Elgar's Hillside

[71 dB]

+1 for the Maggini Quartet/Donohoe.  I purchased that one a number of years ago and am happy that I followed someone's recommendation. 

PD

The CD came out in 1997 when I has getting into Elgar obsessively after having discovered him in December 1996. I remember seeing the disc listed online on Naxos' website and bought it immediately after release from "Akateeminen Kirjakauppa" (the name translates: academic bookstore) in the Helsinki center which had good selection of Naxos CDs back then.

[Roasted Swan]

The CD came out in 1997 when I has getting into Elgar obsessively after having discovered him in December 1996. I remember seeing the disc listed online on Naxos' website and bought it immediately after release from "Akateeminen Kirjakauppa" (the name translates: academic bookstore) in the Helsinki center which had good selection of Naxos CDs back then.

Scary to think that is already a quarter of a century ago!!

[71 dB]

Scary to think that is already a quarter of a century ago!!

For me the scary part is how much worse the World is today. Another 25 years and this World in completely ruined! 

[relm1]

For me the scary part is how much worse the World is today. Another 25 years and this World in completely ruined! 

Some might say that but that's very debatable.  I'm not an optimist but evidence is generally positive over time.  Global poverty is decreasing, health is generally improving, life span increases, etc.  Yes, there is climate change, Putin's war, idiots in office.  But these are becoming more of the outliers as time goes on.  World becomes more extreme generally but over time, the trend is towards progress and inclusion though the trajectory is very bumpy. 

[The new erato]

I'm currently in Alassio where Elgar liked to spend some time.

[Irons]

I'm currently in Alassio where Elgar liked to spend some time.

Named one of his best pieces after it too.

[relm1]

I'm currently in Alassio where Elgar liked to spend some time.

Show a picture.  Based on the music I assume the place is dramatic!

[71 dB]

About The Spirit of England:

I listened to Cahill/Gibson to Lott/Hickox again and compared them. One thing I realised is that Cahill/Gibson is very slow with the first and third movements while the second movement has very similar tempi to Lott/Hickox. Also, Lott/Hickox has very good consistent balance between the orchestra, chorus and soprano which I like a lot. I also like the strong low frequencies on the recording. In Cahill/Gibson soprano is more present and the whole perfomance feels more dynamic, but the slower tempi keeps the energy level the same.

So, the performances have clear differencies, but to me both are very good. I have to say I prefer Lott/Hickox with small margin. It was the first performance I heard and it just sounds very "Elgarian" to me. My third performance of this work is on Somm label. I remember nothing....

[Karl Henning]

About The Spirit of England:

I listened to Cahill/Gibson to Lott/Hickox again and compared them. One thing I realised is that Cahill/Gibson is very slow with the first and third movements while the second movement has very similar tempi to Lott/Hickox. Also, Lott/Hickox has very good consistent balance between the orchestra, chorus and soprano which I like a lot. I also like the strong low frequencies on the recording. In Cahill/Gibson soprano is more present and the whole perfomance feels more dynamic, but the slower tempi keeps the energy level the same.

So, the performances have clear differencies, but to me both are very good. I have to say I prefer Lott/Hickox with small margin. It was the first performance I heard and it just sounds very "Elgarian" to me.

Nice. I like both as well.

[71 dB]

Today I listened to the Somm performance (Judith Howarth/John Wilson) and it is clearly weaker than the other two I have. Ugly bad sonic balance and the soprano sounds like she is trying to break glassware with her voice. 

[Roasted Swan]

Today I listened to the Somm performance (Judith Howarth/John Wilson) and it is clearly weaker than the other two I have. Ugly bad sonic balance and the soprano sounds like she is trying to break glassware with her voice. 

I agree - its a lesser version - I like your description of the soprano!  The sonics are better on the recent(ish) Chandos version but I simply cannot accept the tenor part as viable even though Elgar sanctioned it (same with Lloyd-Jones too)

[Elgarian Redux]

About The Spirit of England:

I listened to Cahill/Gibson to Lott/Hickox again and compared them. One thing I realised is that Cahill/Gibson is very slow with the first and third movements while the second movement has very similar tempi to Lott/Hickox. Also, Lott/Hickox has very good consistent balance between the orchestra, chorus and soprano which I like a lot. I also like the strong low frequencies on the recording. In Cahill/Gibson soprano is more present and the whole perfomance feels more dynamic, but the slower tempi keeps the energy level the same.

So, the performances have clear differencies, but to me both are very good. I have to say I prefer Lott/Hickox with small margin. It was the first performance I heard and it just sounds very "Elgarian" to me. My third performance of this work is on Somm label. I remember nothing....

Seems fair enough to me. I would certainly admit that my preference for Cahill/Gibson is based on a response that's purely subjective: for me, Cahill imbues the whole piece with meaning. I feel as if she 'understands' what Elgar's vision of 'the Spirit of England' means, and she soars at times that lift me out of myself and leave me with goosebumps. Lott is fine, but I don't get the goosebumps. I can believe that others do.

This is not a defensible critique, of course: but I don't think there's anything to defend. I can't help my response to a recording of a piece of music that seems to strike at the core of my being. I can only report how it is for me, as we swap opinions. I could never claim to have a technical understanding of any performance of a piece of music. I'm incapable of that.

The really important thing is that people are listening to The Spirit of England, regardless of which recording it may be.

[foxandpeng]

I can't help my response to a recording of a piece of music that seems to strike at the core of my being. I can only report how it is for me, as we swap opinions. I could never claim to have a technical understanding of any performance of a piece of music. I'm incapable of that.

Such comments encourage me greatly. Whereas I am certain that you have a greater musical understanding and capacity for analysis that I, it is always good to read others who able to enjoy their music in a similar way that I do. Thank you for the unintended lift!

[Elgarian Redux]

Whereas I am certain that you have a greater musical understanding and capacity for analysis that I, it is always good to read others who able to enjoy their music in a similar way that I do.

That's a nice thing to say - thank you.

However, I seriously doubt that my musical understanding and analytical capacity are any greater than yours. It seems unlikely. This is not false modesty. I don't claim to understand Elgar's music, truly I don't. I'm just deeply moved by it, and I can't help that.

Of course we can talk about all sorts of stuff - like picking out the Windflower themes in the violin concerto, and what they might mean (I like thinking about that). But even then, the things I might say are more likely to be about Elgar the man, than about the actual music; and nothing I might say about the Windflower business would involve more than merely noticing that the same little tune is popping up in different places.

Always nice to swap views with a kindred spirit. Cheers.

[Roasted Swan]

Last night I went to a concert at the excellent Anvil hall in Basingstoke given by the Bournemouth SO under their principal conductor Kirill Karabits.  The 2nd half was Elgar's Symphony No.2.  This was given a brilliantly executed and really rather wonderful and quite individual performance from an obviously committed conductor and orchestra.  Which led me to a few thoughts - most of which firmly belong in the category of "stating the bloomin' obvious";

1)  The work is a piece of utter genius
2)  Any idea that this music "does not travel" is nonsense (clearly it chimes with Ukrainian conductor Karabits)
3)  The standard of modern orchestral playing is insanely high
4)  It ought to be a legal requirement for Elgar to be played with antiphonal violins (as it was here)
5)  We spend a lot of time (myself included) debating the qualities and virtues of other British composers from around 1900 - where others might be very good, only Elgar was a genius.  (I DON'T mean by this the likes of RVW/Holst etc - the "younger" generation at that point establishing themselves - I mean Elgar's contemporaries by age)
6)  How on earth did he self-teach himself to be such a brilliant orchestrator?!?!

[71 dB]

Last night I went to a concert at the excellent Anvil hall in Basingstoke given by the Bournemouth SO under their principal conductor Kirill Karabits.  The 2nd half was Elgar's Symphony No.2.  This was given a brilliantly executed and really rather wonderful and quite individual performance from an obviously committed conductor and orchestra.  Which led me to a few thoughts - most of which firmly belong in the category of "stating the bloomin' obvious";

That's nice!

1)  The work is a piece of utter genius
2)  Any idea that this music "does not travel" is nonsense (clearly it chimes with Ukrainian conductor Karabits)
3)  The standard of modern orchestral playing is insanely high
4)  It ought to be a legal requirement for Elgar to be played with antiphonal violins (as it was here)
5)  We spend a lot of time (myself included) debating the qualities and virtues of other British composers from around 1900 - where others might be very good, only Elgar was a genius.  (I DON'T mean by this the likes of RVW/Holst etc - the "younger" generation at that point establishing themselves - I mean Elgar's contemporaries by age)
6)  How on earth did he self-teach himself to be such a brilliant orchestrator?!?!

1) Yes. 
2) Elgar has been "branded" poorly outside the UK. That's all it is. Re-brand him!
3) Perhaps...
4) Makes sense, because Elgar was an excellent user of orchestra.
5) Yeah, the genius of his generation and the first since Purcell in the UK.
6) Motivation + intelligence + talent + access to music scores I would say.

I believe one of the reasons that made Elgar what he is was that he self-teached himself so much. Instead of being "force-fed" with the subjective taste and preferences of music teacher(s), he was free to absorb his own favourite ways of composing from works of different time periods. Take Handel's writing for strings and combine that with the orchestration style of Berlioz and poetic music of Liszt etc. That perhaps provides greater stylistic versatility than being taught by a teacher who is a Wagner expert/fanatic. 

[Roasted Swan]

That's nice!

1) Yes. 
2) Elgar has been "branded" poorly outside the UK. That's all it is. Re-brand him!
3) Perhaps...
4) Makes sense, because Elgar was an excellent user of orchestra.
5) Yeah, the genius of his generation and the first since Purcell in the UK.
6) Motivation + intelligence + talent + access to music scores I would say.

I believe one of the reasons that made Elgar what he is was that he self-teached himself so much. Instead of being "force-fed" with the subjective taste and preferences of music teacher(s), he was free to absorb his own favourite ways of composing from works of different time periods. Take Handel's writing for strings and combine that with the orchestration style of Berlioz and poetic music of Liszt etc. That perhaps provides greater stylistic versatility than being taught by a teacher who is a Wagner expert/fanatic.

Yes to all of the bolded above!  We all go with things we like in life - Elgar just had the natural genius to be able to absorb and then redefine for his own use what "floated his boat"!

[relm1]

That's nice!

1) Yes. 
2) Elgar has been "branded" poorly outside the UK. That's all it is. Re-brand him!
3) Perhaps...
4) Makes sense, because Elgar was an excellent user of orchestra.
5) Yeah, the genius of his generation and the first since Purcell in the UK.
6) Motivation + intelligence + talent + access to music scores I would say.

I believe one of the reasons that made Elgar what he is was that he self-teached himself so much. Instead of being "force-fed" with the subjective taste and preferences of music teacher(s), he was free to absorb his own favourite ways of composing from works of different time periods. Take Handel's writing for strings and combine that with the orchestration style of Berlioz and poetic music of Liszt etc. That perhaps provides greater stylistic versatility than being taught by a teacher who is a Wagner expert/fanatic. 

I think he travels well, here in the US at least.  I've played Enigma twice with different orchestras and it's a hit with orchestra and audiences. Very fun to play and hear.  His concerti are very popular as well but his symphonies are pretty rare.  I do recall seeing No. 2 programmed but missed it.  I've attended a disastrous Dream of Gerontius (the very important tenor soloist lost his voice and was inaudible throughout).  Introduction and Allegro is always getting played. 

[Roasted Swan]

I think he travels well, here in the US at least.  I've played Enigma twice with different orchestras and it's a hit with orchestra and audiences. Very fun to play and hear.  His concerti are very popular as well but his symphonies are pretty rare.  I do recall seeing No. 2 programmed but missed it.  I've attended a disastrous Dream of Gerontius (the very important tenor soloist lost his voice and was inaudible throughout).  Introduction and Allegro is always getting played. 

Good to hear!

[Karl Henning]

I've attended a disastrous Dream of Gerontius (the very important tenor soloist lost his voice and was inaudible throughout). 

That's too bad. We had a superb Gerontius here in Boston, some years ago.