important to keep 'in step', but I don't.


Just to be clear, it's important to _me_ that artists generally keep pace with their times (they are, after all, 'historians' in as much as they reflect the years through they lived and worked - something that deeply fascinates me), but not important _per se_. On _that_ balance, we can say that we *agree* on Elgar's relative greatness, but *disagree* on the period to which his eminency belongs. Not vital that we straighten this out, of course, but would you agree this is fair?



Elgarian said:


> I don't believe either of us is (like Johnson) 'arguing for victory'.


Actually, I owe you an apology on this point. Reading back through our correspondence in this thread, I note that at one time I clearly _was_ arguing for some kind of ranking of Elgar among his contemporaries. You've persuaded me that this is unnecessary, so I'm sorry for attempting to do so in the first place. 



Elgarian said:


> When you say that it 'never moved on', I can't agree. One only has to compare the chamber music with what went before to realise that important - indeed crucial - changes were being made.


I do agree with this, but have trouble with the extent (or lack thereof) of such changes. You're right that Elgar's music _did_ develop later on. But I suppose I harbour some measure of disappointment in Elgar for not changing radically _enough_ in response to his turbulent times. That's ridiculous, of course: I've no right to expect anything of any artist from any time. It's just that when I think of how Vaughan Williams continually reinvented his approach to music throughout his career - he was still hugely inventive late into his life - I rather wish Elgar had done likewise. But that's purely subjective.



Elgarian said:


> I don't think you're splitting hairs. I know it really matters to you - but I just can't understand why.


I think this need in me to assess art as part of a wider continuity that reaches back into the past and looks forward to the future is a reflection of my philosophy on life in general. I see nothing in isolation, even if I temporarily _need_ to do so in order to evaluate it initially on its own terms. This is something I do a lot with art: appreciate it first for what it is, then appreciate it all the more richly for understanding it in context. It was mainly in this way that I stopped hearing Schoenberg's music as utter rubbish: I came to appreciate its beauty and recognise its value because I understood where it had come _from_ and what it led _to_. But hey, that's just me. 



Elgarian said:


> So ... if we modify that sentence to: 'Elgar stands as a leading light of British music', then I think we have something we can agree on?


Absolutely. 



Elgarian said:


> Oh heavens, I wasn't suggesting that. I meant that analytical systems in art criticism tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. They're invented (though we often don't acknowledge it) to bolster conclusions that have already been reached on intuitive grounds.


I really *do* agree with this, as I said earlier. Spinning things any which way is very easy to do for anyone with sufficient facts, enough personal conviction (or enough payment from an interested party ) and a talent for presenting a case. I'm sure there are many professional critics whose opinions are driven as much by their preferences as by objective analysis of either the art under consideration, or the techniques employed to produce it.

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> we can say that we *agree* on Elgar's relative greatness, but *disagree* on the period to which his eminency belongs. Not vital that we straighten this out, of course, but would you agree this is fair?


You'll think I'm being awkward, but... I truly don't know whether I agree or disagree about 'the period to which his eminence belongs'. I believe his art reflects pretty much what one would expect from a great artist born in 1857. I certainly wouldn't want to label him as a Modernist, if that's what you mean? He clearly wasn't that - but I don't see that as in any way limiting his achievement. I don't think Modernism in itself is a significant 'achievement', any more than Postmodernism, or any other 'ism'. The individual artists make the great art, not the 'ism'.



> Actually, I owe you an apology on this point.


You don't owe me any kind of apology about anything. This is one of the toughest discussions I've had for a long time, and I've found it very hard to keep a grip on where we were going and why. Let's be easy on each other's wobbles along the way!



> It's just that when I think of how Vaughan Williams continually reinvented his approach to music throughout his career - he was still hugely inventive late into his life - I rather wish Elgar had done likewise.


I think the chamber music _is_ hugely inventive - not inventive in terms of exploring new musical forms (which I'm not qualified to judge), but in terms of successfully expressing what he needed to express. I don't accept that one needs to invent new artistic forms to be a great artist; one needs to have something meaningful to say, and the means to say it. Blake (my hero, again) was using a _very_ old-fashioned engraving technique when he made his engravings to the Book of Job in the 1820s - yet they shine like unquenchable beacons in the world of nineteenth century printmaking. Elgar's achievements are _like that_. If he'd attempted to travel down the 'modernist' path at Brinkwells around 1917-21, then _we would not have_ the quartet, quintet, and violin sonata - not to mention the cello concerto. That's unthinkable. I can't imagine what my life would have been like without the inspiration provided by those pieces of music.



> I think this need in me to assess art as part of a wider continuity that reaches back into the past and looks forward to the future is a reflection of my philosophy on life in general. I see nothing in isolation, even if I temporarily _need_ to do so in order to evaluate it initially on its own terms. This is something I do a lot with art: appreciate it first for what it is, then appreciate it all the more richly for understanding it in context. ... But hey, that's just me.


No, it's not just you. I go along with everything you say here except for two words: the word 'assess' in the first sentence, and the word 'evaluate' in the second. If you'll allow me to choose a word like 'understand' or 'appreciate' in place of the former, and 'engage with' in place of the latter, then I'd be fairly happy to sign up to your manifesto, as you state it there. But 'assessing' and 'evaluating' art is something I've abandoned as fruitless and misleading. This, however, is a whole new ball game, and nothing at all to do with Elgar!


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> I certainly wouldn't want to label [Elgar] as a Modernist, if that's what you mean? He clearly wasn't that - but I don't see that as in any way limiting his achievement.


Neither would _I_ label Elgar as a Modernist - he clearly wasn't one. Which isn't a criticism, nor something that limited his achievements. He can be said to have moved on late Romanticism in British music, but he didn't move on his own music sufficiently to qualify as a Modernist. So while Elgar was a great composer, he wasn't a great _Modernist_ composer.

What I'm arguing for is to have Elgar recognised as a great artist of the late 19th century, not the early 20th century. If you disagree with that, fine. But let's discuss this no further - it's just taking us round in circles.



Elgarian said:


> I don't accept that one needs to invent new artistic forms to be a great artist ...


Neither do I. Indeed, I never said that a composer needs to create *new forms *to be heard as musically inventive. But this _does_ go back to what I was saying earlier about language. Elgar's belonged (largely) to the late 19th century - even when he was composing well into the 20th century among contemporaries who were embracing the language of Modernism.



Elgarian said:


> This, however, is a whole new ball game, and *nothing at all to do with Elgar!*


You're right. But as you queried why I feel the need to see art in context, I thought I'd share it with you. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> You're right. But as you queried why I feel the need to see art in context, I thought I'd share it with you.


Oh yes indeed. I wasn't referring to your post, which was closely related to what we've been saying and to what I was asking. No, I was referring specifically to my abandonment of the notion of 'assessing' or 'evaluating' art. I was reminding _myself_ to draw the line, not you!

I think we have some misunderstanding in these last couple of posts about what we each mean by 'musical language', and by 'musical forms' - and how they relate to Modernism. But I don't think I can cope with unravelling it.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> I think we have some misunderstanding in these last couple of posts about what we each mean by 'musical language', and by 'musical forms' - and how they relate to Modernism. But I don't think I can cope with unravelling it.


Let's try an analogy.

A sonnet is a 'form'. It can be written in Elizabethan English, or modern English - that's the 'language'.

A sonata is a 'form'. It can be written in a Classical style, or a Modern one - that's the 'language'.

Elgar wrote using many well-established 'forms', as do composers writing today. But the 'language' he used in those forms belonged to an earlier period of art music ... even when he was writing during a successive period. This sets him apart from (or behind, IMO) his contemporaries.

Does that help at all?

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> Does that help at all?


In terms of unravelling precisely what we were each saying in the last few posts - I think, no. I think the term 'musical language' is too vague. We each mean something rather different by it - and the difference is virtually impossible to express. So I'm going to opt out of this one.



> This sets him apart from (or behind, IMO) his contemporaries.


But even after all this discussion, here again is this notion of Elgar as being 'behind' his contemporaries, as if suffering in some way from retarded development. I still can't see how that can be said in any meaningful sense. Reverting to earlier analogies I've used (which are central to this issue): was Monet 'behind' Matisse? Was Blake 'behind' Turner? The birthdates of these men are accidents of history, as are (to some degree) the modes in which they choose to express themselves most fully. The development of Elgar's music (with the proviso that he started composing his major works unusually late in life) is neither more nor less 'behind' his contemporaries than that of any other artist whose creative life straddles an epoch of great change. Elgar was an Imperialist, a patriot, and an 'English pastoral mystic', and his music is the perfect vehicle for expressing that vision. What good reason could there be for him to adopt a more 'fashionable' way of composing, without betraying his artistic integrity?

Imagine the absurdity of Monet trying to paint like a Fauve; or Blake trying to paint Turnerian landscapes. But you seem to wish Elgar had done something like that. It entirely baffles me.


----------



## Kuhlau

I think this is where I shall leave this discussion for now, Elgarian.

Despite my best efforts, it seems I've failed to make myself completely clear on my position regarding Elgar and his music. As I don't think I can currently elucidate the matter further in a way that you'd be able to comprehend (a failing on _my_ part, not yours), there seems little point in us retreading old ground.

How about you share your thoughts on Elgar's part-songs? I rather like these, and find The Shower to be one of the most moving pieces of word-setting in all English music. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> How about you share your thoughts on Elgar's part-songs? I rather like these, and find The Shower to be one of the most moving pieces of word-setting in all English music.


I struggle with them a bit, actually. I might even be tempted to describe them as 'old-fashioned', but I think if I did you'd (quite rightly) throw a custard pie at me, so I won't. Seriously though, they're a long way from being my favourite Elgar listening, and my attention drifts away from them very easily. I quite enjoy the mood they create, playing gently in the background, but I'm aware that a comment like that is self-defeating and barely worth making. So I think your thoughts on these will be far more valuable than mine. I'll listen to 'The Shower' again in the meantime.


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> How about you share your thoughts on Elgar's part-songs? I rather like these, and find The Shower to be one of the most moving pieces of word-setting in all English music.


I've been listening to a few of these again, including The Shower (in the Finzi Singers version and in the Cambridge version), but I don't have anything worthwhile to add to what I said before. I'm not much drawn to part-songs in general, as a musical format (they tend to remind me of depressing Sunday evenings from my childhood, with 'Sing Something Simple' on the radio), so I don't think I can sensibly comment on the merits of these. I know some of them are regarded very highly (and I know Elgar himself did so), but you're the man who's in a position to say illuminating things about them, not me.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> ... but you're the man who's in a position to say illuminating things about them, not me.


I'm not so sure about that. 

Let me refresh my memory of them over the Christmas break then I'll report back. 

FK

PS: You might want to check out the first review in my new blog come January 1st 2009. If you've not visited my site yet, here's the URL: www.aneverymanforhimself.com


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> PS: You might want to check out the first review in my new blog come January 1st 2009. If you've not visited my site yet, here's the URL: www.aneverymanforhimself.com


In case Kuhlau doesn't publicise it himself, I'd like to do it for him. He has a review of the Du Pre/Barbirolli _Cello Concerto_ here that makes very good reading, and may well get some of us listening to the CD again.


----------



## Kuhlau

Thank you, Elgarian, for linking to my blog review in your post above. It earned you an automatic place in that review's comments section via the pingback function. And thank you, too, for your kind words. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> It earned you an automatic place in that review's comments section via the pingback function.


Thank you. A pingback function sounds as if it might be painful, but actually I didn't feel a thing.


----------



## Kuhlau

Elgarian said:


> Thank you. A pingback function sounds as if it might be painful, but actually I didn't feel a thing.




I'm sure you won't mind, incidentally, but I've edited your forum post as it appears on my blog _everso slightly_ so that it's optimised for search engines. I'm just trying to generate as much search bot interest in the site as possible in these very early days. 

I did, however, mention my tinkering within the comment concerned, and did you the courtesy of linking to your original post so that anyone curious can see what you wrote. 

FK


----------



## Elgarian

Kuhlau said:


> I'm sure you won't mind...


Indeed I don't. It's of no consequence, but typically considerate of you to mention it.


----------



## Elgarian

Here's something new. Well, new to me, at least.

There's a story, recorded in a letter by the famous contralto Clara Butt, that she was with Elgar on an occasion where the 1st Pomp & Circumstance march was being played; whereupon she reminded him that he'd promised to write her a song with a tune 'like that'. Elgar said something to the effect of 'well, you can have this one' - and so _Land of Hope and Glory_ was born, as part of Elgar's _Coronation Ode_.










Her name comes up from time to time in my reading, but I'd never thought to wonder whether she'd made any recordings - until now. Here below, and for free (love it, or hate it) you can download:

Clara Butt's 1911 recording of _Land of Hope and Glory_

Frankly, I am amazed by it. This is well before the period of electrical recordings, and one imagines Clara and the band, all huddled in a small space, in front of a single acoustic cone. A triumph of modern digital processing, I guess - but also a testament to the skills of the original recording engineers.

All together now: 'Land of Ho-ope and Glo-ry, ....'


----------



## Elgarian

Well well well. In view of my previous post, this seems the appropriate place to post this. I was given this book as a present, today:










Now, that would have been delightful enough in itself, because this is a relatively scarce item, as far as I'm aware. But this copy is a bit more special. Here's what's on the first page:


----------



## Kuhlau

I'm impressed. 

FK


----------



## JTech82

What do you guys think about Sir John Barbirolli's readings of Elgar's orchestral music? They have a box set out on EMI. I'm just curious if it's good or not. I heard he was one of the best interpreters of his music.


----------



## World Violist

JTech82 said:


> What do you guys think about Sir John Barbirolli's readings of Elgar's orchestral music? They have a box set out on EMI. I'm just curious if it's good or not. I heard he was one of the best interpreters of his music.


I haven't heard any of Barbirolli's Elgar, but from what I've heard Barbirolli conducting in general, I can only say that his warm soul and freedom in his conducting are absolutely perfect for Elgar's music. I would get this without hesitation if I were you (and me, really).


----------



## JTech82

World Violist said:


> I haven't heard any of Barbirolli's Elgar, but from what I've heard Barbirolli conducting in general, I can only say that his warm soul and freedom in his conducting are absolutely perfect for Elgar's music. I would get this without hesitation if I were you (and me, really).


Thanks for the advice, Violinist. I actually already bought it for $17! Not a bad deal!

By the way, Barbirolli is one of my favorite conductors and I heard his readings of Elgar are absolutely essential.


----------



## Elgarian

JTech82 said:


> What do you guys think about Sir John Barbirolli's readings of Elgar's orchestral music? They have a box set out on EMI. I'm just curious if it's good or not. I heard he was one of the best interpreters of his music.


I see, reading a later post, that you've already made your decision, and it's a wise one. Look at it this way: included in the box are two justly famous, wonderful recordings: du Pre's version of the _Cello Concerto_; and Janet Baker's _Sea Pictures_, normally issued together on a single disc. So for the price of a single disc (and a budget price at that), you get these works AND fine performances of the two symphonies, _Enigma_, _Falstaff_, _Intro & Allegro_, _Cockaigne_, and so on. Truly, you can't go wrong, and I think you'll get a lifetime of enrichment from your purchase.

Another bargain box, well worth snapping up while it's still available, is the Boult collection of the choral works:










It's slightly more expensive than the Barbirolli box (it's 6 CDs rather than 5), but still an incredible bargain if you want to explore Elgar's choral music - and you get the benefit of a half-hour chat, by Boult himself, about _The Apostles_ and _The Kingdom_ - invaluable for anyone coming to them for the first time, but also just because it's a thrill to have this historical audio document of Sir A. talking about music he loves so much.


----------



## Elgarian

I mentioned the _Sea Pictures_ in my previous post, which reminds me that I came across this tale about them in my *newly acquired autographed* Clara Butt biography last night:

When Clara Butt was living at Hyde Park Mansions, after her return from Paris, her companion, Madame Snella, went to the door one day in answer to a knock, and came in to report that some one had called with some songs, and wanted to show them to her mistress. But it happened that Clara was splashing contendedly in her bath at the time, and said she wasn't coming out to see anyone! Madame Snella came back, evidently impressed, after delivering this message, to say, "Oh, 'Baby' dear, _do_ see him! He's such a nice man, and he says he's got a whole _cycle_ of songs to show you!"

But Clara wasn't abandoning a perfectly good hot bath for all the nice men in London and she shouted back. "I don't care if it's a _bi_cycle! If he wants to see me he must call another day!"
The "nice man", who was Edward Elgar, then quite unknown, came back the next day, and was admitted. As soon as she finished playing his songs Clara realised at once that she had found something after her own heart. She produced the cycle at the Norwich Festival, where it had an immediate success.


----------



## Lang

elgarian said:


> i mentioned the _sea pictures_ in my previous post, which reminds me that i came across this tale about them in my *newly acquired autographed* clara butt biography


  .


----------



## JTech82

Elgarian said:


> I see, reading a later post, that you've already made your decision, and it's a wise one. Look at it this way: included in the box are two justly famous, wonderful recordings: du Pre's version of the _Cello Concerto_; and Janet Baker's _Sea Pictures_, normally issued together on a single disc. So for the price of a single disc (and a budget price at that), you get these works AND fine performances of the two symphonies, _Enigma_, _Falstaff_, _Intro & Allegro_, _Cockaigne_, and so on. Truly, you can't go wrong, and I think you'll get a lifetime of enrichment from your purchase.
> 
> Another bargain box, well worth snapping up while it's still available, is the Boult collection of the choral works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's slightly more expensive than the Barbirolli box (it's 6 CDs rather than 5), but still an incredible bargain if you want to explore Elgar's choral music - and you get the benefit of a half-hour chat, by Boult himself, about _The Apostles_ and _The Kingdom_ - invaluable for anyone coming to them for the first time, but also just because it's a thrill to have this historical audio document of Sir A. talking about music he loves so much.


Thanks for the suggestion of the Elgar choral works, but I will completely honest. I'm more into a composer's orchestral works.

I am glad, however, that I chose a good box set for exploring his work. I know Barbirolli is famous for his readings of English composers, especially Elgar, so I look forward to hearing it.

Thanks again.


----------



## Elgarian

JTech82 said:


> Thanks for the suggestion of the Elgar choral works, but I will completely honest. I'm more into a composer's orchestral works.


Oh sure, I understand that. I spent at least 30 years feeling exactly the same way before - suddenly - the penny dropped.


----------



## Elgarian

Thought I'd post a couple of new photos of Elgar-related interest. This preoccupation of mine may seem odd to the musical purist, but Elgar drew inspiration continually from the Malvern/Worcestershire landscape, and I've found the combination of listening to the music and exploring the place a deeply enriching experience for many years. It works both ways: the landscape makes the music more intelligible, and the music feeds the appreciation of the landscape.

The cottage where he was born might seem to most of us to be of little significance, but Elgar himself was besotted with the place even though he'd only lived there for a couple of years as a toddler, and he used to revisit it as an adult. Here's a photo taken a few days ago:










Jerrold Northrop Moore has put forward an idea that the rollercoaster profile of the Malvern Hills gave rise to a kind of musical analogy, or equivalent, in some of Elgar's compositions - rising and falling themes that mimic the rhythmic movement of the hills. Well, maybe that's fanciful, but the hills are in the music one way or another, that's for sure. I've posted photos of the Iron Age British Camp before in this thread (it's the legendary site of Caractacus, featuring in Elgar's cantata of that name), but here's another - a different view of it. It dominates the skyline for many miles around. Up there, you sense its deep roots.


----------



## Herzeleide

I have both the Boult and Barbirolli EMI box sets and they're both fantastic (and were very cheap when I purchased them  )


----------



## Elgarian

Here's a story about following the Boult trail, and Elgar's 1st symphony. One of the most highly acclaimed recordings of the 1st symphony is Boult's final version, made in September/October 1976 with the LPO. _Gramophone_ give it their top '3 disc' rating, and mark it out with their 'unrivalled' diamond symbol. _Penguin_ give it a similar accolade as a three-star, 'key' recording. And it is marvellous, no doubt about it. It's still available on a budget 2-CD set with the second symphony and some bits:










For a very long time, this would have been my desert island choice for the first symphony. But read on.

Not so long ago, in a charity shop, I chanced upon this:










I bought it for a couple of pounds. It was issued in 2006 with _BBC Music Magazine_ - a recording of a live performance at the Proms with the BBC SO, also in 1976 - a few months before Boult's famous studio recording discussed above.

Now I don't know about the technicalities of these things, but I know what an electric shock is like. This performance _sizzles_ with electricity. The final movement is particularly memorable. You know that magical section where the march theme is transformed, just for a few bars, into a heartbreaking, characteristically English, lyrical outpouring? Well here it's so beautiful, it hurts. And then, as the great theme from the 1st movement returns at last, Boult makes it seem like a triumph of unsurpassable proportions; holding back the tears is almost impossible. There is no programme, Elgar wrote, 'beyond a wide experience of human life with a great charity (love) and a _massive_ hope in the future'. This performance of Boult's delivers, finally, that massive hope: and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

This is now my desert island choice. If I had to give up my various versions of the first symphony, one by one, this is the last one I'd part with.

How you get hold of one, I don't know. I'd never seen one for sale before, and I haven't seen one since. That particular back issue of _BBC Music Mag_ is sold out; the disc can't be bought separately, it seems, unless you stumble across one in a charity shop (as I did) or on eBay. But if you find one, trust me: take it home with you.


----------



## Lang

Thanks for the heads-up, Elgarian.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I have the







recording. I suppose I would prefer this as it's been done in a recording studio away from all the coughs and sneezes of a public performance. In addition, the account of the second symphony is orgasmic!

Bach, you must realise that Elgar is a sequencial writer and large scale works are not really suited to this method. Do not let this tarnish your opinion of the man as his minatures are where the genius shines brightest (much like Grieg). Also, considering he was completly self-taught, it's a wonder he was so natural at putting notes on paper at all! His symphonies took a while to effect me, but when they did it was well worth the effort!


----------



## Elgarian

Edward Elgar said:


> I suppose I would prefer this as it's been done in a recording studio away from all the coughs and sneezes of a public performance. In addition, the account of the second symphony is orgasmic!


Well, I won't disagree with that assessment, EE - that EMI set is full of treasure. And I understand what you mean about the coughs and sneezes (they're undeniably present in the Boult Prom recording). This is the perennial live versus studio dilemma, isn't it? It's certainly possible that if I took this Prom recording to my desert island, I'd start longing for the blemish-free studio version after a while. But as a one-off hearing, or even two-off hearings, it seems to reach places hitherto unreached, which is pretty exciting (and unexpected) for a symphony I've listened to so much for so many years.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Has anyone ever heard Max Reger's Ballet Suite, op.130? When I first heard the Entrée of this suite, I thought, 'Blimey, this is pure Elgar'. It's not so pure, but this proved to me the statement that Elgar's music is heavily influenced with the Germanic Romantic tradition.


----------



## Sid James

Somehow, Elgar's smaller scale works appeal more to me than his symphonies or concertos. I really like his _Serenade for Strings_, for example, and even the _Pomp & Circumstance Marches _(despite the latent jingoism!). I suppose the exception is the excellent _Cello Concerto_, but even that, in terms of time, is relatively short (compared to the symphonies or massive _Violin Concerto_, which should have been edited, in my opinion). In any case, I think he was an excellent minitiarist. Those works are not only accessible, but of a high musical quality.


----------



## Elgarian

Andre said:


> the ... massive _Violin Concerto_, which should have been edited, in my opinion).


Thirty years ago, I felt somewhat the same about the violin concerto; it seemed less accessible than many of the other works, and did indeed seem too long. I used to get particularly impatient during the long cadenza at the end (which of course makes a big contribution to the overall length); now, though, I realise that I never understood what was going on. The cadenza is charged with meaning, but I never used to see it.

I certainly never understood, back then, how deeply intimate this concerto was; how much he was revealing; what was going on in terms of his attitudes to the feminine; what was being contemplated in terms of the interplay between the composer's public face and his private concerns. More than any other work, I think, this one benefits from an understanding of Elgar's biography.

It's a monumental work that's grown with me through a lifetime, and even now I know there's still so much in it left to discover.


----------



## Sid James

Elgarian said:


> Thirty years ago, I felt somewhat the same about the violin concerto; it seemed less accessible than many of the other works, and did indeed seem too long. I used to get particularly impatient during the long cadenza at the end (which of course makes a big contribution to the overall length); now, though, I realise that I never understood what was going on. The cadenza is charged with meaning, but I never used to see it...More than any other work, I think, this one benefits from an understanding of Elgar's biography.
> 
> It's a monumental work that's grown with me through a lifetime, and even now I know there's still so much in it left to discover.


I agree it's worth revisiting, despite the length. The initial theme is one of the most gripping in the repertoire. & what a contrast to the more compact & direct _Cello Concerto_! I think Elgar, like Brahms, was thinking in more symphonic terms when he composed his _Violin Concerto_.

But I have the same problem with it as with, say Brahm's _Violin Concerto _or Shostakovich's _No. 1_. It is just darn too long! I suppose there is a place in the repertoire for more symphonic concertos (I think the only examples I have heard which are enjoyable for me are Brahm's _Piano Concerto No. 1_ or his _Double Concerto_, or Bloch's _Violin Concerto_), but I tend to enjoy the standard length ones of Tchaikovsky, Bartok, Walton, Rubbra & Sibelius somewhat more. I like works in which composers get across what they want in a more limited time. It's more accessible for me.


----------



## Elgarian

Andre said:


> I like works in which composers get across what they want in a more limited time. It's more accessible for me.


Well, if you cut out the cadenza, you'd be left with a work of more standard length - do you think it's the cadenza that's causing the problem? After all, the concerto actually sounds as if it's coming to a conclusion much earlier in the final movement - just before the cadenza begins. But then, quite shockingly, we get the cadenza instead, beginning with that extraordinary thrumming accompaniment on the strings. Once it starts, it's very ... severe; it falters so often; nearly grinds to a halt in places - and it's doing all this after half an hour has gone by, so we're maybe a bit tired by the time we get to it, for something so demanding. But the key to the concerto is in that cadenza, I've come to believe. There's a deep struggle going on, some deep hurt, some consciousness of the feminine principle and its power (which can be both healing and destructive), is being played out between those 'windflower' themes in the cadenza.

There's an immense amount of Elgar locked away in there, and I feel as I've only begun to get to grips with it, even after countless listenings.


----------



## Marco01

*Composer of the week: Edward Elgar*

Here are a collection of five programmes on the life and work of Elgar:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007n9kj/Composer_of_the_Week_Edward_Elgar_Episode_1/

It's on BBC iPlayer so I'm not sure if access is granted outside of the UK.


----------



## Elgarian

Pottering around in an Edinburgh secondhand bookshop last week, I came across a couple of interesting old bits of Elgar memorabilia in the 'lying neglected and forlorn' section of the music room.

















The 'Where Corals Lie' sheet music was, it seems, sold with the enticement 'sung by Miss Clara Butt', which added immediate interest for me (see #106 above). And I must admit that _The Banner of St George_ is not my favourite Elgar by any means, but I couldn't resist the rich cheery blue of this cover. So I brought them home with me for a nominal sum.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> Pottering around in an Edinburgh secondhand bookshop last week, I came across a couple of interesting old bits of Elgar memorabilia in the 'lying neglected and forlorn' section of the music room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'Where Corals Lie' sheet music was, it seems, sold with the enticement 'sung by Miss Clara Butt', which added immediate interest for me (see #106 above). And I must admit that _The Banner of St George_ is not my favourite Elgar by any means, but I couldn't resist the rich cheery blue of this cover. So I brought them home with me for a nominal sum.


Wow, this is very cool Elgarian. I wish I could find memorabilia like this. Do you think it could be worth some money?


----------



## Elgarian

Mirror Image said:


> Do you think it could be worth some money?


I very much doubt it. This particular secondhand bookshop has a specialist music department with a lot of old scores, and if these were worth money, I think they'd know! These two only cost £4 altogether. To most people I guess it's just old junk.

A few years ago I found a similar old copy of Elgar's _Salut d'Amour_ - except that all that remained was the title page; it had come away from the rest of the score, and the rest was nowhere to be found. So I asked the bookseller how much he wanted for just the cover; he laughed and said 'you can have it for nothing'.

Well, it's a really lovely old lithographed cover with an illustration of roses; so I popped it in a frame and hung it in the bathroom, where it looks gorgeous.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> I very much doubt it. This particular secondhand bookshop has a specialist music department with a lot of old scores, and if these were worth money, I think they'd know! These two only cost £4 altogether. To most people I guess it's just old junk.
> 
> A few years ago I found a similar old copy of Elgar's _Salut d'Amour_ - except that all that remained was the title page; it had come away from the rest of the score, and the rest was nowhere to be found. So I asked the bookseller how much he wanted for just the cover; he laughed and said 'you can have it for nothing'.
> 
> Well, it's a really lovely old lithographed cover with an illustration of roses; so I popped it in a frame and hung it in the bathroom, where it looks gorgeous.


Well that's pretty cool, Elgarian. I wish I could find some old Ravel souvenirs like maybe an old score of "Daphnis et Chloe" or a score of Barber's "Violin Concerto." You just something that would look kind of cool behind a large frame.

Keep looking around and you may very well wind up with something worth some money one day.


----------



## Elgarian

Mirror Image said:


> Well that's pretty cool, Elgarian. I wish I could find some old Ravel souvenirs like maybe an old score of "Daphnis et Chloe" or a score of Barber's "Violin Concerto." You just something that would look kind of cool behind a large frame.


I'm sure they'll be around. You need to find a secondhand bookshop with a substantial music section. The trouble with stuff like this is that since there isn't much of a market for it, people tend not to bother offering it for sale, I guess. Or even throw it away because it looks a bit battered.



> Keep looking around and you may very well wind up with something worth some money one day.


Of course if I stumbled across anything really valuable (like an Elgar letter, or something) I'd want to keep it - so it wouldn't really matter what its market value is.


----------



## Elgarian

I originally posted this in another thread, but it seemed to be in danger of being drowned in a mass of off-topic posts, so I'm posting it again here with a few modifications.

I spent a bit of time today dipping into _Oh, My Horses: Elgar and the Great War_, published by the Elgar Society and edited by Lewis Foreman.










It's a well-researched, scholarly volume, and the first chapter ('Elgar's War' by Andrew Neill) is interesting both for the perspectives it gives, and for some of the information that emerges, about Elgar's attitude to WW1 and its effect on his composing. For instance he writes about what Elgar, at the age of 57, confronted when the war began:

"Elgar faced a challenge which, if not dangerous, was nonetheless a demanding one. He had to provide what was required and expected of a major artistic figure during a catastrophe unprecedented in his lifetime and that of his fellow countrymen." That role is one Elgar would take very seriously. The catastrophe was now upon the nation whether he or anyone else liked it or not, and he would see it as his responsibility to respond accordingly.

Neill (rightly, I think) thinks of _The Spirit of England_ as Elgar's requiem, and writes quite a bit about the background to its composition. It was based on three poems by Laurence Binyon, and the project looked uncertain: another composer had already begun to set the words to music and Elgar was reluctant to tread on his toes. But Binyon tried to persuade Elgar that he had a higher duty - and this is how he expressed it, in the letter he wrote:

"Think of the thousands who will be craving to have their grief glorified and lifted up and transformed by an art such as yours. ... Surely it would be wrong to let them lose this help and consolation."

I think it's really interesting to see the approach Binyon used here - playing on the idea that Elgar's music would be of help and consolation to people whose lives had been broken by circumstances beyond their control. There's no notion of jingoism - just the concept of attempting to provide the only kind of support he could. Elgar agreed to go ahead, of course, and the result was one of his greatest works. Neill writes of:

"_The Spirit of England_, the music of the war that he had been destined to write. The public could hear his reaction to a changed world. His response is both angry and sad for the waste, horror and carnage that would destroy the life he knew. Although for 'England', these pieces are for any country and its dead."

This is the truth about Elgar's 'nationalism'. It's based on a deeply-felt sympathy for the sorrows and agonies of his fellow man in the face of catastrophe. I've said it before - but if you want to know the truth about Elgar and nationalism, set aside all the ignorant rubbish that's churned out about 'Land of Hope and Glory', and listen to _The Spirit of England_. It will break your heart and inspire you, both at once.










If you're tempted, here again is my recommended recording: this is _by far_ the best version to buy, at under a fiver on Amazon.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> If you're tempted, here again is my recommended recording: this is _by far_ the best version to buy, at under a fiver on Amazon.


I'm pretty muchg done collecting Elgar now. I have way too many as it is.


----------



## Elgarian

Mirror Image said:


> I'm pretty much done collecting Elgar now.


_The Spirit of England_ is unlike any other work Elgar ever composed, and has been absurdly neglected. But it is of course a choral work, so probably won't be your cup of tea.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> _The Spirit of England_ is unlike any other work Elgar ever composed, and has been absurdly neglected. But it is of course a choral work, so probably won't be your cup of tea.


I have mentioned on many different occasions that I enjoy choral works with orchestral accompaniment, but like all music, whether I like it or not depends on my own musical taste.

I want to preface that I enjoy all kinds of classical music, except for opera. If the music moves me, then I can enjoy it, if doesn't, then I move onto something that I do enjoy.

If you think I would enjoy this recording, Elgarian, then I probably would, because I like Elgar's work. I have a whole box of his choral works on EMI that I enjoy quite a bit.

I actually enjoy chamber music as well, but don't listen to it very much, because I enjoy what composer can bring to a large orchestra. Elgar was a master of orchestral writing and this is where I think his music truly shines. He was also good at writing concerti. His Violin and Cello Concertos are, for me, unmatched in the entire English pantheon of classical music. I would go so far and say that no Englishman has composed a better concerti than Elgar.


----------



## Elgarian

Mirror Image said:


> If you think I would enjoy this recording, Elgarian, then I probably would, because I like Elgar's work.


There's nothing else like it in Elgar's work, so I have nothing to compare it with. It's not the kind of music one can 'like', really - in that I don't think 'like' is the right word to use for the effect it has. It either makes one weep at the folly of war, the waste of life, and the struggle to maintain hope in the face of anguish; or I suspect it would do nothing at all. I really couldn't predict which way it would go for you. But it is the one work of Elgar's - no, the one work by _any_ composer - that I'd take to my desert island, if I could have only one - even though, as you know, I love those concertos you mention with a great passion.

It's a strange paradox, to so love a piece of music that almost always leaves me in tears, with my head in my hands. But that's art for you.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> There's nothing else like it in Elgar's work, so I have nothing to compare it with. It's not the kind of music one can 'like', really - in that I don't think 'like' is the right word to use for the effect it has. It either makes one weep at the folly of war, the waste of life, and the struggle to maintain hope in the face of anguish; or I suspect it would do nothing at all. I really couldn't predict which way it would go for you. But it is the one work of Elgar's - no, the one work by _any_ composer - that I'd take to my desert island, if I could have only one - even though, as you know, I love those concertos you mention with a great passion.
> 
> It's a strange paradox, to so love a piece of music that almost always leaves me in tears, with my head in my hands. But that's art for you.


I would love to hear it sometime, Elgarian. If a piece of music moves you this much it must be very powerful.

By the way, I ordered some Parry:



















I look forward to hearing these works. From the audio samples I heard, they sound really good.


----------



## Elgarian

Mirror Image said:


> By the way, I ordered some Parry:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to hearing these works. From the audio samples I heard, they sound really good.


I'm more familiar with the symphonies than the choral works, but I think you're going to have a good time with those. The important thing is not to expect too much. Approach Parry as an undervalued symphonist and you'll be pleasantly surprised; think of him as an undiscovered genius and you'll be disappointed!

Things to look out for are the lovely tune in the slow movement of the second symphony (you may find it too sentimental, but I love it). In the third symphony, he really finds his voice, and there are all sorts of little bits that may trigger thoughts of Elgar. The fourth too is very fine. For me, that's where he peaks - 2 has the promise, fulfilled in the 3rd and 4th.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> I'm more familiar with the symphonies than the choral works, but I think you're going to have a good time with those. The important thing is not to expect too much. Approach Parry as an undervalued symphonist and you'll be pleasantly surprised; think of him as an undiscovered genius and you'll be disappointed!
> 
> Things to look out for are the lovely tune in the slow movement of the second symphony (you may find it too sentimental, but I love it). In the third symphony, he really finds his voice, and there are all sorts of little bits that may trigger thoughts of Elgar. The fourth too is very fine. For me, that's where he peaks - 2 has the promise, fulfilled in the 3rd and 4th.


I never start out listening to a composer I haven't heard with high expectations. Just my two ears, my heart, and my mind. I'll judge Parry on the same criteria I judge all music: harmony, rhythm, melody, structure, and feeling/emotional content.

If I enjoy Parry, which I'm sure I will, I will purchase more. I'm also really into Howells right now too. A great composer, studied with RVW. I'm really enjoying Richard Hickox's interpretations of Howells' music.


----------



## nimrod3142

What do I think of Elgar? I like Elgar, the man of many talents. He worked his way up from being a shopkeeper's son to being knighted Sir Edward Elgar. He was self taught. He had a great sense of humor and loved "japes" which were incidents of people doing foolish or unintentionally humorous things. He was a scientist who invented an apparatus for making sulfurated hydrogen. It was patented and used in the secondary schools for years thereafter. Elgar was fond of puzzles and created one of the world's most lasting puzzles in his "Enigma." Elgar was determined to never give up the solution and he carried his secret with him to the grave. However after 30 years of wrong guesses, Elgar did leave some cleverly worded hints before he died which have been shown to verify the true solution and confound the many fanciful but incorrect solutions.


----------



## TWhite

I will admit that I haven't heard a lot of Elgar--when I listen to music of British composers I generally turn to either Vaughn-Williams or (more enjoyably for me, at least--) Walton, while joyously ignoring Britten altogether. But lately I've been listening to enough Elgar to make me very curious about him. 

What I've heard is the "Enigma" Variations (and I'm VERY late to this wonderful work, I must admit), the "Crown Of India" Suite, the Cello Concerto, the Serenade for Strings and of course the five "Pomp and Circumstance" marches. And I like them all, very much. It's pretty much whetted my appetite for more Elgar. My next attempt will be the Symphonies, which I understand are either excellent or 'thorny', depending on your ear. But recently I've heard too much about them to continue to ignore them. 

I LIKE the Elgar I've heard. I've heard friends of mine tell me he's too "Germanic" as an English composer, but--excuse me, with all of the referral to Britons as "Anglo-Saxons", why should I be surprised? Anglii is the ancient term for Denmark and Saxony was historically a Kingdom in Germany. I mean, we all came from SOMEWHERE, didn't we, LOL?

Tom


----------



## Serenade

TWhite said:


> I will admit that I haven't heard a lot of Elgar--when I listen to music of British composers I generally turn to either Vaughn-Williams or (more enjoyably for me, at least--) Walton, while joyously ignoring Britten altogether. But lately I've been listening to enough Elgar to make me very curious about him.


Your comments on Britten hold a lot of truth for me as well. I have performed some small Britten which does more than usual (for Britten) to appeal to my love of lyricism but I find him rather too progressive for me in the larger more well known works. I could learn to love some pieces by performance but not through passing acquaintance. I'm sure that says more about me than it does Britten!

I haven't heard nearly enough Elgar but certainly enough to know he's in my top three favourites. I always perk up and listen more intently to any new Elgar (or already known to me) that I may hear. What I do know is performing _Gerontius_ and a subsequant emphasis on Elgar in my final degree year cemented a love of Elgar that i'll never shake (not that I wish to)!


----------



## nimrod3142

Elgar must hold the record for "fooling" the public, 111 years. In 1899, he said there was an "Enigma" in his Variations on an Original Theme. Until this year, no one had figured it out. As it turns out, it was a joke based on creating an "original theme" out of Pi. Yes, Pi, 3.142 or 22/7. The first four notes are scale degree 3-1-4-2! If you are interested, I can show you much more including 22/7 in the first four bars.


----------



## Edward Elgar

nimrod3142 said:


> Elgar must hold the record for "fooling" the public, 111 years. In 1899, he said there was an "Enigma" in his Variations on an Original Theme. Until this year, no one had figured it out. As it turns out, it was a joke based on creating an "original theme" out of Pi. Yes, Pi, 3.142 or 22/7. The first four notes are scale degree 3-1-4-2! If you are interested, I can show you much more including 22/7 in the first four bars.


Mmm, not really Pi though. Pi is 3.14159265. I'm interested to hear what else you have to say on the subject. I was considering the retrograde or inversion of an existing theme, perhaps a Beethoven slow movement because he was very fond of them.


----------



## nimrod3142

*The Enigma (Pi)*

1. Elgar's Enigma Variations (EV) were about his "circle" of friends. Pi is a constant in all circles. Pi is the circumference divided by its diameter.

2. Pi is usually approximated as 3.142 as a decimal or 22/7 as a fraction.

3. The first four notes of EV are scale degree 3-1-4-2, decimal Pi.

4. There is a drop of a seventh in bars 3 and 4.

5. These 2/7 follow exactly after the first 11 notes. ie: 11 x 2/7 = 22/7, fractional Pi.

6. Elgar wrote EV in the year following the ridiculous Indiana Pi Bill of 1897 which attempted to legislate the value of Pi.

7. Elgar wrote that there was a "dark saying that shall remain unguessed." Could that saying be, "Four and twenty blackbirds (dark) baked in a Pie (Pi)?

In a programme note for the first performance Charles A. Barry rendered Elgar's own words:
The Enigma I will not explain - its 'dark saying' must be left unguessed, and I warn you that the connection between the Variations and the Theme is often of the slightest texture; further, through and over the whole set another and larger theme 'goes', but is not played.... So the principal Theme never appears, even as in some late dramas ... the chief character is never on the stage.

8. There are exactly four and twenty black notes (with wings- slurs, or ties) in the first six measures of EV which contain Pi.

9. Elgar wrote that the EV were begun in a spirit of humour.

10. Elgar often said that the enigma was "well known." Pi is taught to nearly everyone as part of a basic education.

11. In 1929 Elgar was 72 years old, in ill-health and many of his friends had died. He probably wanted to leave some confirmation of the enigma's solution since he might not be there to do so. He wrote 3 sentences for release of EV pianola rolls. These three sentences contain 3 hints at fractional Pi.

The alternation of the two quavers and two crotchets in the first bar and their reversal in the second bar will be noticed; references to this grouping are almost continuous (either melodically or in the accompanying figures - in Variation XIII, beginning at bar 11 [503], for example). The drop of a seventh in the Theme (bars 3 and 4) should be observed. At bar 7 (G major) appears the rising and falling passage in thirds which is much used later, e.g. Variation III, bars 10.16. [106, 112] - E.E.

12. In the first sentence he wrote of two quavers and two crotchets- at hint at "22" (of 22/7).

13. In the second sentence he referred to the drop of the seventh in 3rd and 4th bar.

14. In the third sentence he referred to "bar 7" which is a hint at "/7" of 22/7.

15. Elgar was known for his interest in puzzles and his love of japes (jokes).

You can see the first six bars in Wikipedia, Enigma Variations. I tried to paste it but no go.

What do YOU think of this solution?


----------



## Elgarian

nimrod3142 said:


> What do YOU think of this solution?


I think Elgar himself (who as you say, loved his 'japes') would have had quite a chuckle about it.

There have been _so many_ suggestions about the 'Enigma' over the years - all with varying degrees of credibility, but none of them offering anything approaching a clinching finality. Speaking purely personally, I find this one quite a lot less credible than most. Magic number coincidences can be found in almost anything, if one is determined enough, and in this case I'd seriously question the uniqueness of the 'pi' solution.

Anecdotally, the most intriguing 'solution' is perhaps the one described by Dora Powell (herself a Variation, 'Dorabella'), who maintained that during her last meeting with Elgar, he had lied to her when she had asked him if 'Auld Lang Syne' was the 'hidden tune'. (Her husband had figured it out.) Elgar was evasive, and later had emphatically denied it; but Dorabella knew him very well indeed, and was convinced he was lying about it because he didn't want her (or anyone else) actually to solve the puzzle.

I don't say this _is_ the solution; it's just the one that interests me most because of the human element ....

The full story (together with other 'solutions') is related in _An Elgar Companion_, edited by Christopher Redwood (1982)


----------



## nimrod3142

I find it is an interesting aspect of human nature that a person would believe their solution to be correct even though the originator of the puzzle said that it was wrong. Elgar broke off his friendship with Dorabella after she repeated tried to get him to say that Auld Lang Syne was the solution. He should know. He is the one that created the enigma and he is the one that gave three more hints in 1929 after no one had guessed it for 30 years. If Pi is not the solution, then we have a remarkable string of 15 or more coincidences.

What is the "dark saying" in Auld Lang Syne? How does Auld Lang Syne relate to the "drop of the seventh in the 3rd and 4th bars?" Elgar sent Dorabella two letters signed with the first four notes of the EV, scale degree 3-1-4-2. She tried to pry the solution from August Jaeger (Nimrod) but he remained loyal to Elgar and would not reveal the enigma to her. Jaeger is the person who actually penned the word "Enigma" on the original score at Elgar's request. The word "Enigma" is centered directly above the first four measures. Just one more coincidence I guess.


----------



## Elgarian

nimrod3142 said:


> I find it is an interesting aspect of human nature that a person would believe their solution to be correct even though the originator of the puzzle said that it was wrong. Elgar broke off his friendship with Dorabella after she repeated tried to get him to say that Auld Lang Syne was the solution. He should know.


Yes of course. But just as we can point the finger at Dorabella for persisting in an irrational belief in her husband's solution, so we can be suspicious of irrational behaviour on Elgar's part, who most certainly didn't want the solution to be found. (Incidentally, I could easily believe that the whole idea of the 'enigma' was made up by Elgar as a 'jape'.)



> If Pi is not the solution, then we have a remarkable string of 15 or more coincidences.


Speaking purely personally of course, I don't find them remarkable, and I think they are indeed coincidences. As I said in my earlier post, these kind of number games are notoriously misleading. If one is persistent enough, there's such a wide range of choices for selections to be made from, that apparently remarkable coincidences _will_ be found. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a comparable set of coincidences could be found relating to almost any other number. That's the difficulty here - the solution (if there is one) must demonstrate its uniqueness.



> What is the "dark saying" in Auld Lang Syne? ... etc.


All very valid objections, I'm sure. I'm not _defending_ Dorabella's husband's solution - as I said, I merely find the _story_ interesting.


----------



## nimrod3142

*What is worth "defending"?*

Finding the solution to the Enigma would be a step towards defending Elgar's honor which was impuned by Dorabella's claim that he lied to her when he said that Auld Lang Syne was not the solution. An honorable man does not lie and does not continue a friendship with one who accuses him of such. Elgar broke off his friendship with Dorabella after she questioned his honesty. Honor was very important to Elgar and so was his determination to never explain his Enigma. He insured that the Enigma eventual solution could be confirmed even after his death by his notes in 1929 which hint at Pi (22/7) in each of the three sentences. This could all be a coincidence. Chances are probably 1 in 10 billion but it could be just coincidence.


----------



## Elgarian

nimrod3142 said:


> Finding the solution to the Enigma would be a step towards defending Elgar's honor which was impuned by Dorabella's claim that he lied to her when he said that Auld Lang Syne was not the solution. An honorable man does not lie and does not continue a friendship with one who accuses him of such. Elgar broke off his friendship with Dorabella after she questioned his honesty. Honor was very important to Elgar and so was his determination to never explain his Enigma. He insured that the Enigma eventual solution could be confirmed even after his death by his notes in 1929 which hint at Pi (22/7) in each of the three sentences. This could all be a coincidence. Chances are probably 1 in 10 billion but it could be just coincidence.


Well, the difficulty is that we don't have all the facts; we certainly don't have all the facts about what Elgar said to Dora, and what she said to him. And while Elgar was indeed a man to whom honour, and chivalry, and truth were important, he was also subject to certain neuroses that fairly obviously affected his behaviour at times. Heck, I've loved the man and his music for over 40 years, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in almost any situation, but we simply don't know the details of what went on between them when their long friendship seemed to break.

I would urge you though to be careful when you're tempted to quote probabilities of 1 in 10 billion so lightly. The figure is merely invented, as we both know, and it doesn't have any serious considered statistical analysis behind it. To someone who _does_ have some knowledge about statistics, and about the processes of fair statistical testing, being presented with unfounded figures like this doesn't help your case - rather the opposite.


----------



## Sid James

I just heard Elgar's _*Dream of Gerontius*_ on the radio on the weekend for the first time & thought it was very interesting. This is an oratiorio about the journey of a man's soul from death to judgement, with a text by Cardinal Newman. It is pretty dark and melancholic, with quite a bit of dissonance. The baritone seemed to dominate rather than the soprano. I quite enjoyed it, it reminded me a bit of Berlioz's _La Damnation de Faust_. I will probably buy a recording of it sometime down the track...


----------



## jimread

Interesting this bit about the Enigma, there was a programme on R4 about it and where might the theme have come from.

The guy who wrote the prog and did some research said that Ed had said to one of his biker ladies that she of all people should know where it came from.

Ah well thought the guy and eventually working on a hunch, as you do, biked her route from Shropshire where she lived and at one point the Malvern Hills appeared, in a particular way, as they do, looking a bit like a dinosaur, and this guy being a musical sort of fellow suddenly realised that the shape of hills were the notes of the theme.


It is my great pleasure to go there with the hills in sight and listen to the serenade for strings.

Jim


----------



## angusdegraosta

Back to the Violin Concerto...

"I certainly never understood, back then, how deeply intimate this concerto was; how much he was revealing; what was going on in terms of his attitudes to the feminine; what was being contemplated in terms of the interplay between the composer's public face and his private concerns. More than any other work, I think, this one benefits from an understanding of Elgar's biography."

A very fine quote, Elgarian! I love every moment of the Violin Concerto. Each time I listen to it is a learning experience.


----------



## Elgarian

angusdegraosta said:


> Back to the Violin Concerto...
> I love every moment of the Violin Concerto. Each time I listen to it is a learning experience.


I suppose listening to all great music is a learning experience, but in the case of the violin concerto we're learning a lot (among other things) about Elgar himself, don't you think? But the kind of knowledge we gain is _connaitre_ rather than _savoir_ - that is, we don't get to learn more 'facts' about him, but we get to know him as a companion; we share his perceptions; feel something of what he felt. (Or at least, we're persuaded that we do. There's no way of testing the accuracy of the experience scientifically of course!)


----------



## Elgarian

Linden Lea and myself began a conversation in another thread that really belonged here, so I thought I'd patch that conversation into one post here, so we can continue without disrupting the other thread:

*Linden Lea said:*



> I hope/assume you saw the marvellous BBC tv documentary on Sir Edward Elgar a couple of weeks ago? It was most revealing, he was quite the ladies man, or so it seems!


*To which I replied:*



> Indeed. It was the first time I've seen on TV anything like an accurate portrayal of the man and his music; and I was delighted that at last the importance of Windflower (to an understanding of the violin concerto) and Vera Hockman (to an understanding of the third symphony) has been stressed to a wider public. That need to access the feminine runs through so much of his music, and Elgar is one of those cases where a knowledge of the biography really does change the way one listens.


*And he said:*



> Absolutely, I've read a couple of biographies of Elgar, but I learnt so much from that documentary that I really didn't have a clue about, especially regarding his relationship with the women in his life, just shows you can never know everything, it was superb, I recorded it and will be watching it again.


*Whereupon I observed:*



> There's a book by Kevin Allen called _Elgar in Love: Vera Hockman and the Third Symphony_, published in 2000, which is a real eye-opener, and a moving account of Elgar's final few years. It's available at the Elgar Birthplace for £13, or could be ordered from the library, I guess:
> 
> Elgar in Love


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I don't like Edgar*

I just like something by him about the sea, it is sung and beautiful...Other cheezy music I don't like at all.

I don't like very much British nor American except Gershwin...I am not a fan of Vaughan Williams either. English are often phlegmatic. I am not.

Martin...I'm sorry


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*un peuple qui ne sait pas manger...*

ne peut pas faire de la bonne musique...

Martin


----------



## tahnak

*Sospiri*

I heard this for the first time today. It is beautiful.
Sospiri (in Italian meaning Sighs) for Strings, Harp and Organ . Op. 70.
The sighs are indeed elegiac.
It was first performed in August 1914. It is definitely a result of the first world war influence.
Elgar's wife described this bleak adagio as "a breath of peace in a perturbed world." The Adagio is also reminiscent of Gabriel Faure. The main melody enters dissonantly over the harmony and its evolving wide intervals are really evocative of sighing. The long-held final cadence resigns this sensitive, expressive adagio to serenity.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Beautiful

Here is one of my favorites that is similar to the one you posted:


----------



## tahnak

Thanks for posting. It is beautiful. This song is truly the song of the night and typifies contentment and serenity. I liked the video too. George Weldon and the Royal Philharmonic Liverpool have played it really well. 
Sir Edward Elgar is my favourite English composer.


----------



## tahnak

*Elgar's Cello Concerto*





Cello Concerto in E Minor. Op. 85
This was his last great work.
It was composed during the summer of 1919 at Elgar's cottage, 'Brinkwells', in Sussex. The premiere was on 27th October 1919 with Felix Salmond as the soloist and Elgar conducting the London Symphony at Queen's Hall. This performance was not well received. Frankly speaking, the audience did not know their elbow from their knee in appreciating a great work.
This concerto represents the disillusionment Elgar felt after the end of the first world war. This is also an introspective on death.
The Concerto opens with a solemn dramatic adagio recitative in the solo followed by a short cadenza . The violas then present the main theme that Elgar had composed while he was recuperating from a throat operation. The violas then pass the theme to the solo cello. The cello repeats it and then modifies it into a stronger, painful reinstatement. Then, the cello moves into a lighter-hearted and lyrical middle section moderato. The main theme is presented again as a transition and after an impassioned utterance, the movement whimpers before a pizzicato enters into the lento without a pause, later transforming into an allegro molto second movement which is a melancholy scherzo with orchestration of the greatest economy.
In the brief slow movement Adagio, there is still greater economy and solemnity; a continuous solo for the cello.
The finale Allegro Moderato which is a rondo where the excitement of the principal theme is broken by references to earlier themes and particularly to the mood of melancholy that makes this as one of Elgar's greatest works.


----------



## Elgarian

Well, here's a significant piece of news. EMI have recently released a box set of all of Elgar's own electrical recordings of his works (i.e. conducted by Elgar himself during the late 1920s and early 1930s): 9CDs in all, for about £24 depending on where you buy it.










Details and samples here.

I've acquired many of these recordings already over the years, though some have eluded me - and to be able get the whole lot at this low price is a very nice prospect. The general sound quality of these modern transfers is surprisingly good. Modern techniques have eliminated most of the 78 hiss and crackle without significantly affecting the music, and they're very listenable. Among them are some rightly famous performances, including the young Yehudi Menuhin playing the violin concerto and, my favourite of all, Beatrice Harrison playing the cello concerto.

I remember many years ago, BBC Radio 3 devoted a whole week to these recordings - one had to get up early in the morning to hear the broadcasts. I remember sitting there in the cobwebby mornings, day after day of that week, listening to them. It seemed as if he was in the room, somehow.


----------



## Elgarian

My copy arrived this morning, and I must say, it's a treat. I'd assumed it would be a cheapskate production (like the big Elgar and Vaughan Williams EMI 'Collectors' Edition' boxes) but no. Each of the 9 CDs is housed in a substantial and attractive card sleeve, and a thickish booklet included with informative essays on Elgar's recording sessions, on recording processes used in his time, and on the modern techniques used to obtain good transfers.

None of this is actually new - the 'Elgar Edition' of his recordings was issued in the 90s but they'd mostly (if not completely) gone out of print. This is a very fine and affordable way of getting them in all one package. Reading the booklet gave me an answer to a question that I've come across before: did Elgar conduct his works faster than we expect because of the need to squeeze them onto mutliple sides of a 78 record? The answer is in the booklet: almost certainly _not_. He conducted them fast because that's how he wanted them played. There's not a single piece of evidence to suggest that he saw the limitations of the recording medium as a restraint in that regard.

Listening again to some of this music, I'm reminded again that we have the privilege of hearing these recordings in far better quality than Elgar himself ever could. He knew that recorded music would transform the way we listen to music, and it energised him into a remarkably sustained programme of recording his work, as surely HMV's most prestigious recording artist of the time. Apparently they paid him £500 per year to record whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, and however he wanted it. (All this, for the man who managed to persuade himself that no one cared about his music!) The result is that we can have Elgar playing his own work in our living rooms whenever we want.


----------



## Violinnostalgics

To me, Sir Edward Elgar was a very expressive man. (In other words, I am saying that he is a man full of expressions evident in his music.) Although I do not have very much understanding of Elgar's background, but I am sure that he was an awesome musician!  I love his Salut d'armor, a composition composed as a work of engagement to ask his 'then-fiance' for her hand in marriage.

If I'm not wrong, I have often heard from people around me, praising about his cello works which are also pleasant to the ears and soothing to the soul...


----------



## Elgarian

Well, here's something interesting. It was pointed out to me recently that the first-ever recording of Elgar's violin concerto, with Marie Hall as soloist and Elgar himself as conductor, is actually available on CD - but in a most unusual fashion. The CD is basically a recording of Siegfried Sassoon's poetry, but interspersed among the tracks are the four sections of the violin concerto recorded with Marie Hall. They're even in the wrong order! But it's possible to rip them from the CD and then organise them in the right order, skipping the poetry interludes, to get the recording as originally made in 1916. Yes, 1916 - this is an _acoustic_ recording, with a much reduced orchestra and the soloist crowded around an acoustic horn, as here:










For this first recording Elgar had to cut the concerto from its original length to less than half, so that the whole thing would fit onto four sides at 78 rpm. The famous cadenza got a side all to itself, with harps replacing the original string accompaniment (it's an accompanied cadenza) because the strings didn't sound right with the limitations of acoustic recording.

The most striking thing of all, when one listens, is how very different Marie Hall's version is when compared with any other version I know. Very different, even, from the famous Yehudi Menuhin recording made a mere 16 years later (electrically). Presumably this had Elgar's approval at the time - she was his choice of violinist; he'd known her for 20 years. The most striking differences are the almost continual portamento (I hope I've got the right word) - where each note is allowed to slide into the next, rather than being kept distinct; and also the curiously prosaic character of the playing. It sounds almost emotionless at first; notes at the ends of phrases are truncated abruptly, rather than lingered over and allowed to fade gently.

This is not a CD I can recommend as a 'rush-out-and-buy' item, but it's very interesting to hear how much the style of violin playing changed between 1916 and 1932 (Menuhin); and already I've played the thing through several times over, reaching back into a past that sounds very strange and remote. Menuhin, by comparison, sounds bang up to date and modern!

[To get something of the flavour, there are short samples available here. Just pick out the ones attributed to Marie Hall.]


----------



## clavichorder

I'm just getting into his symphonies. I'm not sure how good a representative of Elgar they are, but I find them very complex and Brahmsian, only harder than Brahms.


----------



## Elgarian

clavichorder said:


> I'm just getting into his symphonies. I'm not sure how good a representative of Elgar they are, but I find them very complex and Brahmsian, only harder than Brahms.


They're both representative of Elgar at different phases of his life. The 1st symphony (my personal favourite, and indeed my favourite symphony by _any_ composer) is essentially optimistic. As Elgar said himself (of the 1st symphony), 'There is no programme beyond a wide experience of human life with a great charity (love) and a massive hope in the future'. It's full of wonderful things - there's a particularly lovely moment in the final movement, where a theme which (till then) has been heard as an almost militaristic march is transformed into a ravishingly beautiful passage, as though expressing the idea that 'all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well' - an optimism confirmed later when the _nobilmente_ theme that began the symphony returns triumphantly to conclude the whole work. You can follow it here:






Skip forward to 43.50, when you'll hear the militaristic march, which is developed in various ways, with the music moving restlessly, almost threateningly at times, until at 46.15 we hear the very first faint strains of the reappearance of the great _nobilmente_ theme from the first movement. But that brief taste is enough to change things. When we next hear the march theme, at 46.25, it's been transformed into the new exquisitely peaceful version I talked about above. But the matter isn't yet settled. After 47.30 the restlessness returns, the march is re-established, and maybe (we might think) it was all a false dawn? Not so. At 49.30 there's a herald of yet another transformation, and at 50.00 the _nobilmente_ theme breaks through finally and utterly. This time there's no stopping it, and the symphony ends with a vision full of optimism and hope.

The second symphony is a very different animal, composed by a more disillusioned Elgar, becoming aware of the end of an era and the loss (I suppose) of some of his ideals of chivalry and fellowship. There's a kind of sinister undercurrent. I find it more complex and harder to follow, though the slow movement is particularly heartbreaking.


----------



## Elgarian

Two photos from a recent visit to Elgar's Birthplace. In the garden, the roof of his summer house has recently been restored, and now looks as if it had been constructed yesterday!


----------



## Mesa

Worth a bump again, listened to Symphonies 1 and 2, the Enigma Variations and of course, the Cello Concerto in E Minor in the last few hours.

The first symphony is rapidly approaching my top ten symphonies with each listen. Out of the way, Shosta and Dvorak, a gentleman with an immaculately groomed moustache is charging through.


----------



## Moira

The latest concert I attended used the Enigma Variations instead of a symphony for the evening. It was a most pleasant evening all round, the music being beautiful and played well. 

I have heard the Enigma Variations several times before, but for some reason never read the programme notes - not that there have been any at some of the concerts where only selected numbers have been played, usually 7 (Nimrod) and 12 (Finale). It was interesting to read about it.


----------



## Polyphemus

Have to say I prefer RVW or Walton.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Elgar was a great composer in my estimation. I've always liked him and never "gone off" him, the like of which has happened with regard to several other composers. My collection of Elgar's works is not 100% complete but I have most of it. He wrote music in most genres, which is big plus in my book because that itself implies the possession of a lot of talent. He wrote some wonderful awe-inspiring tunes. And myself being a flag-waving, Tory, "true-Brit" I can't get enough of it, Elgar's music that is. The other English composers I enjoy very much are Walton and Britten. I used to be quite keen on RVV but my enthusiasm has somewhat gone off the boil in recent years. Just one little "plug" for Walton: his wonderful cello concerto is a must-listen. The girl who won this year's BBC Young Musician of the Year competition played this work in the final, and she made a very good job of it.


----------



## cwarchc

I've just bought and listened to Elagars cello played by Du Pre, sublime
I don't think I've heard a better version?


----------



## mtmailey

yes i agree his 5 marches are great to hear my favorites are 1,2,4 -Anthony Payne did a good job on ELGAR'S 3rd symphony but messed up the 4th movement.ELGAR string quarTet & quintet are very pleasing.


----------



## Carpenoctem

cwarchc said:


> I've just bought and listened to Elagars cello played by Du Pre, sublime
> I don't think I've heard a better version?


She did a great job with that concerto, I think it's the best version but Yo - YO Ma also played that out well.


----------



## cwarchc

I have to confess, I'm not Yo Yo Ma's biggest fan
But this is a good rendition.


----------



## Lunasong

Edward Elgar and his dogs.









Elgar and Mina.





 Home movie compilation includes Elgar's dogs Mina and Marco.








Artist: Michael Whittlesea


----------



## Mesa

Yesterday i listened to Jacqueline du Pre's E Minor for the first time in full and intermittently wept for about 10 minutes.

It's good to hear something that reminds me i'm a human being with a beating heart every now and then. Edward, thank you.


----------



## Bradius

Heard his first symphony today (Marriner) - wow!
I've never paid much attention to Elgar before. But after this... I'll checck out more of his works. 
Fantastic!


----------



## Neo Romanza

Bradius said:


> Heard his first symphony today (Marriner) - wow!
> I've never paid much attention to Elgar before. But after this... I'll checck out more of his works.
> Fantastic!


Wait until you hear his _Symphony No. 2_.  If you need any recommendations in Elgar, don't be afraid to ask, we're all here to help.


----------



## Novelette

Bradius said:


> Heard his first symphony today (Marriner) - wow!
> I've never paid much attention to Elgar before. But after this... I'll checck out more of his works.
> Fantastic!


The fourth movement of his first symphony is riveting, a beautiful way to end such an interesting work.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I often walk past the church in Worcester where Elgar succeeded his father as organist in the 1880s - not being Catholic I've never been in there but I might look in one day and see if he is commemorated.

Although I'm fond of most of the output of his that I've heard, I've never been as big an Elgar fan as my user name may suggest but recently I have really been won over by his three later chamber works.


----------



## mtmailey

I agree that is my favorites movement also.


----------



## Bradius

Any recommendations for Elgar's 1st Symphony?


----------



## DaveS

This one.


----------



## ptr

Bradius said:


> Any recommendations for Elgar's 1st Symphony?


If You want something slightly more modern then Mr Barbirolli (which is one of the best there is!) I wholeheartedly recommend Mark Elders newish recordings with the Hallé Orchestra on their own label! (I like and recommend the complete series of Elgar recordings made by Elder and Hallé!)

/ptr


----------



## Neo Romanza

Bradius said:


> Any recommendations for Elgar's 1st Symphony?


Yes, Barbirolli and Andrew Davis/Philharmonia. Also, Adrian Boult both on EMI and Lyrita are very special as well.


----------



## Bradius

Just picked up a 30 CD EMI Elgar collection from Amazon for $47! Not many left. Has Barbarolli on Symphony 1.

http://www.amazon.com/Elgar-Collect...&ie=UTF8&qid=1370811653&sr=1-2&keywords=elgar


----------



## Neo Romanza

Bradius said:


> Just picked up a 30 CD EMI Elgar collection from Amazon for $47! Not many left. Has Barbarolli on Symphony 1.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Elgar-Collect...&ie=UTF8&qid=1370811653&sr=1-2&keywords=elgar


Excellent. A treasure trove of good music awaits you.


----------



## Vaneyes

Bradius said:


> Any recommendations for Elgar's 1st Symphony?


Halle O./Judd (rec. 1990). :tiphat:


----------



## LouisMasterMusic

jhar26 said:


> It reminds me a bit of the Strauss tone poems.


I've never heard Falstaff, but I love the Cockgaine Overture, which reminds me of the Strauss tone poems in one particularly important way; how the orchestra is used. Strauss was a master of that, as was Elgar.

I enjoy several other pieces by Elgar, some of which I'll mention now.

Cello Concerto

Pomp and Circumstance, Op.39 (1 and 4)

Variations on an Original Theme (Enigma)

Introduction and Allegro for strings

This should make it apparent that Elgar is my favourite English composer.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Neo Romanza said:


> Yes, Barbirolli and Andrew Davis/Philharmonia. Also, Adrian Boult both on EMI and Lyrita are very special as well.


I have this twoofer with Andrew Davis. 2nd symphony was recorded very good. Unfortuantely the sound on the 1st disc was not so good.

I also have a recording of Elgar's Violin Concerto with James Ehnes. And Enigma Variations with Paavo Jarvi and Cincinnati Orchestra.


----------



## DavidA

The violin concerto is a remarkable piece, sustaining interest in spite of its length. There are some really good recordings out there which can be had for next to nothing if you look in the Amazon seconds part. 
Heifetz sets a cracking standard though the recording is elderly.
There's also a very good version on Naxos which is pretty extrovert and keeps things moving, which is vital if the piece isn't to drag.
Perlman on DG is phenomenal in technique but misses some of the inner nature of the work - it doesn't help that he is very closely balanced. But certainly worth hearing. 
Best of all is Kennedy. I must confess to finding 'Nige' one of the most irritating of people with his daft get-ups (especially now he is middle-aged) and his affected working class accent. However, nothing can take away from the quality of his playing. The earlier version is really the benchmark while the later one is freer and more rhapsodic. And being an audio experience you don't have to look at Nige in his juvenile clothes or listen to him when he talks. Just hear what he does best - play the violin! Wonderful!!


----------



## DavidA

Mesa said:


> Yesterday i listened to Jacqueline du Pre's E Minor for the first time in full and intermittently wept for about 10 minutes.
> 
> It's good to hear something that reminds me i'm a human being with a beating heart every now and then. Edward, thank you.


The cello concerto was, of course, a requiem for a vanished world after WW1. It was pretty rarely recorded until duPre's version suddenly put it (and her) in the spotlights. It certainly is an example of an artist's instinctive affinity with a work. Sadly it turned out to be the requiem for her own art. Rostropovich never played the work again after hearing du Pre as he said he could never match it. But others have rushed to fill the gap!
Great performances exist of this work but for me du Pre is unbeatable.


----------



## Forte

We're playing the Serenade for Strings in the chamber orchestra at my school.

The 2nd movement is miraculously emotional.


----------



## Vaneyes

du Pre's cello concerto is a consensual great that doesn't disappoint. I can also recommend Cohen/del Mar, also on EMI. :tiphat:


----------



## spradlig

I recommend "In the South" (sorry if this is a repeat)


----------



## Avey

DavidA said:


> Best of all is Kennedy. I must confess to finding 'Nige' one of the most irritating of people with his daft get-ups (especially now he is middle-aged) and his affected working class accent. However, nothing can take away from the quality of his playing. The earlier version is really the benchmark while the later one is freer and more rhapsodic. And being an audio experience you don't have to look at Nige in his juvenile clothes or listen to him when he talks. Just hear what he does best - play the violin! Wonderful!!


Well, if that's not elitist...


----------



## senza sordino

DavidA said:


> The violin concerto is a remarkable piece, sustaining interest in spite of its length. There are some really good recordings out there which can be had for next to nothing if you look in the Amazon seconds part.
> 
> Best of all is Kennedy. I must confess to finding 'Nige' one of the most irritating of people with his daft get-ups (especially now he is middle-aged) and his affected working class accent. However, nothing can take away from the quality of his playing. The earlier version is really the benchmark while the later one is freer and more rhapsodic. And being an audio experience you don't have to look at Nige in his juvenile clothes or listen to him when he talks. Just hear what he does best - play the violin! Wonderful!!


Some years ago, I had the chance to see Nigel Kennedy here in Vancouver perform the Elgar. Mesmerizing, he was thrilling to watch. A couple of women sitting behind me came to see him, and didn't know the program before showing up. One said to the other "I hope he plays the Four Seasons" Couldn't be more different. I preferred the Elgar and so glad he did play that!


----------



## Neo Romanza

BuddhaBandit said:


> Williams is really great, too. I think Elgar and Williams are superior to Britten for orchestral works, but Britten's vocal works (especially the operas, like Peter Grimes) are some of the best in the British canon.


I highly disagree here and I know this post is an older one, but I've got to say that one listen to Elgar's _The Dream of Gerontius_, _The Apostles_, _The Kingdom_, _The Spirit of England_, _The Music Makers_, or _Sea Pictures_ reveals that Elgar had an incredible facility for writing for the voice, which, in my opinion, far outshines any other British composer. Britten shouldn't be ignored and he did, indeed, compose some superb music for voice, but they don't match the melodic genius of Elgar's works. In my opinion of course.

This said, RVW was no slouch either when it came to writing for voices. His _Five Mystical Songs_, _On Wenlock Edge_, _A Sea Symphony_, _Serenade to Music_, _Five Tudor Portraits_, _Dona nobis pacem_ to name a few are magnificent.


----------



## MagneticGhost

I stumbled upon this lovely piece today on Spotify.
And then discovered it's tucked away on Disc 10 of My EMI Collector's Edition Box which I've yet to work my way through.

Grania and Diarmid Op.42










There are no orchestral versions that I can find on youtube of Part 3


----------



## MagneticGhost

Elgar seems to get a mixed reception and I've never understood why. I begin to assume it's the political / nationalistic element that turns people away. But this is something I never latch onto myself in the same way. 
If I could put my feelings into words about Elgar, I don't think I would be able to better this post.
Although I've never been to the Malverns.



Elgarian said:


> I think I may find myself posting quite a lot in this thread, and it's really hard to know where to start. I was sixteen when I first heard the _Introduction and Allegro for Strings_, which music seemed to emanate from a place that was at once deeply rooted within me, yet also seemed to imply that there was some place 'out there' that I needed to find. So I was bound to make my way to the Malvern Hills eventually (though I grew to know a lot more of his music before that), and at first when I arrived there I thought 'this is the place'. And in a strictly biographical sense, of course, the Malvern Hills and countryside are, indeed, 'the place'. But over time I realised that 'the place' was really all of England, and Malvern was a kind of symbolic focus for that. And then again, later, I realised that this 'England' was really only a kind of focus for something still deeper and more profound. (I think it's Gimli, isn't it, at Helms Deep, who stamps on the ground and says something like 'this place has strong bones'? Well, this idea of 'England' seemed to be like that.) So this 'England' itself was not so much a place as an idea - like Blake's 'Albion'. It has nothing to do with nationalism; it's partly, but by no means wholly, to do with patriotism; it has something to do with landscape, but also more than just landscape - something to do with roots, and belonging, and certain kinds of ideals (noble and heroic ideals, some of them), mingled with a kind of indefinable sadness.


My favourite Elgar works

Dream of Gerontius
The Apostles
The Kingdom
Symphony No.2
Cello Concerto
In The South
Introduction and Allegro for Strings
Serenade for Strings


----------



## Neo Romanza

MagneticGhost said:


> Elgar seems to get a mixed reception and I've never understood why. I begin to assume it's the political / nationalistic element that turns people away.
> 
> My favourite Elgar works
> 
> Dream of Gerontius
> The Apostles
> The Kingdom
> Symphony No. 2
> Cello Concerto
> In The South
> Introduction and Allegro for Strings
> Serenade for Strings


I completely understand what you're saying and I don't agree with the mixed reception he seems to receive either. In terms of the political or nationalistic element in his music well I think that's in a lot of composers music whether they purposely put those kinds of ideas into a work or not. I mean even Sibelius wrote patriotic music _Finlandia_ for example. But anyone who judges Elgar based on works like the _Pomp & Circumstance Marches 1-5_ would be doing this composer a great injustice IMHO, because there's obviously much more to Elgar than these works. Anyone interested in seriously exploring Elgar's music would do well to start with a work like _Sea Pictures_. The reason I chose this work is because it shows him in completely different light. After _Sea Pictures_, a listener should then listen to the _Cello Concerto_. After the _Cello Concerto_, they should listen to _Nursery Suite_. The reason I was giving such random suggestions is because it shows that Elgar was a highly complex musical persona. It also shows he didn't stick to one style of composition, but always put his unique stamp on everything he composed. I don't think a lot of listeners realize this about Elgar but careful examination into his oeuvre reveals a man who was multi-faceted and a complete master, which is why he's one of England's greatest composers.


----------



## Neo Romanza

senza sordino said:


> Some years ago, I had the chance to see Nigel Kennedy here in Vancouver perform the Elgar. Mesmerizing, he was thrilling to watch. A couple of women sitting behind me came to see him, and didn't know the program before showing up. One said to the other "I hope he plays the Four Seasons" Couldn't be more different. I preferred the Elgar and so glad he did play that!


Those women who said they hoped Kennedy played _The Four Seasons_ needed to be escorted out of the hall and thrown out on the street. 

This said, Kennedy's earlier performance with Vernon Handley on EMI is outstanding, but, thankfully, there have been several excellent performances of this masterwork. My current favorite is Tasmin Little with Andrew Davis conducting the Royal Scottish National Orch. on Chandos.


----------



## Neo Romanza

MagneticGhost said:


> I stumbled upon this lovely piece today on Spotify.
> And then discovered it's tucked away on Disc 10 of My EMI Collector's Edition Box which I've yet to work my way through.
> 
> Grania and Diarmid Op.42
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no orchestral versions that I can find on youtube of Part 3


There are a lot of little gems scattered throughout Elgar's oeuvre like this. Listen to _Sursum corda (Elevation)_ sometime. This is a pretty short work around 9-10 minutes I believe, but it's quite lovely.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I enjoy the music he wrote when he was inspired like the Cello Concerto, Enigma Variations, Scenes from the Bavarian Highlands, Serenade for Strings, the march at the beginning of the Symphony No. 1 in A-flat. However, both of his symphonies taken as a whole are rubbish.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I enjoy the music he wrote when he was inspired like the Cello Concerto, Enigma Variations, Scenes from the Bavarian Highlands, Serenade for Strings, the march at the beginning of the Symphony No. 1 in A-flat. However, both of his symphonies taken as a whole are rubbish.


I wasn't particularly fond of the symphonies until I gave them multiple listens. It was a long process. I've just now started enjoying _Symphony No. 1_, but _Symphony No. 2_ finally clicked for me two years ago. I would say from the list of your preferred works I cannot stand _Scenes from the Bavarian Highlands_. For me, that work is, to use your word here, rubbish.


----------



## science

Neo Romanza said:


> Elgar had an incredible facility for writing for the voice, which, in my opinion, far outshines any other British composer.


I wonder whether you were considering Renaissance composers when you made this statement.


----------



## Neo Romanza

science said:


> I wonder whether you were considering Renaissance composers when you made this statement.


I should have said outshines any other 20th Century British composer and, no, I wasn't even thinking about Renaissance composers or even any composer from earlier periods when I made that statement.


----------



## Avey

Richannes Wrahms said:


> .... both of his symphonies taken as a whole are rubbish.


I rarely take offense to subjective comments, but I dunno, this does bug me.

Sure, I've spilled my sentiments and discussed my constitutional inflections from *Elgar's* _First_ previously, so I won't again; that may be driving my distaste here. Still, I find comments like these incredibly lame. What does your _finding something rubbish_ accomplish here, particularly in *Elgar's* thread?

I've always felt this forum, in general, was a place of discovery and connection -- i.e. finding new pieces, composers, and emotions to consider. I've never once thought someone's opinion that "some piece of music or composer is _pathetic_ or _weak_ or _rubbish_" contributed to the conversation. To say you don't enjoy a piece, or prefer one over the other is one thing, but to say it's _rubbish_ or _useless_ is wholly different.

These latter characterizations seem wholly beyond our simpleton, relatively untrained melodic tendencies. That is, the majority of us are not in the position to truly critique a piece of music. We only have decibels and rough melodies to work from. For analogy, we aren't justified in telling Rafael Nadal that his tennis match was pathetic and sloppy; or that Linus Pauling failed to consider some chemical structure in his theories; or that Bill Shakespeare's _Twelfth Night_ was unorganized and poorly written.

In sum, these are unfair and unfounded labels, at least coming from one who doesn't practice and experience the life that these others (composers, here) do. Disliking something is vastly different from degrading something -- let's not act like we can justify the distinction because we've simply _heard a lot of music_. That doesn't mean we _understand_ it.

I don't mean to pick on _you_, that your statement in particular is especially horrific (even your successor uses the term); I just see this all the time in the forum and have outgrown my ability to stay silent on it.

The work you pick on is special to me, however, so that's why I spilled over the rim here.

I apologize.

Continue on...


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I should have said "both of his symphonies have good bits, surrounded by R.Strauss's Japanese Festival Music".


----------



## Vaneyes

Re the "rubbish" knock for Elgar's symphonies, I was lukewarm about them, until I found recordings (Judd/1, Handley/2) that looked at them differently. Less pomp.

Unfinished 3 may be the best. For that, I enjoy BBCSO/A. Davis. :tiphat:


----------



## quack

I've just discovered this "specimen of an edifying, allegorical, improving, expostulatory, educational, persuasive, hortatory, instructive, dictatorial, magisterial, inadautory work" (Op. 1,001). Elgar's Smoking Cantata which lasts 40 seconds and is scored for baritone soloist and very large orchestra, including eight horns.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1760559


----------



## Neo Romanza

At the end of the day, I could careless if somebody says Elgar's symphonies are 'rubbish'. They've had continued success in the concert hall and they've been recorded too many times to count. So, in hindsight, for something that's apparently rubbish really translates to a person just not enjoying the music, which is fine by me. There are plenty of people here and abroad that _love_ the music, so reading one, two, twenty negative opinions on how 'bad' Elgar's symphonies are doesn't matter to me one bit in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## moody

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I enjoy the music he wrote when he was inspired like the Cello Concerto, Enigma Variations, Scenes from the Bavarian Highlands, Serenade for Strings, the march at the beginning of the Symphony No. 1 in A-flat. However, both of his symphonies taken as a whole are rubbish.


What a well thought out verdict,there's nothing like joining a music forum to have sensible discussions---don't you think ?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I must have touched a sensitive spot. I could have been more evil by drawing score to score comparisons between R.Strauss's Ein Heldenleben and Elgar's Symphony No.2. Summarizing, like any great composer Elgar has both the best and the worst. 

I'll be less "blasphemous" if that's what it takes to keep peace within the various cults around here.


----------



## hpowders

Hey!! Eddie!!! Ed Elgar!!! Whas up???

How come you wrote this great 45 minute violin concerto and it's like, uhhh....nobody plays it anymore?

I have it with Menuhin and Kennedy. Sounds great to me! Why don't they like you anymore?


----------



## MagneticGhost

hpowders said:


> Hey!! Eddie!!! Ed Elgar!!! Whas up???
> 
> How come you wrote this great 45 minute violin concerto and it's like, uhhh....nobody plays it anymore?
> 
> I have it with Menuhin and Kennedy. Sounds great to me! Why don't they like you anymore?


Maybe this quote can shed some light on to why some don't Elgar. Bear in mind that this is from 1934 when Elgar was living memory.



> The aggressive Edwardian prosperity that lends so comfortable a background to Elgar's finales is now as strange to us as the England that produced Greensleeves and The Woodes so wilde. Stranger, in fact, and less sympathetic. In consequence much of Elgar's music, through no fault of its own, has for the present generation an almost intolerable air of smugness, self-assurance and autocratic benevolence.
> 
> Constant Lambert Music Ho! (London: Hogarth Press, [1934] 1985) p. 240


And then compare to this lovely quote from 1920



> His range is so Handelian that he can give the people a universal melody or march with as sure a hand as he can give the Philharmonic Society a symphonic adagio, such as has not been given since Beethoven died.
> 
> George Bernard Shaw, in Music and Letters, January 1920.


And then my favourite quote which made me laugh out loud...



> Elgar is not manic enough to be Russian, not witty or pointilliste enough to be French, not harmonically simple enough to be Italian and not stodgy enough to be German. We arrive at his Englishry by pure elimination.
> 
> Anthony Burgess in The Observer, 1983; reprinted in his Homage to Qwert Yuiop (London: Abacus, 1987) p. 567.


All collected from wikiquotes.


----------



## KenOC

Re the Constance Lambert quote: Some of Elgar's music can be a bit hard to take. For example, there's the "Crown of India," written for a ceremony in which the British king was proclaimed emperor of India. Admittedly, the words of this paean to imperialism are worse than the music -- so much so that the most popular recording of the piece includes a free second disc without the text.

The words are not by Elgar, BTW.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

KenOC said:


> Re the Constance Lambert quote: Some of Elgar's music can be a bit hard to take. For example, there's the "Crown of India," written for a ceremony in which the British king was proclaimed emperor of India. Admittedly, the words of this paean to imperialism are worse than the music -- so much so that the most popular recording of the piece includes a free second disc without the text.
> 
> The words are not by Elgar, BTW.


Yeah, there's some real textual howlers out there: Franz Schmidt's cantada "Deutsche Auferstehung" (a Nazified, Heideggerian "German Resurrection") and Prokofiev's Leninist "Cantada for the Twentieth Anniversary of the October Revolution" certainly rank up there.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MagneticGhost said:


> Maybe this quote can shed some light on to why some don't Elgar. Bear in mind that this is from 1934 when Elgar was living memory.
> 
> And then compare to this lovely quote from 1920
> 
> And then my favourite quote which made me laugh out loud...
> 
> All collected from wikiquotes.


Regarding Burgess: Oh, 'pleasantly boring' then.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Neo Romanza said:


> At the end of the day, I could careless if somebody says Elgar's symphonies are 'rubbish'. They've had continued success in the concert hall and they've been recorded too many times to count. So, in hindsight, for something that's apparently rubbish really translates to a person just not enjoying the music, which is fine by me. There are plenty of people here and abroad that _love_ the music, so reading one, two, twenty negative opinions on how 'bad' Elgar's symphonies are doesn't matter to me one bit in the grand scheme of things.


Who cares what the howling blockhead mob thinks? Taste by definition IS rarefied.


----------



## hpowders

Like the Enigma Variations and the Violin Concerto.


----------



## Weston

Meanwhile in another part of the world, I was preparing to look up information on Allmusic regarding Elgar's piano quintet before listening. The Allmusic site lists Elgar as:

Artist
Edward Elgar
Classical, Electronic
1890s - 1930s

Electronic? 

Wha? Hmmm? Did I miss something interesting?


----------



## Avey

Happy Birthday, Elgar. I wonder if you ever considered that you could have such a lasting impact on some person 80 years after you passed on. Regardless, a sincere thanks.


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

I played in a lovely orchestral and choral concert on Sunday featuring The Music Makers, along with RVW's Serenade to Music and other works. It was a memorial concert for a prominent Australian conductor and music educator who passed away recently (he was for many years the patron of our orchestra).

At the end of The Music Makers, we transitioned attacca into Nimrod. As the final chord faded away, the bell of the town hall in which we were playing tolled four times - by a complete coincidence, we'd finished the piece right on the hour. The effect was magical.

I hadn't been a great fan of Elgar previously - I don't have any particular love for his cello concerto, for instance, notwithstanding that it's my instrument - and when we started rehearsing for this concert I wasn't particularly enthused about The Music Makers. But I did really come to enjoy the work and performing it was a wonderful experience.


----------



## Lysistratus

Surely the words were a post factum addition to the Pomp & Circumstance March #1 (Holst suffered a similar Hi-jack in the Planets). Elgar, I seem to recall, disliked the words. Mark Elder and David Owen Norris, in a TV doc. on Elgar, showed how far the Pomp & Circumstance marches actually undercut Edwardian jingoism.

To limit the words to a reference to the Boer War (actually widely unpopular), misses the thrust of Edwardian Imperialism, which was often linked with (misplaced) evangelism. Anyone wishing to get the feel of this could try Kipling's Stalky & Co.

Elgar died in 1934, so it seems a bit unfair to blame him for apartheid. Apartheid (not a British idea, the clue is in the name) was a later result of the bankruptcy of the UK after the Second War. The dissolution of the British Empire was one of the American Government's war aims, but such a dissolution was inevitable after the wartime rhetoric. However, the recovery of war loan debts the day after the surrender of Germany meant the UK lacked the resources (and ultimately the will) to prevent the Afrikaners adopting the apartheid constitution. Indeed the whole withdrawal of Empire was a mess. The division of India and Pakistan, and the creation of numerous non-viable African states, not to mention the betrayal of Palestine, all done as the result of a rush to ditch the Empire, without really consulting the locals on the states, structures and institutions that would be viable for them. [End of history lesson. It is hard to see the American war cemeteries in East Anglia, and to contrast the sacrifice of so many Americans with the behaviour of their Government, which was inclined to treat Hitler as a little local difficulty, and a man with whom they could do business, until the likely result of such a policy became clear - he was not developing his rocket programme to threaten the UK, which it did, but to take his revenge on the US for their part in WWI]

It is hard to find a composer in Elgar's period who was not influenced by Wagner. Would you blame Bruckner for Nazism, or Bizet? Wagner was a deeply unpleasant human being, and his treatment of the music of Mendelssohn. Meyerbeer and Halevy amply illustrates this, but his musical influence was ubiquitous, in terms of sound and structure. Also if Wagner is to take the blame that attaches to his enthusiasts, why not Lehar (Hitler's favourite when he wasn't pretending to be highbrow)?

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Adrian Boult, often seen as a champion of Elgar, said that when Elgar is played badly it is the orchestra's fault, when it is played well it's Elgar's fault.


----------



## deprofundis

What is Elgar best symphony, his absolute gem, i want something powerful , not too joyfull because im not a joyful man(lol).Im just discovering Elgar so i really dont know where to start?


----------



## Avey

You only get two (completed) symphonies. Take your pick--scratch that, listen to both. Stop delaying.


----------



## Vaneyes

deprofundis said:


> What is Elgar best symphony, his absolute gem, i want something powerful , not too joyfull because im not a joyful man(lol).Im just discovering Elgar so i really dont know where to start?


I like some things from his completed Symphonies 1 & 2, but overall I actually prefer the "realization" of Symphony 3 by Anthony Payne.

I think Elgar's best orchestration are his Violin Concerto and Enigma Variations, and then pieces for Strings.:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

Any performance of the violin concerto by Yehudi Menuhin, the composer's choice, is fine.
I prefer the Menuhin/Boult recording myself.


----------



## Vaneyes

My apologies. A brain fart occurred re Elgar's "best orchestration"--omitting Cello Concerto. Viola Concerto isn't bad, either. I'll amend by including all his concerti.:tiphat:


----------



## Haydn man

deprofundis said:


> What is Elgar best symphony, his absolute gem, i want something powerful , not too joyfull because im not a joyful man(lol).Im just discovering Elgar so i really dont know where to start?


Symphony 1 conducted by Solti. Hot stuff


----------



## hpowders

I have to listen to that.


----------



## hpowders

Last night I ordered the Elgar First Symphony with Sir Colin Davis and Dresden.

I'm not familiar with it but I like the Violin Concerto and Enigma Variations, so, what the hell!


----------



## GioCar

Deleted - not funny


----------



## Haydn man

hpowders said:


> Last night I ordered the Elgar First Symphony with Sir Colin Davis and Dresden.
> 
> I'm not familiar with it but I like the Violin Concerto and Enigma Variations, so, what the hell!


I don't think you will be disappointed


----------



## hpowders

Haydn man said:


> I don't think you will be disappointed


I don't think so. Like I said, I know Elgar's Violin Concerto and Enigma Variations. I forgot to add the Cello Concerto and Piano Quintet.


----------



## Avey

hpowders said:


> I don't think so.


...and?

Certain music hits you at certain times in your life, and the impact etches in your mind -- your mien, your perspective, your situation, all elements residing at that specific moment in your life remain conjoined with the sound. Elgar's First Symphony was like that for me. I will not rehash my sentiments on the subject, to spare the sappiness.

Random comment, however: I have noticed substantial *Elgar* bashing on this forum, generally (not here in his guestbook). I stay silent most of the time.

So, for posterity's sake, even if written for his fans here in his personal thread, here is one more post _commending _ him for his magnificent (and *distinct*) sound. And especially, why anyone ignores or shrugs off his symphonies is so beyond my comprehension that my sole recourse is to relisten, rehabilitate, and recollect my composure so I may carry on communicating here civilly and respectfully.


----------



## Avey

GioCar said:


> Deleted - not funny


But this was .


----------



## hpowders

Hey Edward. hpowders here.

Who were you writing for-the stuffshirts in first class on the Titanic?


----------



## Vaneyes

Decided to bump this thread with comic relief (review) from The Hurwitzer. Full turn-of-phrase cannon is fired at* Elgar*, Onyx, Petrenko. *

Elgar *happens to be the target here, but it could've been any well-known composer from the 18th to first half of 20th centuries re Do we need another recording of? Though, Classics Today usually finds interest and time to review "extra recordings", if money is right, right? Then wha' happened here?

http://www.classicstoday.com/review/will-always-elgar/


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Vaneyes said:


> Decided to bump this thread with comic relief (review) from The Hurwitzer. Full turn-of-phrase cannon is fired at* Elgar*, Onyx, Petrenko. *
> 
> Elgar *happens to be the target here, but it could've been any well-known composer from the 18th to first half of 20th centuries re Do we need another recording of? Though, Classics Today usually finds interest and time to review "extra recordings", if money is right, right? Then wha' happened hear?
> 
> http://www.classicstoday.com/review/will-always-elgar/





> I have no doubt that if the sun were to die out and there was just enough energy left to launch an interstellar mission to save humanity, the British recording industry would scuttle the whole project to use the scarce remaining resources to record another Elgar series. No sacrifice would be too great.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Avey

--duplicate-_ -_


----------



## Avey

Vaneyes said:


> Decided to bump this thread with comic relief (review) from The Hurwitzer. Full turn-of-phrase cannon is fired at* Elgar*, Onyx, Petrenko. *
> *


*

I have no familiarity with the conductor. I have no familiarity with the recording label. I have no familiarity with the site. I have not heard this recording.

I do know Hurwitz, though, simply by name. I do know Elgar, though, simply by reverence.

So, with that disclaimer, I share my unabashed opinion: I hate to say this, but truly, this is a poorly written review (critique). I think Hurwitz is disclaiming the recording and submitting that the conductor/label has done Elgar an injustice. But honestly, I cannot confirm that. Sentence to sentence, I am lost as to what Hurwitz is positing. All the rhetorical questions, all the adjunct and interrupting clauses -- a real difficult read.*


----------



## Albert7

Your cello concerto is just awesome. I have three versions in iTunes of it. Lovely!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Wrote a nice oratorio.


----------



## Avey

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Wrote a nice oratorio.


Agreed. Lesser known. Fantastic stuff.

Surprised you did not post _Dream of Gerontius_ instead. BUT! You are right, because Elgar allegedly did not want the title "oratorio" put on _Gerontius_.

Though, we then wonder: what do we call it? _Large scale orchestral composition for mezzo-soprano, tenor, bass, and choir_? Whatever. Let's stick with oratorio. Damn the phrasing.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Opinions of Elgar seems to be quite polarised. Many find him boring but others find him intensely lyrical and moving.
I'm firmly in the latter camp and I've been reminded this week how much I adore his music.
I watched a wonderful performance of his Introduction and Allegro for Strings on Sky Arts 2 with an Australian Outfit whose name escapes me. And right now I'm listening to Sol Gabetta playing the Cello Concerto. Comparisons to Du Pre are right on the button.

I think I'll listen to the Dream of Gerontius tonight as well. Britten and Pears do a phenomenal job on that.


----------



## hpowders

Elgar Violin Concerto. Any Menuhin performance is gold.


----------



## Steve Kirby

purple99 said:


> Elgar's music has been hijacked by the political right, similar to the British National Party/National Front/sundry Nazis purloining the Union Jack. Look at this huffing and puffing last year from the Daily Telegraph:
> 
> From the British National Party website:
> 
> So Elgar's a political hot potato, with the far-right claiming him as their own and the establishment, apparently, refusing to fund the old duffer's anniversary. Is that Elgar's fault? Yes and no. No, because he can't be held responsible for how Nazis behave now in relation to his music. Yes, because he chose to set the following words to music. Don't forget he was influenced by Wagner, Hitler's favourite composer.
> 
> Dear Land of Hope, thy hope is crowned.
> God make thee mightier yet!
> On Sov'reign brows, beloved, renowned,
> Once more thy crown is set.
> Thine equal laws, by Freedom gained,
> Have ruled thee well and long;
> By Freedom gained, by Truth maintained,
> Thine Empire shall be strong.
> 
> Land of Hope and Glory,
> Mother of the Free,
> How shall we extol thee,
> Who are born of thee?
> Wider still and wider
> Shall thy bounds be set;
> God, who made thee mighty,
> Make thee mightier yet
> God, who made thee mighty,
> Make thee mightier yet.
> 
> Thy fame is ancient as the days,
> As Ocean large and wide
> A pride that dares, and heeds not praise,
> A stern and silent pride
> Not that false joy that dreams content
> With what our sires have won;
> The blood a hero sire hath spent
> Still nerves a hero son.
> 
> The reference to extending the British Empire's boundaries refers to the Boer War, recently won at the time. So Elgar was celebrating the British military stealing land in Africa and helping establish the apartheid state. You can see why British Nazis like him.


Music isn't right-wing or left-wing, in my opinion. It is either good or bad music! Land and Hope and Glory uses a tune which was "borrowed" from Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March no. 1, which is "just good music".
If we are to condemn Elgar as politically incorrect, let's be consistent and condemn composers who flourished under totalitarian regimes - Kodaly, Prokofiev, Orff , Respighi etc. Also let's condemn all recordings conducted by Herbert von Karajan or Karl Boehm.


----------



## Avey

Let us get real here. Spill the details.

In November 2013, I broke my neck, back, and was set in bedrest for two months -- a cast three months -- without any company or support. I felt quite pathetic, beaten, and generally defeated. I was in law school, felt spry, young, fit, and everything was alright. Then like some cataclysmic shot pinned me down, acknowledging how fragile and physically soft I am.

In this period, I listened to music, as usual. In this time, certain pieces revealed their nature and purpose to me.

Among those, preeminent among others, was *Elgar's First Symphony*.

The silencing of the orchestra in this adagio transfigured (and still manipulates) my worldview. It taught me things, in notes, like _Mahler's Ninth_, that I never noticed in words or illustrations. All this pathos, so many impressions that I am now aware of, and others likely have their own sentiments and reflections too .

Then came the finale. There, the theme culminates, rising to something promising at work. But a martinetish and almost despotic theme takes over. Something cruel and unwelcome enters. The horns try to win over. No. Instead, strings counter with fury. Defeat and pessimism.

All seems lost. But then, trills up in the winds speak to something heroic. Foreshadowing light and success. The horns sending out shots in G octaves, strings parrying with descending runs that grow with every strike, a harp glissando pulling the conflict to a climax, back to our noble theme...

And what else -- the final measures speak for themselves. _Gradioso_, cohering sentiment, *unison*, overcoming something that should have beaten you -- this is powerful, autobiographical, reverent music. This is struggle personified. This is personal.

I am so very grateful he penned such emotion onto staves. If anything got me through, this was it.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Avey said:


> Let us get real here. Spill the details.
> 
> ...


Mate, hope you're good as new now.

For everything else, thanks. Like, seriously, thank you. :tiphat:


----------



## catherinethegreat21

Salut d'Amour. enough said.


----------



## Avey

_Rarely, rarely comest thou, Spirit of Delight!_

I was just relistening to his *Second Symphony* tonight.

A few revelations to comment on:

1. The third movement is without a key. We can say it sits in E_b_ like the work is labeled. But the work should not be labeled so. Like much of the contemporaries at his time, Elgar was writing music that moved and transfigured. The key is irrelevant. The point is what sounds right, not how we can best publish and title it.

2. The finale's coda is perfect. I can recite few other pieces that are so comforting in how they pass. The main theme returns, in utter tranquility. I can imagine that many listeners (or critics?) of that day that revered Elgar's *First Symphony* saw this as subtle and secondary and unimpressive, maybe even weak. I can imagine many felt disappointed in this newly published art.

If so, I realize that time not only heals all wounds, but it cures the defects.

3. I have said this before: How do I interpret the altered number of timpani strokes that appear in the 1st, 2nd, 4th movement? This frustrates me.

4. Mark 86 in the second movement is like the pinnacle of my past four years. Totally personal, I realize, but every time I hear this music, and quite particularly, this very measure, I am put into a place of peace and true joy. Thus, my fascination with the work previously. For now, however, just some specific comments to share.


----------



## brotagonist

I listened to a few of Vaughan-Williams' works recently and, although I plan to hear some of his later symphonies soon, I think he is not the composer I am looking for. I have much more confidence in Elgar, I think  I have a few recordings, among them the Second Symphony (hasn't bowled me over yet), Enigma Variations, Cello Concerto and some others. I also recently listened to his Piano Quintet, which I thought was quite impressive, so I'm thinking that I would be better advised to have a closer look/listen to Elgar.


----------



## Skilmarilion

In case people weren't aware, I thought I'd just mention that: the Elgar 3rd ('completed' by A. Payne) is bloody worthwhile.

I was lucky enough to see this performed earlier in the year, with that being my first listen. What struck me the most in that performance was the scherzo, a movement which really has little relevance to that label. It is delicately scored, with the tambourine playing a prominent role, and is just full of quite lyrical, expressive lines.

The rest of the work is no less impressive.

If you haven't heard this symphony, you really should.


----------



## Avey

A recent article concerning Elgar's music, and the overall mis-impressions based upon his country, his alleged elite audience in the day, and the sad _Edwardian_ label: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/elgar-the-outsider


----------



## Pugg

My late Granddad was such a devotee Elgar fan, he could listen hours on end. 
He always ended (as his cremation ) with Nimrod.


----------



## Mal

Handley/LPOs version of Falstaff just won BBC Building a Library


----------



## Adam Weber

Seeing the Seattle Symphony perform _The Dream of Gerontius_ on December 3rd. Edward Gardner conducting. I'm super excited.


----------



## Avey

Adam Weber said:


> Seeing the Seattle Symphony perform _The Dream of Gerontius_ on December 3rd. Edward Gardner conducting. I'm super excited.


Same. I'll be there too.


----------



## hpowders

The only Elgar I like are the magnificent violin concerto and the wonderful Enigma Variations.


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> The only Elgar I like are the magnificent violin concerto and the wonderful Enigma Variations.


If you haven't, give Judd's Symphony 1 (IMP) a try, and A. Davis' Symphony 3 (NMC, Payne completion). As well, Nash and Coull chamber pieces on Helios.:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> If you haven't, give Judd's Symphony 1 (IMP) a try, and A. Davis' Symphony 3 (NMC, Payne completion). As well, Nash and Coull chamber pieces on Helios.:tiphat:


Thank you, Vaneyes.


----------



## juliante

Just posting to celebrate my discovery of Elgar's symphonies. I have long held off from listening to them, sticking to Enigma Variations where Elgar was concerned. My goodness I am pleased to be exploring them now. I am pleased I held off too - for me, you have to really bathe yourself in this music...previously I tended to need more overt classical structures for longer symphonies. But if you open yourself to the richness of Elgar's symphonies the rewards are profound, for me at least. I could not describe the slow movement of the second any better than The Gaurdian online:


"This music glows with a strange, veiled radiance that is one of the most special sounds a late-romantic composer ever conjured from the orchestra. There's a particular passage of unsettling visionary power (you hear it twice in the movement) in which Elgar simultaneously dissolves and recomposes his orchestra. A long-breathed melody happens somewhere in the strings and woodwinds - even in the score it's difficult to see precisely how and where the tune is being played, such is the richness of Elgar's orchestral writing - but surrounding it is a gossamer tracery of harp lines and of divided violin, viola, and cello parts that glitter and shimmer. The noble outline of the melody is transformed into a much more ambiguous dream-state by an astonishing feat of orchestral imagination, in which colour and timbre become a way of feeling. It's as sensuous a soundworld as Wagner found in Parsifal, it's as precisely heard and ethereally effective as anything in Debussy."


----------



## JosefinaHW

Gerald Finley, _Go Forth Upon Thy Journe_y, _Christian Soul,_ Dream of Gerontius


----------



## MusicSybarite

juliante said:


> Just posting to celebrate my discovery of Elgar's symphonies. I have long held off from listening to them, sticking to Enigma Variations where Elgar was concerned. My goodness I am pleased to be exploring them now. I am pleased I held off too - for me, you have to really bathe yourself in this music...previously I tended to need more overt classical structures for longer symphonies. But if you open yourself to the richness of Elgar's symphonies the rewards are profound, for me at least. I could not describe the slow movement of the second any better than The Gaurdian online:
> 
> "This music glows with a strange, veiled radiance that is one of the most special sounds a late-romantic composer ever conjured from the orchestra. There's a particular passage of unsettling visionary power (you hear it twice in the movement) in which Elgar simultaneously dissolves and recomposes his orchestra. A long-breathed melody happens somewhere in the strings and woodwinds - even in the score it's difficult to see precisely how and where the tune is being played, such is the richness of Elgar's orchestral writing - but surrounding it is a gossamer tracery of harp lines and of divided violin, viola, and cello parts that glitter and shimmer. The noble outline of the melody is transformed into a much more ambiguous dream-state by an astonishing feat of orchestral imagination, in which colour and timbre become a way of feeling. It's as sensuous a soundworld as Wagner found in Parsifal, it's as precisely heard and ethereally effective as anything in Debussy."


The 2nd movement from the 2nd Symphony is in the spirit of Nimrod from the Enigma Variations, perhaps more solemn. That noble and funeral atmosphere Elgar created in there is beyond words. It's something to take off one's hat.


----------



## Dima

I think it could be interesting for British people to know relationship between music of Elgar and Anton Rubinstein.
First of all Rubinstein has his own cycle of 24 secret portrets (as Enigma variations) but for piano (Kamenniy-Ostrov, Op. 10).
Secondly Nimrod is one of heroes of his work "The Tower of Babel" op.80.
But the main thing that music of А. Rubinstein influinced Elgar 
(Elgar noticed in his diaries that he listened concert with Second symphony and opera The Maccabees of Rubinstein, 
but today there is no even recording of that opera, that was known in 19th as one of his main achievments).
Next fragments that you can listen sounds very close in my view.
Fragment of Rubinstein's 4 symphony 3 part and Nimrod of Elgar: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5PQs/yCxMQptqD
And here fragment from Rubinstein's 2 symphony 2 part and also Nimrod: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/LSpa/gGhsDjom1


----------



## CR Santa

We really do have the solution to Elgar's enigma. His genius created his original theme out of an unlikely inspiration for his enigma. The solution is simple and in plain sight as is common in many riddles. He has been accused by some of not having a solution and only teasing people with the suggestion. His integrity was questioned and he broke off all communications with some close friends who questioned his motives. He died without giving the world the solution to one of history's greatest puzzles but shortly before his death, he wrote three sentences about the music that verify the solution. Each sentence contains a confirming hint written in his clever style as to make them appear harmless. I would be happy to discuss if you have any interest.


----------



## CR Santa

Would you be interested in knowing that the enigma has been discovered and it is very clever and simple. I am glad to discuss it.


----------



## CR Santa

If you would like to know the simple solution to the enigma, let me know. I would be happy to share the research with you.


----------



## CR Santa

I think you will be an even bigger Elgar fan when you understand how and why he wrote the enigma variations. I will be glad to share the solution to the enigma if you are interested.


----------



## juliante

My occasional forays into Elgar’s sound world are generally rewarding. None more so than my recent discovery (via the splendid BBC radio 3 program ‘Record Review’) of his Violin Sonata. It is a gorgeous piece, lyrical and frequently quite radiant. Particularly the violin parts. Highly recommended if you have not heard and like chamber duos.


----------



## Rogerx

*Sir Edward William Elgar (2 June 1857 - 23 February 1934)*



Sir Edward William Elgar (2 June 1857 - 23 February 1934)


----------



## perempe

In March No. 3 I can hear Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. Am I mad?


----------



## haziz

The cello concerto is probably one of my favorite 5 compositions by any composer in any genre. The Enigma variations are superb. His concert overtures (e.g. In London Town, In the South etc.) are fine. His symphonies and violin concertos are excellent. The symphonies can run on a bit, but do provide great enjoyment.

I am not a big fan of oratorios and choral music in general, so I almost never listen to those. I would not have listened to his Sea Pictures either, except for it's pairing on Dupre's rendition of his cello concerto, which I adore, therefore I will occasionally let the CD play to it's end. I have only rarely listened to his chamber music.

Overall a great composer, but to be fairly frank I usually listen to the same handful of compositions, over and over again. But then again, that is what I usually do with most composers.


----------



## Janspe

I have always had a curious relationship with the two Elgar symphonies: the 1st one I absolutely _adore_ and it really ranks as one my favourite symphonies, but the 2nd one I find curiously puzzling. It's not that I don't _like_ it, but I find it much harder to follow and challenging to properly grasp. I heard it live once, but that experience did little to change how I feel about the piece - in comparison to my live experience with the 1st, which was unforgettable! I wonder why the 2nd symphony is so elusive to my ears.

There are a few Elgar pieces I've been meaning to explore more properly this year, namely the string quartet and the piano quintet. I've ignored them for long enough!


----------



## golfer72

Ive always like Elgar. the Symphonies and the Cello and Violin Concertos and the violin sonatas are great. The Slow movement from the violin concerto is one of my favorite movements in all of music


----------



## vincula

haziz said:


> The cello concerto is probably one of my favorite 5 compositions by any composer in any genre. The Enigma variations are superb. His concert overtures (e.g. In London Town, In the South etc.) are fine. His symphonies and violin concertos are excellent. The symphonies can run on a bit, but do provide great enjoyment.
> 
> I am not a big fan of oratorios and choral music in general, so I almost never listen to those. I would not have listened to his Sea Pictures either, except for it's pairing on Dupre's rendition of his cello concerto, which I adore, therefore I will occasionally let the CD play to it's end. I have only rarely listened to his chamber music.
> 
> Overall a great composer, but to be fairly frank I usually listen to the same handful of compositions, over and over again. But then again, that is what I usually do with most composers.


Agree with you for the most part. Du Pré/Barbirolli's rendition of the cello concerto's one of my favourite classical albums. Regarding Elgar's choral ouevre, I'd give it a chance again. I'm listening to Barbirolli's _The Dream of Gerontius_ right now. Really impressed with this work, which I had never heard in its completeness. Now I'm curious about Rattle, Boult, Britten...









What's your view of this work? Any favourite version?

Regards,

Vincula


----------

