Elgar's Hillside

[Elgarian Redux]

I am using it merely to talk of music without emotion (a la Bach.)

I think it's this, rather than your comments about academicism, which some of us find difficult. I suspect some people would avoid Elgar because his music is TOO emotional. It's not just down to our individual responses: a great deal of what we know about Elgar tells us he was an emotional composer, who expressed many of his feelings through his music, and those of us who love his music tend to respond powerfully to that. What's puzzling about your comments above is that you find the cello concerto, of all things, unemotional. That baffles me so completely that I don't know how to address the issue at all. Which grinds the conversation to a halt, alas.

Just one last thing: which recording did you listen to? Have you tried the Jacqueline Du Pre/Barbirolli version? She finds so much emotional expression in it that one imagines only a heart of stone could resist.

[Elgarian Redux]

I find eminent adequacy in these words.

And I in these. We may be in a circular loop of verbal adequacy, Karl!

[Karl Henning]

I am using it merely to talk of music without emotion (a la Bach.)

I appreciate the added color on your impression. I'll just say that I hear a great deal of emotion in the Cello Concerto. as you say, we each hear differently.

[lordlance]

I think it's this, rather than your comments about academicism, which some of us find difficult. I suspect some people would avoid Elgar because his music is TOO emotional. It's not just down to our individual responses: a great deal of what we know about Elgar tells us he was an emotional composer, who expressed many of his feelings through his music, and those of us who love his music tend to respond powerfully to that. What's puzzling about your comments above is that you find the cello concerto, of all things, unemotional. That baffles me so completely that I don't know how to address the issue at all. Which grinds the conversation to a halt, alas.

Just one last thing: which recording did you listen to? Have you tried the Jacqueline Du Pre/Barbirolli version? She finds so much emotional expression in it that one imagines only a heart of stone could resist.

One must also remember that I don't find the cello most pleasant of instruments to listen to as a solo instrument.

It was this video: https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/work/679-2

[Elgarian Redux]

One must also remember that I don't find the cello most pleasant of instruments to listen to as a solo instrument.

Ah well, that's another matter entirely. I can't stomach the harpsichord, myself.

Anyone can dislike the cello concerto for all sorts of reasons - of course they can, and I don't have any difficulty in understanding that. That's not what puzzled me. It's the 'unemotional' critique that is baffling (and incidentally, flies in the face of all we know about the circumstances of the composing of the cello concerto, with all its elegiac associations).

Of course if all you mean is that you just dislike the sound of the cello, then there's no more to say. Try the violin concerto, maybe?

[DavidW]

I hear a great deal of emotion in the Cello Concerto. as you say, we each hear differently.

I don't think that music contains emotion.  Rather the music may evoke feeling in the listener.  It sounds like a subtle distinction, but is the difference between describing a listener's response to music, and attacking the music itself.

[Karl Henning]

I can't stomach the harpsichord, myself.

Tangentially, the occasional attempt to listen to recordings of harpsichord used always to prove unsatisfactory. But then, I became friends with an organist who also plays harpsichord. I went to a recital he played on the latter instrument (mostly to be a supportive friend) The experience of hearing the instrument live in the space was entirely different, and since then I've been practically a harpsichord enthusiast. Don't know if that would work for you. You may not have a harpsichordist friend for one thing. In my case, I was quite astonished at the turnaround.

[Roasted Swan]

I don't think that music contains emotion.  Rather the music may evoke feeling in the listener.  It sounds like a subtle distinction, but is the difference between describing a listener's response to music, and attacking the music itself.

This is the old "music cannot mean anything" debate.  However - my feeling is; if a composer tries to convey an emotion - which clearly many composers have - if the intended emotion is evoked in the listener then I think it is fair to say that the music "contains emotion".  Of course depending on the culture the way this is done is by using musical gestures/signposts that that culture associates with certain emotional responses.

[DavidW]

This is the old "music cannot mean anything" debate. 

No it is not.  Too reductive.  I'm just saying that lordlance means to say that he wasn't moved by the piece, but he expressed himself poorly.  I don't hold the stance that music can't mean anything, nor was I trying to start a debate on the topic.

[lordlance]

Ah well, that's another matter entirely. I can't stomach the harpsichord, myself.

Anyone can dislike the cello concerto for all sorts of reasons - of course they can, and I don't have any difficulty in understanding that. That's not what puzzled me. It's the 'unemotional' critique that is baffling (and incidentally, flies in the face of all we know about the circumstances of the composing of the cello concerto, with all its elegiac associations).

Of course if all you mean is that you just dislike the sound of the cello, then there's no more to say. Try the violin concerto, maybe?

The VC was worse xD

[Karl Henning]

Well, on the bright side, the fact that you've found two pieces you hate means you're not afraid to listen outside your comfort zone. 

[Elgarian Redux]

The VC was worse xD

Well then, here we have the answer to our riddle. It seems that you simply don't like what Elgar's music offers. That's perfectly reasonable.

I would just add that I think we do have to engage with a work fairly thoroughly before we can judge it properly. For example, my own dislike of Verdi's operas disqualifies me from saying anything useful about his music: my opinions on Verdi are just statements about my own personal taste - that is, they are really about me, not about the music.

Moving on, I'm not sure it helps to ask whether the emotion is in the music or in the listener, but it does help (at least, it helps me) to know something of the composer's intentions. In the case of the cello and violin concertos, we do know that Elgar was attempting to express something of his own very deep emotions in a musical form, and so (one supposes) he was anticipating that a sympathetic listener would be moved by what he hears.

[Elgarian Redux]

Tangentially, the occasional attempt to listen to recordings of harpsichord used always to prove unsatisfactory. But then, I became friends with an organist who also plays harpsichord. I went to a recital he played on the latter instrument (mostly to be a supportive friend) The experience of hearing the instrument live in the space was entirely different, and since then I've been practically a harpsichord enthusiast. Don't know if that would work for you. You may not have a harpsichordist friend for one thing. In my case, I was quite astonished at the turnaround.

Actually Karl, I have made some progress in that respect, largely through listening to a lot of Handel. Like it or not, if one listens to a lot of Handel, one will trip over the harpsichord from time to time! That drip, drip, drip of exposure eventually wore me down somewhat! (Just look at all these appalling mixed metaphors!)

But I do still smile at Sir Thomas Beecham's comment about the harpsichord sounding like a heap of skeletons rattling in a cupboard....

[Elgarian Redux]

I don't think that music contains emotion.  Rather the music may evoke feeling in the listener.  It sounds like a subtle distinction, but is the difference between describing a listener's response to music, and attacking the music itself.

You're right of course. In Susanne Langer's philosophy, music is a 'symbol of feeling'. The composer, under the influence of his own emotion, creates a symbol, which ideally, when we contemplate it, enables us to experience his emotion too.

Of course we can't be sure that our experience of contemplating the symbol is the same as the one experienced by the composer. But to be honest, I don't actually think about all this when I'm listening.

[DavidW]

Well, on the bright side, the fact that you've found two pieces you hate means you're not afraid to listen outside your comfort zone.

Ha!  I read The Daily Stoic everyday and today's entry was literally about that... re-contextualizing that kind of negativity into positivity.  I get to enjoy boldly exploring music instead of I listened to music I didn't like.

[Karl Henning]

You're right of course. In Susanne Langer's philosophy, music is a 'symbol of feeling'. The composer, under the influence of his own emotion, creates a symbol, which ideally, when we contemplate it, enables us to experience his emotion too.

Of course we can't be sure that our experience of contemplating the symbol is the same as the one experienced by the composer. But to be honest, I don't actually think about all this when I'm listening.

The old parable: six of us sit in a circle. In the center of the circle burns a candle. We all see the same candle, but no two of us see the same thing. And one of the six is the chandler. 

[Karl Henning]

Actually Karl, I have made some progress in that respect, largely through listening to a lot of Handel. Like it or not, if one listens to a lot of Handel, one will trip over the harpsichord from time to time! That drip, drip, drip of exposure eventually wore me down somewhat! (Just look at all these appalling mixed metaphors!)

But I do still smile at Sir Thomas Beecham's comment about the harpsichord sounding like a heap of skeletons rattling in a cupboard....

And my latest Handel enthusiasm has been the Keyboard Suites which, as with Bach, I love whether played on piano or harpsichord. 

[Elgarian Redux]

The old parable: six of us sit in a circle. In the center of the circle burns a candle. We all see the same candle, but no two of us see the same thing. And one of the six is the chandler.

That's a lot shorter, and clearer!

[lordlance]

Well, on the bright side, the fact that you've found two pieces you hate means you're not afraid to listen outside your comfort zone.

I am not sure what my comfort zone would be in classical. Most new pieces are always an investment. It's about ratio of hits-to-flops really when trying new music and hoping you get lucky... But it's hard...

I would just add that I think we do have to engage with a work fairly thoroughly before we can judge it properly. For example, my own dislike of Verdi's operas disqualifies me from saying anything useful about his music: my opinions on Verdi are just statements about my own personal taste - that is, they are really about me, not about the music.

Well... yes... That was never in doubt, was it? In art, there are no high priests decreeing the worth of what's good or not. It's all subjective and hence, I wrote what I did about Elgar being dull. Now, I will say I don't like Enigma either but the reason I tried the concertos was spurred by Elgar 2 intriguing me intellectually by its sheer length and scope. 

[Spotted Horses]

You're right of course. In Susanne Langer's philosophy, music is a 'symbol of feeling'. The composer, under the influence of his own emotion, creates a symbol, which ideally, when we contemplate it, enables us to experience his emotion too.

I don't think of it as an "ideal" that we experience the same emotion as the composer, and I think it probably rarely happens. How a composer motivates him or herself to invent beautiful music is none of my business. Of course, there is music which has an overt program, Beethoven's 6th, Strauss' Alpine. If the program notes are really required, it is a detriment to the music, in my personal view.