Elgar's Hillside

[aukhawk]

... Edward Gardner's recent recordings were praised uniformly by multiple Fanfare commenters (see attachment, if interested) -

To be fair the BBC SO can play this stuff in their sleep.   

Also recommended (for the Elgar, though the rest is decent too).  In the South is a substantial and very worthwhile piece - the 'best of the rest' after the symphonies and concertos in my opinion.



The Elgar can be found repackaged in various ways, either in an 'Elgar' set or a 'Silvestri' or 'Bournemouth' set - eg it's part of this compilation

[Roasted Swan]

To be fair the BBC SO can play this stuff in their sleep.   

Also recommended (for the Elgar, though the rest is decent too).  In the South is a substantial and very worthwhile piece - the 'best of the rest' after the symphonies and concertos in my opinion.



The Elgar can be found repackaged in various ways, either in an 'Elgar' set or a 'Silvestri' or 'Bournemouth' set - eg it's part of this compilation

I found Gardener's Elgar to be typical of much of his discography to date; very well engineered and perfectly well performed but really not displacing many if any of the great performances of the past.  And this is not me being simply nostalgic.  He's a case of someone who observes the detail of the score well but somewhere along the line the intuitive emotional insights are lost.  Always glad to hear a good performance of these works but certainly nothing to displace any Desert Island choices..... 

[Wanderer]

Reflecting on the above postings, I am NOT a fan of -

...

Solti's Elgar symphonies

Solti's Elgar is indeed the worst.

[aukhawk]

The sound quality is a bit unfortunate - they desperately need symphathetic remastering.  I like the performances though - a fine antidote to the idiomatic Edwardian stodge as usually served up by Boult et al.

[Biffo]

The sound quality is a bit unfortunate - they desperately need symphathetic remastering.  I like the performances though - a fine antidote to the idiomatic Edwardian stodge as usually served up by Boult et al.

Timings: - Symphony No 1 - Solti (48'43) Boult/Lyrita (48'37)
                Symphony No 2 - Solti (51'22) Boult/Lyrita (51'16)

In No 2 Solti takes off a hectic pace he can't sustain and in the Larghetto slows right down taking over two mins longer than Boult. Boult knew Elgar and knew how to conduct his works.

[Roasted Swan]

a fine antidote to the idiomatic Edwardian stodge as usually served up by Boult et al.

who are the "et al".  It slightly bugs me that it is so easy to say; "its Solti... so it must be fast and brusque", "its Boult.. it must be 'nobilmente' stodge".  As ever both comments have both elements of truth in them but are also simplistic superficial descriptions of complex interpretations of complex works.  Here's a table of Boult's 3 recordings;

a fine antidote to the idiomatic Edwardian stodge as usually served up by Boult et al.

who are the "et al".  It slightly bugs me that it is so easy to say; "its Solti... so it must be fast and brusque", "its Boult.. it must be 'nobilmente' stodge".  As ever both comments have both elements of truth in them but are also simplistic superficial descriptions of complex interpretations of complex works.  Here's a table of Boult's 3 recordings with Gardner's much vaunted versions as comparisons;

Symphony No.1   1950 – HMV   1968 – Lyrita   1976/7 - EMI        Gardner
I.Andante nobilmente     17:55       18:27               18:39                  19:29
II. Allegro moderato       6:55          7:13                  7:13                   7:16
III. Adagio                    12:20       10:26               10:36                  12:15               
IV. Lento-allegro       11:37          12:23               12:07                  12:01

Symphony No.2   1956 – Nixa   1968 – Lyrita   1976/7 - EMI           Gardner
I. Allegro Vivace              16:42         16:30              17:34                   17:44
II. Larghetto              14:25         13:15              14:13                   14:02
III. Rondo Presto           8:03         8:25              8:03                     8:00
IV. Moderato e maestoso  13:08         12:57              13:19                   14:51

For sure timings alone tell a partial story..... but goodness me Mr top of the pile Gardner is slower (stodgier??!!) than Boult in several key movements and when he's not the timings are very close.  So perhaps let's listen to all of Boult (and the "et als") before making unsubstantiated sweeping statements........!!

[Biffo]

who are the "et al".  It slightly bugs me that it is so easy to say; "its Solti... so it must be fast and brusque", "its Boult.. it must be 'nobilmente' stodge".  As ever both comments have both elements of truth in them but are also simplistic superficial descriptions of complex interpretations of complex works.  Here's a table of Boult's 3 recordings;

Symphony No.1   1950 – HMV   1968 – Lyrita   1976/7 - EMI        Gardner
I.Andante nobilmente     17:55       18:27               18:39
II. Allegro moderato     6:55       7:13                7:13
III. Adagio                    12:20       10:26               10:36
IV. Lento-allegro    11:37       12:23               12:07

Symphony No.2   1956 – Nixa   1968 – Lyrita   1976/7 - EMI
I. Allegro Vivace              16:42         16:30              17:34
II. Larghetto              14:25         13:15              14:13
III. Rondo Presto       8:03         8:25              8:03
IV. Moderato e maestoso  13:08         12:57              13:19

I haven't heard the Nixa recordings. Boult's final versions for EMI were his most opulent and this was mentioned in reviews at the time. I no longer have them available for comparison purposes but I always enjoyed them.

Barbirolli, that other Edwardian relic, could be remarkably consistent in some works but in the Elgar Symphonies he was variable in his tempi. In his recording of No 2 from the 1950s his overall timing was more or less the same as Solti and Boult (Lyrita) at 51'36, in his later recording he slowed down to just over 55 min and in one notorious live performance he took over an hour. He preferred Symphony No 1 and could be affectionate in his performances; I have three.

As RS says, these are complex works and timings don't give anything like the whole picture.

Solti takes a lot of flak in some of these online forums but I find him excellent in Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner (with reservations), Mahler and Strauss plus other fine recordings. I just don't like his Elgar.

[Roasted Swan]

Boult's final versions for EMI were his most opulent and this was mentioned in reviews at the time.

Solti takes a lot of flak in some of these online forums but I find him excellent in Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner (with reservations), Mahler and Strauss plus other fine recordings. I just don't like his Elgar.

Personally I like opulent but then I like swift too (and of course Solti famously said he was following Elgar's own lead in choosing the tempi he did for his recordings).  My point is that the recent critical evaluation of Gardner chose not to use phrases such as opulent or 'end of empire' etc because (I suspect) Gardner happens to be a relatively young conductor.  So it was an easy/trite observation to make of the Boult/EMI recordings just because he was old.

The thing that bugs me is easy generalisations as I mentioned that then become part of the wider discourse.  I'm with you about Solti.  OF COURSE, not everything he did was of equal merit but his best work/recordings were and remain exceptionally fine.  The same is true of "too smooth" Karajan or "Edwardian relic" Boult.  My own bugbear is how every HIP recording is like "striping years of dirt and old varnish off a painting" or "heard with fresh ears".... yeah right.  This is NOT a comment on the quality of the performances in questions or the general validity of HIP - more the lazy/easy critical response to it.

[Irons]

             
Boult knew Elgar and knew how to conduct his works.

Of course he did.

[Roasted Swan]

Of course he did.

but there's never just one way........

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Solti takes a lot of flak in some of these online forums but I find him excellent in Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner (with reservations), Mahler and Strauss plus other fine recordings. I just don't like his Elgar.

At least we agree about the Elgar. 

Every once in a while I come across something of his I like. His Bruckner 6, of all things.

[aukhawk]

Did I say there was anything wrong with stodge?

[Roasted Swan]

Did I say there was anything wrong with stodge?

not a word often associated with praise!  "dull and uninspired material or work" is one online definition........

[71 dB]

So anyone who doesn't like the oratorios is 15 yrs. old and has ADHD?

No, of course not. However if you are 15 and have ADHD you might struggle to enjoy them.

How about you learn to accept that other people don't like the same things you do?

I have already learned that many years ago. Do you have a problem with me liking music you don't? Apparently you do.

If you read what I wrote above, you'll see I wrote that I liked The Dream of Gerontius a lot.

I know and that's good. I like it too.   0:)

My criticism was for the other two oratorios: The Apostles and The Kingdom.

Yes, and that's where our disagreement starts. To me those two oratorios are even better than The Dream of Gerontius. In my opinion Elgar was still perfecting his craft at this point and reached full maturity around the first Symphony. As fine as The Dream of Gerontius is, I think the two later oratorios demonstrate even deeper level of sophistication, which might be the reason why many seem to struggle enjoying the works. For me, an Elgarian, those works are pure musical heaven and among the best Elgar ever wrote.

I don't like Caractacus either (although it's a cantata)

Caractacus certainly isn't on the level of the oratorios, but I certainly do like it. Quite a lot. Why wouldn't I? The Light of Life is another Elgar work of this kind I think is overlooked.  There really isn't Elgar I don't like. Maybe the polkas he wrote for Powick Asylum as a young man are something I don't particularly enjoy, but that's it.

nor do I like The Banner of St. George or The Black Knight.

Then you don't. I enjoy those works a lot. That's what happens when you are an Elgarian.

For me, the heart of Elgar is in his orchestral and chamber music, but I do absolutely love The Spirit of England.

Well, I am glad at least whose Elgar works are to your liking. 

[Mirror Image]

I have already learned that many years ago. Do you have a problem with me liking music you don't? Apparently you do.

You're the one who made that asinine analogy about ADHD and being 15 yrs. old just because people here expressed a distaste for those oratorios. If you didn't mean it, then don't say it or if you're joking around about it, then you should learn to use emoticons to indicate that you were joking.

[Irons]

but there's never just one way........

There is always Barbirolli.

[71 dB]

You're the one who made that asinine analogy about ADHD and being 15 yrs. old just because people here expressed a distaste for those oratorios. If you didn't mean it, then don't say it or if you're joking around about it, then you should learn to use emoticons to indicate that you were joking.

People make same same analogy when some says old black and white movies are slow and boring. I believe these oratorios by Elgar contain more thematic material then the Ring tetralogy by Wagner (16 hours of music) and nobody says Wagner is lacking on that front... ... so that's why.

[Mirror Image]

People make same same analogy when some says old black and white movies are slow and boring. I believe these oratorios by Elgar contain more thematic material then the Ring tetralogy by Wagner (16 hours of music) and nobody says Wagner is lacking on that front... ... so that's why.

My whole point was that these oratorios aren't for me and I listed the reasons why I thought this was the case. Accept it or don't accept it, because, at this juncture, I couldn't really care.

[71 dB]

My whole point was that these oratorios aren't for me and I listed the reasons why I thought this was the case. Accept it or don't accept it, because, at this juncture, I couldn't really care.

Of course you should not care whether I "accept" your opinion or not. We simply disagree and that's it. It seems to be a common thing to think about 10 % of Elgar is "good stuff" and the rest 90 % is not good. I disagree. I think many Elgar works are unjustly overlooked, these two oratorios in question being good examples.

[Mirror Image]

Of course you should not care whether I "accept" your opinion or not. We simply disagree and that's it. It seems to be a common thing to think about 10 % of Elgar is "good stuff" and the rest 90 % is not good. I disagree. I think many Elgar works are unjustly overlooked, these two oratorios in question being good examples.

The difference here is you're talking to someone who hasn't 'overlooked' anything and has heard almost every nook and cranny from Elgar's oeuvre. As to whether the composer does much for me these days is another topic altogether, but don't mistake me for someone who hasn't heard the music, because I have.