Elgar's Hillside

[Elgarian Redux]

Anyway, I'm off to listen to Elgar!

I call that downright sensible.

[71 dB]

I listened to the new BIS release of Elgar's music for Violin and Piano on Spotify. The impression I got from this is that Ulf Wallin and Roland Pöntinen have not perfected Elgar's idiom nor do they display deep understanding of what Elgar's music is about. They didn't seem to get all the nuances of the music. As such the performances on this release aren't my "go to" versions, but they aren't bad either. The Violin Sonata was difficult for the players. the shorter/simpler works are better.

As for the sound on this release, I would have liked a more intimate and less reverberant sound myself for this kind of passionate/romantic chamber music, but I have to say the low end of the Piano is recorded perfectly! Violin is perhaps just a little too loud/present compared to Piano, but nothing serious. I wonder how the soundstage is in 5.0. I listened the stereo version only on headphones...

The main problem with this release for me is I didn't get the feeling that Pöntinen/Wallin are really into this music. I could be wrong, but that's what I feel.

[Roasted Swan]

For no particular reason I dug out this disc today;



For a full-on, virtuosic Romantic approach to the concerto Zuckerman is still as good as any I reckon.  By no means the only way to play this extraordinary work and probably not my favourite recording - other soloists find more of the mercurial/elsuive Elgar lurking beneath the technical display but I do like this performance.  Barenboim is an impressively committed Elgarian and of course the LPO know the piece inside out.  Barenboim's "In the South" very good too with a bold sense of sweep and drama.  But then an "In the Moonlight" intermezzo that is just beautiful understated and tender.  OK so this work is Elgar at his most unrepentently Straussian but heck he does it well.  The old CBS/Sony recording is not exactly top drawer by any means but actually perfectly good and the music surges out excitingly.  I wonder if Sony would ever do a remastered Barenboim conducts Elgar bargain box?  All of his 1970's recordings certainly bear rehearing and he did nearly all of the key orchestral works back then.....

[Roasted Swan]

I find Andrew Litton to be a very fine conductor in a wide range of repertoire.  On the evidence of this disc;



the sorrow is he has not recorded more Elgar (he remade the Enigma for BIS in Bergen and did a violin concerto - replacing Marriner on Avie).  But this disc is genuinely excellent - an exciting "in the South", a tender "String Serenade" and a suitably colourful and exciting "Enigma".  All with the RPO in very fine form and excellent production and recording.  A disc that can be found cheaply in the usual online marketplaces.  Obviously the repertoire is likely to duplicate but certainly worth hearing.

[Roasted Swan]

Yesterday a revisit to this very familiar and often-enjoyed disc;



This famous recording divides Elgar fans as much as any.  Is it thrillingly dynamic and exciting or over-driven?  As a good example of the listener's subjectivity, I would say I have usually occupied the former camp but yesterday - who knows why - I simply found the 2nd Symphony too hectic and impatient.  "In the South" remained wonderful, combining muscularity and reflection perfectly.  What remains remarkable throughout is both the quality of Decca's classic analogue engineering - now over 50 years old but still superb - and the brilliance and commitment of the LPO's playing.  It is easy to think that modern orchestras are superior to those of the past but on this form the 1970's LPO is the equal of any.

Probably the next time I listen, I will love the symphony performance all over again........

[Irons]

Yesterday a revisit to this very familiar and often-enjoyed disc;



This famous recording divides Elgar fans as much as any.  Is it thrillingly dynamic and exciting or over-driven?  As a good example of the listener's subjectivity, I would say I have usually occupied the former camp but yesterday - who knows why - I simply found the 2nd Symphony too hectic and impatient.  "In the South" remained wonderful, combining muscularity and reflection perfectly.  What remains remarkable throughout is both the quality of Decca's classic analogue engineering - now over 50 years old but still superb - and the brilliance and commitment of the LPO's playing.  It is easy to think that modern orchestras are superior to those of the past but on this form the 1970's LPO is the equal of any.

Probably the next time I listen, I will love the symphony performance all over again........

I find the performance rushed but in defence of Solti he claimed that he studied Elgar's recording extensively prior to making his own.
Out of interest I compared timings of both with Elgar at 14.33, 12.59, 7.55 & 12.20 and Solti coming in at 15.25, 15.40, 7.45 & 12.30.
Well aware not the whole story as allowances be made for formats and recording conditions in 1927 compared to the 1970's. Also, more to a rushed performance then just clock watching.      

[André]

For most elgarians the two symphonies are the composer's most remarkable works. For some it's the violin concerto. For me it's the two included in that historical set.

The cello concerto is played here by Paul Tortelier. Critics usually rate Du Pré / Barbirolli as the best ever (it's a great performance) but this one stands out even more imo. It's bold and brave as well as searching and highly dramatic. I read reviews that spoke of it as 'classic' vs Du Pré's 'romantic' account. If by classic they mean adhering to established patterns, then I don't quite agree. Sargent and Tortelier take the work by storm from the get go. It's breathtaking in its intensity form first note to last. It's not as well engineered (1954 mono) but the clarity and range of the recording are superb nonetheless.

When it comes to Gerontius, I find myself making columns of + and - next to the following entries:
- conducting
- singing (chorus)
- singing (Gerontius)
- singing (Angel)
- singing (Priest and Angel of Agony)
- sound recording

Sargent's account is quite special, not at all what I had expected. It's a reference recording for many and has been reviewed hundreds of times. The conducting is quite fast in places, there's an urgency to the performance that is almost operatic - certainly not churchy by any means. To me, Sargent's conducting stands out for its accent on drama, forward motion and incredible ear for detail: this 1945 recording (produced by Walter Legge) unveils all sorts of details in the orchestra, in particular in the brass and winds.

Then, there's the singing of Heddle Nash. I realized in the second part what he was doing with his part: this is a two-sided Gerontius, as implied in the libretto:

- In the first part he is a dying man in his last hours on this Earth:

'Tis this strange innermost abandonment, This emptying out of each constituent And natural force, by which I come to be (...) and I fain would sleep, The pain has wearied me. . . . Into Thy hands, O Lord, into Thy hands. . . 

- The second part has him referred to as the 'soul of Gerontius'. A huge change has taken place:

I went to sleep; and now I am refreshed. A strange refreshment: for I feel in me An inexpressive lightness, and a sense Of freedom,

.

There are two very different voices for Gerontius, a distinction not often brought out to its full extent by most tenors. I have 11 versions of this work and it's the first time I hear this Gerontius' 'abandonment', 'emptying out', 'wearied by pain' translated so well in purely vocal terms. Conversely in the second part, the 'refreshment', the 'inexpressive lightness', 'sense of freedom' are obvious, the singer sounding at least 20 years younger. This is masterful. Nash's diction is a tad precious but in a sense it adds to the performance's distinctiveness.

- The Angel here, Gladys Ripley is very far in vocal terms from the standard established by Janet Baker, or deeper altos like Maureen Forrester. She is a very soothing Angel indeed, the voice creamy and the manner tender, consoling. Her big moment (the top A at Alleluia) is fine but not as overwhelming as Baker's.

- This performance has two singers for the bass roles, an option not often chosen on records. The Priest is an officiant, his contribution to the story perfunctory (the Latin recitations), while the Angel of Agony is a much more powerful, intimidating character. That is nicely carried out by both basses.

- The chorus is very good, but I've heard more dynamic Demons and for my taste the Choir of Evangelicals' 'Praise to the Holiest' does not awe as it should. It's one of the most stirring utterances ever penned. I didn't quite get the goose bumps I usually have at that moment.

As mentioned, the sound is old but good in terms of range and clarity. I never felt I had to consider it in a different (lower) category from other performances on this account. The concerto (1954) is in excellent mono sound.

[Karl Henning]

Probably the next time I listen, I will love the symphony performance all over again......

I admit I do simply enjoy Solti's recording of the symphonies.

[JBS]

@Andre
Did you ever hear Barbirolli's other recording of the Concerto?


It's not quite as good as DuPre, but I suspect that had the DuPre not existed, it would be far better known.

[I have it because it's in Warner's big Barbirolli box.]

[71 dB]

Considering Elgar is my favourite composer, I find it difficult to participate in this thread. In the end my relationship with Elgar's music is personal. I have had my own Elgar journey which perhaps differs a lot from other people. I may have less in common with other Elgarians that I have assumed. When, how and why you have fallen in love with Elgar's music dictates what kind of Elgarian you are. As a Finn who listened to mainly electronic dance music before getting into classical music in the late 90s I have my own style of being an Elgar nut. 

In the past I wanted to "promote" Elgar as the greatest composer of all time, but I am a different person today. I understand 1000 times better how people have different tastes/preferences and I tend to concentrate on my own taste instead. I don't even care about what other people think about the music I like. That's liberating, but it also ostracises me from the community.

In general I am not someone who listens to dozens of performances of a given piece of music, but I do have and know many performances of works by Elgar. However, most of the time the performances talked about here are not familiar to me, or I have heard the performance 20 years ago once remembering absolutely nothing about it now.

It seems almost the only way for me to post here is to make this kind of personal posts. In retrospect I feel my relationship with classical music was the healthiest and most rewarding in the distant past when I wasn't discussing about it online. Once I joined the classical online community, I started to doubt myself: Am I listening to the "correct" performances? Am I even listening to the "correct" composers and works? Do I understand and know anything about classical music?

[Hitch]

@71 dB Do not doubt yourself. If you find some music enjoyable and some not, you are correct to do so as you have your own tastes and preferences. There is no need to worry about your music choices; nor should you feel obliged to contribute to this forum unless you really wish to.

When it comes to classical music, my ignorance is boundless. I am almost grateful for that lack of knowledge because it means that all of music history is before me, waiting to be explored. To adapt a chess proverb: "Music is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe."

With music, the discoveries never seem to end. Nearly every week, I encounter a composition that makes me think it's the best piece of music ever written; a few days later, the same thing occurs again. What a source of joy. There are always new works, composers and recordings to savour or discard as one sees fit. With regard to Elgar, it was only recently that I heard his beguiling andante from Dream Children, Op. 43. It was yet another dusty corner of classical music that rewarded me richly for visiting it.

I'm sure Edward Elgar would be delighted and flattered that you continue to relish his works so many years after they were written.

[71 dB]

@71 dB Do not doubt yourself.

That's the golden rule for sure, but everyone doubt themselves. It is fundamental part of human psychology. It is normal. The question is how to manage it.

If you find some music enjoyable and some not, you are correct to do so as you have your own tastes and preferences. There is no need to worry about your music choices; nor should you feel obliged to contribute to this forum unless you really wish to.

Yes, agreed. I just feel I don't contribute that much in a thread dedicated to my fav. composer. Posting what I said above is my way of analysing the situation and to come into terms with how things are. Other members can also see how I feel about being here and comment of that as you just have.

When it comes to classical music, my ignorance is boundless. I am almost grateful for that lack of knowledge because it means that all of music history is before me, waiting to be explored. To adapt a chess proverb: "Music is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe."

Someone might be an expert on Liszt and someone else on Haydn while being ignorant on Alwyn and Tunder. What life has taught to me is that I do have some expertise on certain things, but one should be careful about where the are of expertise starts and stops. Having massive expertise on Haydn's String Quartets for example doesn't mean expertise on Dittersdorf's String Quartets. Not only does classical music offer practically endless field for discovery. Other genres of music offer so much as well. If we consider all music in the World, we all are ignoramuses in respect to it all. Lifetime is not enough to gather expertise on ALL music. Someone who is almost entirely into classical music may have a very good knowledge of it, but how about glam rock or bossa nova?

Nearly every week, I encounter a composition that makes me think it's the best piece of music ever written; a few days later, the same thing occurs again. What a source of joy. With music, the discoveries never seem to end. There are always new works, composers and recordings to savour or discard as one sees fit.

For me the first few years of exploring classical music (the last years of the 90s) were like that. It was great time. In time I started to feel less and less impressed by new works, but of course there have been big discoveries. About 10 years ago it was Weinberg who became one of my favourite composers. Around the same time I got into contemporary classical music and a lot of it surprised me positively, but those "the best piece of music ever written" moments are pretty much gone. The bar is so high at this point in my journey.

With regard to Elgar, it was only recently that I heard his beguiling andante from Dream Children, Op. 43. It was yet another dusty corner of classical music that rewarded me richly for visiting it.

Nice! For me as an Elgarian, his music is not just the well-known "big" orchestral works, but also the richness of the charming smaller scale works which offer so much joy to me.

I'm sure Edward Elgar would be delighted and flattered that you continue to relish his works so many years after they were written.

[Der einsame Einsiedler]

Considering Elgar is my favourite composer, I find it difficult to participate in this thread. In the end my relationship with Elgar's music is personal. I have had my own Elgar journey which perhaps differs a lot from other people. I may have less in common with other Elgarians that I have assumed. When, how and why you have fallen in love with Elgar's music dictates what kind of Elgarian you are. As a Finn who listened to mainly electronic dance music before getting into classical music in the late 90s I have my own style of being an Elgar nut. 

In the past I wanted to "promote" Elgar as the greatest composer of all time, but I am a different person today. I understand 1000 times better how people have different tastes/preferences and I tend to concentrate on my own taste instead. I don't even care about what other people think about the music I like. That's liberating, but it also ostracises me from the community.

In general I am not someone who listens to dozens of performances of a given piece of music, but I do have and know many performances of works by Elgar. However, most of the time the performances talked about here are not familiar to me, or I have heard the performance 20 years ago once remembering absolutely nothing about it now.

It seems almost the only way for me to post here is to make this kind of personal posts. In retrospect I feel my relationship with classical music was the healthiest and most rewarding in the distant past when I wasn't discussing about it online. Once I joined the classical online community, I started to doubt myself: Am I listening to the "correct" performances? Am I even listening to the "correct" composers and works? Do I understand and know anything about classical music?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter that someone owns this many recordings of a work that you know like the back of your hand. What matters if how you feel about the music and whether it still resonates with you. It seems like Elgar is your musical soulmate and this something to feel proud of, because not everyone has the fortune to find their musical soulmate or that one composer that they respond more than any others.

Do not doubt yourself. You're on a musical path that is completely your own and I think it's more fruitful to just enjoy the ride than to analyze something until it zaps your enthusiasm for the music. Let it all go, my friend and love what you love.

[Roasted Swan]

Considering Elgar is my favourite composer, I find it difficult to participate in this thread. In the end my relationship with Elgar's music is personal. I have had my own Elgar journey which perhaps differs a lot from other people. I may have less in common with other Elgarians that I have assumed. When, how and why you have fallen in love with Elgar's music dictates what kind of Elgarian you are. As a Finn who listened to mainly electronic dance music before getting into classical music in the late 90s I have my own style of being an Elgar nut. 

In the past I wanted to "promote" Elgar as the greatest composer of all time, but I am a different person today. I understand 1000 times better how people have different tastes/preferences and I tend to concentrate on my own taste instead. I don't even care about what other people think about the music I like. That's liberating, but it also ostracises me from the community.

In general I am not someone who listens to dozens of performances of a given piece of music, but I do have and know many performances of works by Elgar. However, most of the time the performances talked about here are not familiar to me, or I have heard the performance 20 years ago once remembering absolutely nothing about it now.

It seems almost the only way for me to post here is to make this kind of personal posts. In retrospect I feel my relationship with classical music was the healthiest and most rewarding in the distant past when I wasn't discussing about it online. Once I joined the classical online community, I started to doubt myself: Am I listening to the "correct" performances? Am I even listening to the "correct" composers and works? Do I understand and know anything about classical music?

Others have said this but I will repeat - don't doubt yourself!!  Your perspective and point of view is absolutely as valid and valuable as anyone elses.  The GREAT joy of music in general and any given composer specifically is how a community of listeners can listen and LOVE the music from vastly different standpoints and perspectives.  This is the great JOY of music.  Share the love - don't worry about anything else.

[brewski]

Just uploaded about a week ago, this 1968 performance of The Dream of Gerontius with Sir Adrian Boult and the LPO. (Apologies if someone has already cited it.) Recorded in Canterbury Cathedral, the soloists are Peter Pears, Janet Baker, and John Shirley-Quirk. Apparently it was one of the first BBC productions in color, and at least here, looks remarkably fresh for the time. The sound, too, is well above what might be expected. I am not that familiar with the piece, but am enjoying it immensely.

[Elgarian Redux]

Once I joined the classical online community, I started to doubt myself: Am I listening to the "correct" performances? Am I even listening to the "correct" composers and works? Do I understand and know anything about classical music?

I don't think I understand very much at all about classical music, except that I love it. It's part of who I am. When I listen to Elgar (or any other music I love) I feel somehow extended: more like the person I want to be, with expanded perceptions, and that seems like a Good Thing.

For a while now, I haven't felt the need to discuss music much. I seem to be listening differently - less intensely perhaps - and I'm happy with that, I think. And somehow I just don't have much to say. But I do check in here fairly often just to read, and check out old chums; and that's how I found your post. So here's a friendly wave. Cheers.

[AnotherSpin]

I don't think I understand very much at all about classical music, except that I love it. It's part of who I am. When I listen to Elgar (or any other music I love) I feel somehow extended: more like the person I want to be, with expanded perceptions, and that seems like a Good Thing.

For a while now, I haven't felt the need to discuss music much. I seem to be listening differently - less intensely perhaps - and I'm happy with that, I think. And somehow I just don't have much to say. But I do check in here fairly often just to read, and check out old chums; and that's how I found your post. So here's a friendly wave. Cheers.

Knowing is much more valuable than understanding .

And, while there is no contradiction between knowing and loving, doubt always looms when pairing love with understanding.

[71 dB]

I don't think I understand very much at all about classical music, except that I love it. It's part of who I am. When I listen to Elgar (or any other music I love) I feel somehow extended: more like the person I want to be, with expanded perceptions, and that seems like a Good Thing.

For a while now, I haven't felt the need to discuss music much. I seem to be listening differently - less intensely perhaps - and I'm happy with that, I think. And somehow I just don't have much to say. But I do check in here fairly often just to read, and check out old chums; and that's how I found your post. So here's a friendly wave. Cheers.

Well, here's my friendly wave back to you! 

I do share your "I just don't have much to say" feeling. Or rather I have things to say, but on other subjects such is IRL streamer Jinny.

What does less intensely mean in this context? Do you mean you listen to music more as background "noise" while doing other things?

[71 dB]

Knowing is much more valuable than understanding .

To me it is the other way around. I value understanding way above knowing, but there is symbiosis between these two things: Understanding creates knowledge and knowledge leads to understanding. How your brain works dictates which direction is dominant. For me it seems to be the former: I need to understand things to know stuff. Knowing means remembering. I tend to forget very fast stuff I don't understand unless my brain for some reason thinks its something worth remembering (often feeling-based).

[AnotherSpin]

To me it is the other way around. I value understanding way above knowing, but there is symbiosis between these two things: Understanding creates knowledge and knowledge leads to understanding. How your brain works dictates which direction is dominant. For me it seems to be the former: I need to understand things to know stuff. Knowing means remembering. I tend to forget very fast stuff I don't understand unless my brain for some reason thinks its something worth remembering (often feeling-based).

We can easily get confused by the meaning of words or by the difficulties of expressing things in a language that is native neither to you nor to me. I mean knowing not as knowledge, but rather as in the phrase, "All objects perceived at this moment are within our knowing".