Elgar's Hillside

[Karl Henning]

Yes, I knew I'd get you with the free cake offer.

You fiend!

[Elgarian Redux]

You fiend!

It's my evil genius. Elgar would've enjoyed the jape.

[André]

@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.]

Sorry for being late, Jeffrey. No, I haven't heard that one. I'll try to locate a copy. thanks !

[André]

Cripes ! I leave for 3 days and look what happens ! A whole existential debate (very rewarding comments, thanks gents!).

OK,my turn: one of the quirks of my own musical journey is that I'm quite omnivorous and never tire of exploring new works and composers.

However, for a small number of works (say, 30 maybe ?) I just can't stop wanting to hear them in different versions. A change of perspective, a shift in focus, a new challenge to the old warhorse will make me want to hear them yet again.

That doesn't mean I'll buy/listen to every performance available - that's insane - but I'm willing to take the plunge because I know there are still secrets waiting to be revealed. These works that fascinate me are relatively few.

Among choral works only Gerontius and Bach's Christmas Oratorio. Instrumental: Ysaÿe's 6 violin sonatas and Biber's Rosary sonatas. Maybe 5-6 operas by Mozart, Verdi and Wagner. The rest are orchestral. No chamber music. I'm extremely picky for that genre and will only listen to the very best. No second or third tier for me, thank you very much.

[Elgarian Redux]

The classic exemplar is your typical article analyzing Webern, where it takes you an hour to read and digest an analysis of a piece lasting under a minute. There is value in that exercise, yes, but good god, don't mistake it for anything like experience of the music.

Does anyone actually do that, Karl? I mean, confuse the analysis with actual listening? It'd be like poring over a map of the Himalayas and then thinking you'd actually been there.

[hopefullytrusting]

Does anyone actually do that, Karl? I mean, confuse the analysis with actual listening? It'd be like poring over a map of the Himalayas and then thinking you'd actually been there.

This is actually a common phenomenon, at least in videogames, where many players mistake the Brazil of Call of Duty or Max Payne, with the real Brazil (same with confusing City of God, a "realistic" film about Brazil, but isn't actually Brazilian).

[Elgarian Redux]

This is actually a common phenomenon, at least in videogames, where many players mistake the Brazil of Call of Duty or Max Payne, with the real Brazil (same with confusing City of God, a "realistic" film about Brazil, but isn't actually Brazilian).

Yes, now you make me think of it, we all do that, as part of the way we think. The 'map of Elgar' I carry in my head is only that - a map - even though I usually blather on as if it's a real knowledge of the actual man.

[Elgarian Redux]

However, for a small number of works (say, 30 maybe ?) I just can't stop wanting to hear them in different versions. A change of perspective, a shift in focus, a new challenge to the old warhorse will make me want to hear them yet again.

That doesn't mean I'll buy/listen to every performance available - that's insane - but I'm willing to take the plunge because I know there are still secrets waiting to be revealed. These works that fascinate me are relatively few.

I do that too! I think for a lot fewer than your 30 pieces, but I do have a ludicrous number of different performances of Scheherazade and The Planets. That's partly because I've loved them for longer, but also because I keep on going back to them, in phases - I've just passed through such a phase, actually. I might try to summon the energy to write more about this in a Rimsky-Korsakov thread.

[arpeggio]

I know I have mentioned this before maybe here and in other forums, so apologies to those who have already heard this rant.

I was a music education major in college.  I recall one of my professors, Dr. Luce, explaining why we studied music theory, form and analysis and all of the esoteric stuff. 

If I hate Elgar or whoever, studying the structure of his symphonies will not magically make me like them.

These are performance tools that a conductor would use to help him interpret and perform the symphony.

[Karl Henning]

Does anyone actually do that, Karl? I mean, confuse the analysis with actual listening? It'd be like poring over a map of the Himalayas and then thinking you'd actually been there.

Perhaps not often actually confusing the analysis with listening, per se, but feeling (subconsciously) that the analysis is so sufficient an understanding of the music, that actual listening is an afterthought, or even unnecessary.

[Elgarian Redux]

If I hate Elgar or whoever, studying the structure of his symphonies will not magically make me like them.

I'm sure you're right. But if you love the piece of music in the first place, then it's possible that knowing more about it might enhance the experience further. I don't say it will. I just say it has sometimes worked for me.

[Elgarian Redux]

Perhaps not often actually confusing the analysis with listening, per se, but feeling (subconsciously) that the analysis is so sufficient an understanding of the music, that actual listening is an afterthought, or even unnecessary.

Well, my goodness. I boggle. It must be like reading a description of a painting and then thinking you don't need to see it.

[Karl Henning]

I'm sure you're right. But if you love the piece of music in the first place, then it's possible that knowing more about it might enhance the experience further. I don't say it will. I just say it has sometimes worked for me.

It works for many. Is the in-depth analysis of Hindemith's Symphony--Mathis der Maler which I did for a paper my Freshman year "necessary" in order to enjoy the piece? Of course not. But it is itself one more mode of enjoying the music, fermenting in the brain over time until you couldn't really regard it as distinct from your love of the piece.

[Elgarian Redux]

it is itself one more mode of enjoying the music, fermenting in the brain over time until you couldn't really regard it as distinct from your love of the piece.

Quoted for perfection.

[Roasted Swan]

It works for many. Is the in-depth analysis of Hindemith's Symphony--Mathis der Maler which I did for a paper my Freshman year "necessary" in order to enjoy the piece? Of course not. But it is itself one more mode of enjoying the music, fermenting in the brain over time until you couldn't really regard it as distinct from your love of the piece.

Linking Elgar and analysis - I seem to remember that Jaeger did an enthusiastic and relatively in depth 'analysis' (not in the strictest sense of the word) of Gerontius around the time of its first performance/publication.  In this he showed how Elgar had make sophisticated use of leitmotifs and thematic transformation.  All of which Elgar claimed not to have been aware of.  I've always thought this was just EE being his usual slightly defensive self making out that this was not the result of a carefully planned and executed compositional process.  But on the other hand, is it possible that the great composers are able to combine technical skill in the construction of music along with an intuitive sense of 'rightness', a feel for what will work where, that analysis will reveal as having some kind of mathematical precision that the composer was initially unaware of?

[Elgarian Redux]

Linking Elgar and analysis - I seem to remember that Jaeger did an enthusiastic and relatively in depth 'analysis' (not in the strictest sense of the word) of Gerontius around the time of its first performance/publication.  In this he showed how Elgar had make sophisticated use of leitmotifs and thematic transformation.  All of which Elgar claimed not to have been aware of.  I've always thought this was just EE being his usual slightly defensive self making out that this was not the result of a carefully planned and executed compositional process.  But on the other hand, is it possible that the great composers are able to combine technical skill in the construction of music along with an intuitive sense of 'rightness', a feel for what will work where, that analysis will reveal as having some kind of mathematical precision that the composer was initially unaware of?

I think you're spot on with that. I daresay Elgar often did bluff about it all, disguising some real intricate work - but that notion of 'feeling leitmotifs without rationalising them' often works for listeners, so why not for composers?

Turner used to say similar things when Ruskin analysed the meaning of his paintings, saying that Ruskin saw things that he'd never put there. But they were there.

[Roasted Swan]

SOMM are doing sterling work excavating the archives.  This is their latest release;



The "In the South" is a 1944 off-air BBC recording - good forthright performance (lovely viola solo - not Bernard Shore I assume since he'd joined the RAF in 1940).  For me the real interest here is Boult's early 60's Symphony 2 - his first in stereo possibly?  The engineering here is a little disappointing but again a muscular performance - the 1st version of the work I ever knew as my father had this on a CFP LP



Interesting to hear the change in Boult's interpretations over his 5 commercial recordings but this is literally not his final word or his best.  Disc 2 has around 35 minutes of studio recordings of unaccompanied choral songs (1st CD release but once available on EMI) and then about 45 minutes of Boult talking about EE.  Not listened to them yet - the sort of thing I'll love to hear once but can't imagine revisting that often.  But the rest of the set is of considerable value I think.

EDIT:  I was looking at the 'missing' Boult/Elgar 2 that I don't have in my collection which is his first with the BBC SO from 1944.  I see that on the Beulah transfer they have put the scherzo 2nd?!  Is this just a production mistake when this CD was made or were the original 78's released like that and if so with what provenance?  Anyone have an answer? - I'm looking at you Elgarian Redux(!)

[Irons]

SOMM are doing sterling work excavating the archives.  This is their latest release;



The "In the South" is a 1944 off-air BBC recording - good forthright performance (lovely viola solo - not Bernard Shore I assume since he'd joined the RAF in 1940).  For me the real interest here is Boult's early 60's Symphony 2 - his first in stereo possibly?  The engineering here is a little disappointing but again a muscular performance - the 1st version of the work I ever knew as my father had this on a CFP LP



Interesting to hear the change in Boult's interpretations over his 5 commercial recordings but this is literally not his final word or his best.  Disc 2 has around 35 minutes of studio recordings of unaccompanied choral songs (1st CD release but once available on EMI) and then about 45 minutes of Boult talking about EE.  Not listened to them yet - the sort of thing I'll love to hear once but can't imagine revisting that often.  But the rest of the set is of considerable value I think.

EDIT:  I was looking at the 'missing' Boult/Elgar 2 that I don't have in my collection which is his first with the BBC SO from 1944.  I see that on the Beulah transfer they have put the scherzo 2nd?!  Is this just a production mistake when this CD was made or were the original 78's released like that and if so with what provenance?  Anyone have an answer? - I'm looking at you Elgarian Redux(!)

Like your father I have CFP LP Elgar 2 on my shelves.

I posted a few days ago on the vinyl thread a link to YT video featuring a selection from the Lyrita catalogue. The reviewer had some positive things to say of  Boult recordings Elgar 1/2 on Lyrita. Jump to 16.03.

 

   

[Roasted Swan]

Like your father I have CFP LP Elgar 2 on my shelves.

I posted a few days ago on the vinyl thread a link to YT video featuring a selection from the Lyrita catalogue. The reviewer had some positive things to say of  Boult recordings Elgar 1/2 on Lyrita. Jump to 16.03.

 

   

Of course Decca did the engineering for Lyrita and to be honest there is quite a technical gulf between what state of the art world class gear Decca used for Lyrita/Boult in 1967 and what a small regional recording company (Waverley) were able to achieve a handful of years earlier with the SNO.  The recording is decent enough but shows its age in a way that the Decca/Lyrita recordings (remarkably) do not.

[Elgarian Redux]

Anyone have an answer? - I'm looking at you Elgarian Redux(!)

I've no idea!!

And there go the last few tiny grains of Elgar-centred reputation I might have built up over the years. Oh well. Easy come, easy go. Anyone for Rimsky-Korsakov?