Elgar Concerto Showdown: the "Violin Concerto" vs. the "Cello Concerto"

[Mirror Image]

I recall reading in Time Magazine a paper about the forthcoming oscar night, version 1993. The author (Corliss ?) was weighing the pros and cons of each major nomination. Regarding Anthony Hopkin's chances for his roles in  Remains of the Day he wrote "Pro: could play a repressed Englishman in his sleep". Then "Con: could play a repressed Englishman in his sleep"

I guess when it comes to Elgar it's exactly as MI puts it: emotional extremes in Elgar's music are a part of the fabric and cannot be pointed out via a theme, gesture or musical figure of style.

That's why we love our Elgar, don't we ? 

This is true. These emotional extremes in Elgar aren't jarring or off-putting. They're seamless transitions.

[71 dB]

I listened to Bean/Groves a few days ago and I found the performance very wrong. The orchestra doesn't work at all. The sound quality is crap. Elgar's "shimmering" is nowhere to be found. I panicked. Has Elgar's VC become boring to me? Now I am listening to Dong-Suk Kang/Adrian Leaper on Naxos and all the "shimmering" is there! The sound is good if not excellent. Bean/Groves simply doesn't work for me.

[amw]

First time I have listened to this composition

This listen was in part due to Elgarian's advocacy of this work, here (and presumably elsewhere). It's an interesting piece and one I'll probably listen to again. There was a lot that reminded me of Sibelius, including structure (the first movement gives the appearance of being a free fantasy), melodic material (unprepossessing sometimes to the point of ugliness, which however gives it a "homemade" quality something prettier couldn't have achieved) and motivic development (shapes recur and grow, but in a non-obnoxious way). There were also a few Mahlerish moments—mostly how on rare occasions the flow of the music will be briefly interrupted for a glimpse of something of great purity (often something that, if it were allowed to continue beyond four bars, would become trivial). And now I know where Walton stole pretty much all the good ideas in his violin concerto from. The only thing reminding me of the Elgar I know is the orchestration, which as usual is beautiful.

I'd tend to agree with whoever said it possessed a certain amount of nostalgia and, I guess, melancholia, more in the temperament sense than that of actual depression. (It's quite a happy and upbeat piece in many respects, but it's the happiness of a person with a fundamentally melancholic & introverted temperament, as opposed to that of an anxious person, or a contented & slow-living one, or an extraverted & energy-generative one or whatever? does anyone know what I mean?)

edit: anyway i voted for it over the Cello Cto, my opinion on which is also "sorta like it" but I've never found quite as much to say about it so this one gets precedence

[Mirror Image]

I listened to Bean/Groves a few days ago and I found the performance very wrong. The orchestra doesn't work at all. The sound quality is crap. Elgar's "shimmering" is nowhere to be found. I panicked. Has Elgar's VC become boring to me? Now I am listening to Dong-Suk Kang/Adrian Leaper on Naxos and all the "shimmering" is there! The sound is good if not excellent. Bean/Groves simply doesn't work for me.

What's wrong with your ears is often right with another person's ears. I often wonder how much time you spend with performances that sound wrong to your ears because I have written off performances in the past only to find years later that I now enjoy these performances immensely. Tastes do change over time.

[71 dB]

What's wrong with your ears is often right with another person's ears. I often wonder how much time you spend with performances that sound wrong to your ears because I have written off performances in the past only to find years later that I now enjoy these performances immensely. Tastes do change over time.

For that reason I keep Bean/Groves in my collection. Who knows, maybe 10 years from now I like it?

Next I will try out Tasmin Little/Andrew Davies.

[Elgarian]

I listened to Bean/Groves a few days ago and I found the performance very wrong. The orchestra doesn't work at all. The sound quality is crap. Elgar's "shimmering" is nowhere to be found. I panicked. Has Elgar's VC become boring to me? Now I am listening to Dong-Suk Kang/Adrian Leaper on Naxos and all the "shimmering" is there! The sound is good if not excellent. Bean/Groves simply doesn't work for me.

I remember about a couple of years ago there was a discussion on GMG about the seminal effect of the very first version of a piece of music that we hear, and its effect on the consequent development of our attitude to other versions. It's possible that just as Bean burned his performance deep into my psyche (because for years it was all I had), Kang has done the same for you.

I remember pretty clearly the first time I heard Kang's recording (it was the second one I owned), and my impulse was very similar to your response to Bean's: 'this is all wrong!' It wasn't of course - but it was certainly very different, and at first I just couldn't accept it. I felt that Kang was wayward and Bean was 'the truth'. But I was way off the mark. It took a couple more listenings for me to realise that Kang's was, on its own terms, a brilliant exposition of the VC.

Since I started acquiring more recordings of it, I've never heard what I felt was a poor performance of the VC, apart from Hilary Hahn's (and even then I accept that I'm probably just not listening to it with enough open-ness, because I know she has staunch advocates). I have preferences of course (I squirm a bit if I hear what seems to be virtuoso flashiness for its own sake), but I've never heard a recording of the VC that seemed less than satisfactory.

[71 dB]

I remember about a couple of years ago there was a discussion on GMG about the seminal effect of the very first version of a piece of music that we hear, and its effect on the consequent development of our attitude to other versions. It's possible that just as Bean burned his performance deep into my psyche (because for years it was all I had), Kang has done the same for you.

Yes, it is possible. As I have told, that Naxos CD was my first Elgar CD. Before it I had only heard The Enigma Variations, Salut d'amour and Pomp and Circumstance March No.  1 on radio. Hearing Enigma on radio had been such a revelation. I strongly believed Elgar could become my favorite composer. After hearing that Naxos disc for the first time I knew Elgar is the real deal, perfect classical music for me. So, that disc is very important for me. I think it is a fine disc. Even the Cockaigne overture is played wonderfully with sonic sparks.

However, Maria Kliegel on Naxos never made a deep impact on me and that was my first performance too. For the Cello Concerto I had to hear Jacqueline du Pré/Barbirolli in order to get a feel of the greatness of that work.

I remember pretty clearly the first time I heard Kang's recording (it was the second one I owned), and my impulse was very similar to your response to Bean's: 'this is all wrong!' It wasn't of course - but it was certainly very different, and at first I just couldn't accept it. I felt that Kang was wayward and Bean was 'the truth'. But I was way off the mark. It took a couple more listenings for me to realise that Kang's was, on its own terms, a brilliant exposition of the VC.

It's not Mr Bean's playing that bothers me (however, Rowan Atkinson's playing might bother me!). It's the sound quality (I believe they could have done better in 1973) and the orchestra. Maybe Bean is too loud compared to orchestra? The feeling I have is I can't make sense of what the orchestra is doing behind Bean. I felt it was difficult to find the right crossfeed level for headphones. That is one indication of an unhealthy recording. Good recordings have clear spatial information (just too strong for headphones => spatial distortion) and finding the correct crossfeed level for headphones is easy.

Since I started acquiring more recordings of it, I've never heard what I felt was a poor performance of the VC, apart from Hilary Hahn's (and even then I accept that I'm probably just not listening to it with enough open-ness, because I know she has staunch advocates). I have preferences of course (I squirm a bit if I hear what seems to be virtuoso flashiness for its own sake), but I've never heard a recording of the VC that seemed less than satisfactory.

I have these:

    Dong-Suk Kang / Polish NRSO / Adrian Leaper / Naxos 8.550489
    Yehudi Menuhin / London Symphony Orchestra / Edward Elgar / Naxos 8.110902
    Pinchas Zukerman / Saint Louis Symphonic Orchestra / Leonard Slatkin / RCA
    Kennedy / London Philharmonic Orchestra / Handley / EMI
    Hugh Bean / Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra / EMI
    Tasmin Little / Royal Scottish National Orchestra / Chandos SACD

It's been long time since I listened to Zukerman/Slatkin. I remember it being very good (at least sound quality-wise)