# Elgar's Symphony 2 - your opinion



## Isola (Mar 26, 2008)

I'm totally unfamiliar with this symphony but since I may go to see a concert of it I thought I should do some homeworks - youtubed a bit, not sure if I like it. What do you guys think about it and how would you rate it?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I much prefer his 1st in every way. The heart of the 2nd symphony I suppose is the slow movement, but I prefer the slow movement from the 1st.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

It's not an easy symphony. The 1st is my favourite symphony (by _anyone_), but I still find the second symphony quite 'difficult' even after many years, and I can't quite click into place with it. I tend to find myself lost at times, unsure of where I am in the scheme of things, and of how I got there. However, the slow movement is magnificent, I think; it can be enormously moving, and is full of pain and loss, all delivered of course with that underlying 'nobilmente' attitude that is usually there or thereabouts with Elgar.

Generally I find that people with a deeper understanding of music than I have tend to find it more satisfactory than the 1st; as if the 1st is a bit too 'obvious', while the second demands more commitment from the listener, but rewards it, when given.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> It's not an easy symphony. The 1st is my favourite symphony (by _anyone_), but I still find the second symphony quite 'difficult' even after many years, and I can't quite click into place with it. I tend to find myself lost at times, unsure of where I am in the scheme of things, and of how I got there. However, the slow movement is magnificent, I think; it can be enormously moving, and is full of pain and loss, all delivered of course with that underlying 'nobilmente' attitude that is usually there or thereabouts with Elgar.
> 
> Generally I find that people with a deeper understanding of music than I have tend to find it more satisfactory than the 1st; as if the 1st is a bit too 'obvious', while the second demands more commitment from the listener, but rewards it, when given.


Some people say they like the 2nd more, but I wonder if they say that just to be different and to champion the piece that is less in the limelight. The 1st was hugely popular from the start, the 2nd not so much perhaps. I think the 1st does have complexities, the first movement for example. The Scherzo like movement of the 2nd I don't find as intricate as the one in the first symphony either. Certainly the first has some big tunes and a triumphant finale with the last movement but is that really a bad thing? It seems snobbish for someone to say it's too obvious, they might as well say Tchaikovky's 5th is too obvious or Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

starry said:


> It seems snobbish for someone to say it's too obvious, they might as well say Tchaikovky's 5th is too obvious or Beethoven's 5th.


Indeed, but I haven't heard anyone _say_ that - I was just guessing at a possible reason. I always did find the 1st symphony very easy to enjoy, even on first listening - it's a very accessible symphony. But I do know a number of people who (very sincerely) favour the second, all of whom generally have a deeper insight into music than I do.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

It's quite accessible but obviously not for someone starting out in classical music. The first movement is the most difficult and might take time for some people to digest, it has quite a few ideas. And the slow movement has quite a long melodic line I suppose alongside some contrast.


----------



## violadamore2 (Mar 6, 2010)

I drown in the romanticism of Elgar and can hardly choose between them.

to hear a really great orchestra, live or in recording, play either of them is a treat for me.
Try just listiening to either Elgar symphony and don't worry about connecting or understanding; just get a tan in the glow.....


----------



## Isola (Mar 26, 2008)

Thank you all for the input. If I get to see the concert, will duly report back.


----------



## Jules141 (Nov 20, 2009)

I getting into the second. The first is my favourite definately, the second is taking longer to get into; but there are so many wonderful moments, particually in the first movement. I LOVE the opening, its so proud.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadamore2 said:


> I drown in the romanticism of Elgar...


Me too, I tend to connect more with his chamber works...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I agree that the second symphony opens memorably with its first notes, more so perhaps than the 1st. But obviously that's not enough for me. I can't really just let the music wash over me, I like to be more involved than that.


----------



## Huge (Dec 24, 2006)

Funny, I was listening to this JUST this morning.

I prefer his 1st, because it's "easier to listen to".... sorry, that makes me sound like a pleb, but I LOVE the 1st and 2nd movements of the 2nd.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

I like the Second symphony a lot. The 3rd movement Presto/Rondo is among my favorite pieces by Elgar; terrific sequences, lots of devilishly unpredictable melodies, though at first it is pretty daunting (esp. with the passing thematic links with the first movement). 2nd movement Largo is beautiful, hardly unapproachable music. Definitely recommend it!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Falstaft said:


> I like the Second symphony a lot. The 3rd movement Presto/Rondo is among my favorite pieces by Elgar; terrific sequences, lots of devilishly unpredictable melodies, though at first it is pretty daunting (esp. with the passing thematic links with the first movement). 2nd movement Largo is beautiful, hardly unapproachable music. Definitely recommend it!


Maybe the third movement is technically clever and has energy but still not quite the heart for me that the equivalent movement has in the 1st. The slow movement I already mentioned is arguably the high point of this symphony for me.


----------



## angusdegraosta (Jun 5, 2010)

The First and Second are equally good in my book. The First should be performed more, as should the Second. The Second takes time to appreciate. The first movement got me seasick at first, but I grew to understand its logic and charm. Its themes are quoted quite a lot in the middle movements. I love the finale and the quiet, reflective way it closes. I also like the way Vernon Handley augments the finale bass line with pipe organ pedals on the EMI Classics for Pleasure 1980 recording. Elgar suggested it could be done when available; it makes a big difference, even if its only during a few measures of music.

So I'd say the First is powerful and the Second is a beauty. Anthony Payne's working of the Third I haven't heard yet.


----------



## jives11 (Jun 20, 2010)

I love the Elgar 2nd - I think it is his greatest work. While it could not have been composed by anyone else, it has some really dark moments that don't easily fit with the popular image of Elgar - composer to the Empire. Each movement has a sort of dark shadow moment, hard to define, but it would be with me on my Desert Island. There are many good recordings - I have the Boult and the Handley versions - both fine


----------

