Elgar's Hillside

[Elgarian Redux]

The polkas Elgar wrote for Powick Asylum in his early 20's are a bit tedious even for me... 

Tedious!? Tedious?!! I never thought to hear such words from you about a piece of music by Elgar ...

Yes, I jest of course. But seriously, I think I often find my lack of response to certain music puzzling, and sometimes I've found that expressing that puzzlement in a discussion can lead to very positive results (eg the amazing discussion of the 7th symphony in the Sibelius thread). I try not to say I 'dislike ' something, because really liking and disliking are more to do with cheese, or gooseberry pie, than art. My point is that here I am, owing this vast debt to Edward Elgar who has enriched my life more than any other composer, and yet there are aspects of his work that seem beyond my appreciation. I can't help it. On the whole I find this about all artists - however much their art overwhelms me, I always have some blind spots.

But also, just as I have limitations as a listener, many artists are unequal: their work is not always the best they are capable of - not because they are rubbish, but because they are human. Works like The Spirit of England and the Violin Concerto represent pinnacles of achievement that Elgar couldn't always maintain. That's hardly surprising, since I, as a listener, am similarly imperfect. Sometimes I can follow the composer up to the heights; other times I can't. I've no idea whose 'fault' that is - if fault there be.

Finally, let me be clear. I am totally incapable of assessing whether any given piece of music is good or bad in any objective sense. I don't know what those words mean in regard to music. I can usually tell when a piece is very good (eg the violin concerto), because it could not possibly be bad AND work such magic as I  experience when I listen to it, but I'd much prefer to discuss the nature of the experience than argue about whether the music is 'good' or 'bad'. I mean, one knows what one knows. Savoir has its value, but connaitre is surely what it's really all about. You decide whether whisky is good by tasting it, not by reading books about it (however interesting that may be); and when you're tasting it, you may have a different experience of it than others. That's not morally reprehensible. I reserve the right to fail to appreciate some art and some music, not because I wish to insist on the badness of it, but because my receptive abilities are imperfect.

[Karl Henning]

Tedious!? Tedious?!! I never thought to hear such words from you about a piece of music by Elgar ...

Yes, I jest of course. But seriously, I think I often find my lack of response to certain music puzzling, and sometimes I've found that expressing that puzzlement in a discussion can lead to very positive results (eg the amazing discussion of the 7th symphony in the Sibelius thread). I try not to say I 'dislike ' something, because really liking and disliking are more to do with cheese, or gooseberry pie, than art. My point is that here I am, owing this vast debt to Edward Elgar who has enriched my life more than any other composer, and yet there are aspects of his work that seem beyond my appreciation. I can't help it. On the whole I find this about all artists - however much their art overwhelms me, I always have some blind spots.

But also, just as I have limitations as a listener, many artists are unequal: their work is not always the best they are capable of - not because they are rubbish, but because they are human. Works like The Spirit of England and the Violin Concerto represent pinnacles of achievement that Elgar couldn't always maintain. That's hardly surprising, since I, as a listener, am similarly imperfect. Sometimes I can follow the composer up to the heights; other times I can't. I've no idea whose 'fault' that is - if fault there be.

Finally, let me be clear. I am totally incapable of assessing whether any given piece of music is good or bad in any objective sense. I don't know what those words mean in regard to music. I can usually tell when a piece is very good (eg the violin concerto), because it could not possibly be bad AND work such magic as I  experience when I listen to it, but I'd much prefer to discuss the nature of the experience than argue about whether the music is 'good' or 'bad'. I mean, one knows what one knows. Savoir has its value, but connaitre is surely what it's really all about. You decide whether whisky is good by tasting it, not by reading books about it (however interesting that may be); and when you're tasting it, you may have a different experience of it than others. That's not morally reprehensible. I reserve the right to fail to appreciate some art and some music, not because I wish to insist on the badness of it, but because my receptive abilities are imperfect.

This was wonderful.

And I like it!

[Elgarian Redux]

This was wonderful.

And I like it!

Here you are, old fellow - try some gooseberry pie.

[Chortle ...]

[Mirror Image]

That's part of the frustration. Very rarely do people tell me I am doing something right. Why am I this way? I wish life was a bit easier so that even people like me who are not supertalented would do some things right. Instead I have to watch while supertalented people like you yourself do everything right and don't even walk on mine fields.

Okay, now you're being rather ludicrous! I am not 'super-talented' nor do I do everything right. My point is that you get upset over things that are out of your control and you get even more upset over things that you could simply turn away from because it has been proven that it only elevates your blood pressure. You're an engineer for goodness sakes! You went to university and have interacted with some incredibly intelligent people. You have no reason to feel inadequate about anything. I think your main problem is your constant self-doubt. You also seem to have a low tolerance for differing opinions. Oh and I don't walk in mine fields because I know how to choose my battles and arguing with people about something as irrelevant to me like politics does me no favors at all. And it's not like I can't talk about politics, but the fact that I don't worry about things that are out of my control, keeps me mentally and physically in-check and I can enjoy my life for it is. My only hope is you can do the same.

[Mirror Image]

All I can say is that I seem to enjoy Elgar's works more broadly than even other fans of Elgar. To me Elgar's music just has this feel of being "correct." I am constantly surprised how much people "struggle" with Elgar. If they like something, it has often taken years to appreciate. People complain about the text of Elgar's Oratorios. I don't even pay attention to the text. I listen to the music. Singing is an instrument for me, not a source of text. Maybe that's why I don't struggle?

The polkas Elgar wrote for Powick Asylum in his early 20's are a bit tedious even for me... 

Well, we know my reason for not liking Elgar's oratorios. If you enjoy them, that's great, but, as I have said, there are moments in them that I do enjoy, but the whole does not equal the sum of its parts, IMHO. I don't pay much attention to the text either and just listen to how the voice was written and how it conveys an emotion in conjunction with what the music is doing. The music, of course, has to take me somewhere and I feel there are too many snags in Elgar's oratorios for me to enjoy them in their entirety.

[André]

This was wonderful.

And I like it!

+1

[Elgarian Redux]

I feel there are too many snags in Elgar's oratorios for me to enjoy them in their entirety.

I can't give the exact reference, and my memory may be imperfect, but I recall reading about an interview with Elgar in which he expressed great disappointment with The Kingdom, and said it gave him no pleasure to hear it because its deficiencies filled him with 'shame and sorrow'. If the composer himself sometimes felt like this about his work, it doesn't seem absurd if we do, too.

Mind you, Elgar was not a simple chap, and around the time of writing Kingdom he was experiencing severe religious doubt. (Isn't there a story somewhere about him conducting it and bursting into tears?) So I think we can't know exactly what the cause of his reservations might have been.

[Karl Henning]

I can't give the exact reference, and my memory may be imperfect, but I recall reading about an interview with Elgar in which he expressed great disappointment with The Kingdom, and said it gave him no pleasure to hear it because its deficiencies filled him with 'shame and sorrow'. If the composer himself sometimes felt like this about his work, it doesn't seem absurd if we do, too.

Mind you, Elgar was not a simple chap, and around the time of writing Kingdom he was experiencing severe religious doubt. (Isn't there a story somewhere about him conducting it and bursting into tears?) So I think we can't know exactly what the cause of his reservations might have been.

Of course, I am no Elgar scholar, so all this is news to me. Very touching.

[71 dB]

Think a lot of Elgar works got subpar premier performances... 

[Biffo]

Just listened to The Black Knight - Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra & Liverpool Philharmonic Choir conducted by Sir Charles Groves. It would be unfair to draw too many conclusions about Elgar choral works from this early piece (1889-93). It is a hybrid symphony-cantata and Elgar stressed the importance of the orchestral part. I found it fairly enjoyable but not very memorable with the tragic Scene IV the best part (for me).

[Biffo]

Think a lot of Elgar works got subpar premier performances... 

Gerontius certainly did but subsequent performances in Germany were a triumph. After the successful first performance of King Olaf, Elgar went to his mother, lay his head in her lap and told her he couldn't bear the exposure which such success brought - another example of Elgar's troubled nature.

[relm1]

Must confess, I've never heard Elgar's Symphony No. 3.  Worth giving it a try?

[Mirror Image]

I can't give the exact reference, and my memory may be imperfect, but I recall reading about an interview with Elgar in which he expressed great disappointment with The Kingdom, and said it gave him no pleasure to hear it because its deficiencies filled him with 'shame and sorrow'. If the composer himself sometimes felt like this about his work, it doesn't seem absurd if we do, too.

Mind you, Elgar was not a simple chap, and around the time of writing Kingdom he was experiencing severe religious doubt. (Isn't there a story somewhere about him conducting it and bursting into tears?) So I think we can't know exactly what the cause of his reservations might have been.

I don't really know what to say other than thanks for the information --- quite interesting.

[Biffo]

Must confess, I've never heard Elgar's Symphony No. 3.  Worth giving it a try?

In my experience of this and other forums there are two schools of thought - me and everyone else. I would say no but don't really want to discuss it again.

[Mirror Image]

Must confess, I've never heard Elgar's Symphony No. 3.  Worth giving it a try?

I wouldn't waste your time, but if you truly wanted to hear it, then there's really no need to ask any of us whether you should listen to it or not.

[André]

In my experience of this and other forums there are two schools of thought - me and everyone else. I would say no but don't really want to discuss it again.

I tend to agree with you. It's an interesting piece of work, but clearly watered down stuff compared to the real articles (meaning his peak orchestral works: the concertos, symphonies, Variations, Falstaff, In the South...).

[mc ukrneal]

Must confess, I've never heard Elgar's Symphony No. 3.  Worth giving it a try?

I think it depends on your expectations. You can sample it on youtube to get an idea of the work.

[aukhawk]

I wouldn't waste your time, but if you truly wanted to hear it, then there's really no need to ask any of us whether you should listen to it or not.

Well it's 50 minutes of your life you'll never get back.  That's why it's reasonable to ask around whether it's worth while.

[Mirror Image]

Well it's 50 minutes of your life you'll never get back.  That's why it's reasonable to ask around whether it's worth while.

True, but my point is that if someone wants to hear something, then they should just go ahead and listen to. If anything, just listen to the first movement and then if you like it, proceed to the next. There's a lot of things in our lives that could be viewed as time wasters. That's just a part of life and there's plenty of pieces of music which I'll never want to hear again, but, at the very least, I'm glad I made the effort.

[Karl Henning]

I've only just got around to listening to the Third Symphony yesterday. Still mulling it over.

Let us know your thoughts once mulling has been completed!  I must admit I like it a lot.  I went to the premiere at the Festival Hall in London and it was a very special occasion.  It felt a bit odd - almost a time warp - to be at the premiere of one of the great British composers.  And not just some little fragment - a big serious work.  I think Anthony Payne has done a great job and it does not worry me quite where Elgar ends and Payne begins......

The lack of worry is exactly where my ears are. I did enjoy it, and expect to enjoy it again.