Elgar's Hillside

Started by Mark, September 20, 2007, 02:03:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Guido

I may have just ordered the box (30 CDs), along with the Vaughan Williams box (30 CDs) and the 65 CD Beethoven one too... Looking forward to it!
Geologist.

The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

71 dB

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 03, 2008, 03:15:27 AM
Listened alot to my Elgarbox the recent days - marvelous. I simply can't understand why this composer isn't estimated higher. I find in Elgar this simple and subtle, shy, touching beauty which I find in Brahms, this is why I really love Elgar. He is no Brahms clone of course, in many aspects he is quite differant, but he has that tone which is why he so stands out.

Personally I find Elgar's music much more colourful but I agree about the similarities, especially in chamber music.

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 03, 2008, 03:15:27 AMI can't understand that he is not regarded higher in Germany where he has his fans of course but you find alot stupid remarks too. I don't know why he is so terribly English, I think all this as a matter of fact damages his reputation, he should be regarded more as a composer of international importance with English origin.

Elgar happens to be just one of many composers who aren't regarded highly enough.

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 03, 2008, 03:15:27 AMAnd then I read the text of the back of my Emibox that Elgar is heard for "national rejoice". Well why not, why not listening to Elgar for "national rejoice", I will not judge that, but I would have prefered a text which would have emphasized the fact that Elgar is loved by many people in the world. Or even better no text of that kind at all. Though there is still much misunderstanding I think that better times for Elgar will come. Also abroad. And in my opinion he is certainly better and more important than alot composers who are regarded higher in the moment.

National rejoice is marketing mambo jambo. Elgar is my favorite composer. I used to be aggressive promoting him but I have seen it isn't the way. Now I am careful about what I say. I hope you are right about the better times.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

karlhenning

Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2008, 08:03:00 AM
Personally I find Elgar's music much more colourful but I agree about the similarities, especially in chamber music.

I find Elgar's concerti generally more colorful than Brahms;  but for the symphonies, I think Brahms has a better-defined pallette.

Kuhlau

Quote from: karlhenning on November 04, 2008, 08:05:53 AM
I find Elgar's concerti generally more colorful than Brahms;  but for the symphonies, I think Brahms has a better-defined pallette.

I'd certainly concur with this. There's much to admire in (at least) Elgar's First Symphony. But when placed alongside any symphony by Brahms, Elgar's symphonic output does seem to pale.

FK

71 dB

I really enjoy Elgar's symphonies. Perhaps I just don't get Brahms because I don't find his symphonies even near those of Elgar.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

Kuhlau

The key to Brahms' symphonies is all in the interpretation, IMO. If you're struggling to appreciate their colour, shape and both their intricacies and their broader sweep, Solti's famous Decca set might be just the ticket.

But now I'm taking us OT. ;)

FK

Martin Lind

Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2008, 08:03:00 AM
Elgar is my favorite composer. I used to be aggressive promoting him but I have seen it isn't the way. Now I am careful about what I say. I hope you are right about the better times.


Well there is certainly no use to promote Elgar "aggressively". On the other hand Elgar bashing is sometimes really stupid. If you don't like Elgar OK but it is enervating to fight against all this misguiding images of Elgar. Just listen to Elgar, at least to his very best works and make up your mind. But if you have already a bad image of Elgar you will find nothing than your prejudices. And Elgar is not simple, for example in the symphonies where there is so much "information" and "development" and nothing goes an easy way, as a matter of fact Elgar is challenging which you wouldn't expect if you would know nothing than the Pomp and Circumstances. By the way I am not analytic. I can't analyse Elgar. But I think if you listen to Elgars symphonies at the first time, many things will make "no sense" to you and this is a normal reaction. You must know Elgar a bit better if you really want to appriciate him. This is why Elgar is challenging. It may be even more challenging to analyse his works but this is something I can't judge.

By the way I listened to Elgars symphonies with Barbirolli and liked the 1st, maybe more than Judd, but I didn't like the second where I prefer the Downes. I am glad that you like the Downes too. This is a splendid recording.

But after all: Everybody is responsible for himselve. Therefore when you miss Elgar it's your own fault. I am glad that I haven't missed Elgar!

Kuhlau

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 05, 2008, 04:12:20 AM
And Elgar is not simple, for example in the symphonies where there is so much "information" and "development" and nothing goes an easy way ...

One possible explanation for this might be that Elgar was self-taught. Given that he went without the benefit of formal compositional training, is it tenable that this had an impact on his musical language?

FK

71 dB

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 05, 2008, 04:12:20 AM
Well there is certainly no use to promote Elgar "aggressively".

I have learned that the hard way.  :P

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 05, 2008, 04:12:20 AMAnd Elgar is not simple, for example in the symphonies where there is so much "information" and "development" and nothing goes an easy way, as a matter of fact Elgar is challenging which you wouldn't expect if you would know nothing than the Pomp and Circumstances.

I have been talking about Elgar's complexity a lot. Unfortunately it has ended in jokes about "vibrational fields". Some people have admitted there's something in Elgar after listening to his music more carefully. Some other people won't admit Elgar's greatness no matter what. We all are entitled to our opinions of course.

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 05, 2008, 04:12:20 AMBy the way I am not analytic. I can't analyse Elgar.

I "analyse" Elgar in my own way, the way I analyse all music.

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 05, 2008, 04:12:20 AMBut I think if you listen to Elgars symphonies at the first time, many things will make "no sense" to you and this is a normal reaction. You must know Elgar a bit better if you really want to appriciate him. This is why Elgar is challenging. It may be even more challenging to analyse his works but this is something I can't judge.

The first time I heard Elgar's symphonies they made sense but there was a lot things that revealed themselves during further listening. The key to Elgar's music is the understanding of quiet passages. They are amazingly rich, there's so much "vibrations" going on. That's one thing I admire in Elgar. The music is always rich no matter how loud or quiet it is. It's like looking into a forest. You see some trees near you and those trees look large. You also see many "smaller" trees in the distance, behind each other. A layered structure of depth is created. But that's just me with my trees and "vibrational fields."  ;D

Quote from: Martin Lind on November 05, 2008, 04:12:20 AMBy the way I listened to Elgars symphonies with Barbirolli and liked the 1st, maybe more than Judd, but I didn't like the second where I prefer the Downes. I am glad that you like the Downes too. This is a splendid recording.

But after all: Everybody is responsible for himselve. Therefore when you miss Elgar it's your own fault. I am glad that I haven't missed Elgar!

Shockingly, I haven't heard Barbirolli's takes of these symphonies. I think the 2nd symphony is misunderstood by many. I find it one of the most sophisticated works of Elgar. Sophisticated is so good word to describe that symphony! Perhaps Barbirolli didn't get 100 % of it after all?

Quote from: Kuhlau on November 05, 2008, 05:41:57 AM
One possible explanation for this might be that Elgar was self-taught. Given that he went without the benefit of formal compositional training, is it tenable that this had an impact on his musical language?

FK

I have never undertood this obsession of formal composition. Isn't formal often boring? I think the real difference between Elgar and so called formal composers is the length of time segments of influences.  Elgar's influences are heavily rooted in composers such as J. S. Bach, Handel, Beethoven but also Berlioz and Brahms. Elgar is not "formal" in sense of certain time period or style but is a (brilliant) combination of many styles of different times. Yes, Elgar was self-taught but that's not a weakness. He found his strenghts and created his own rich "multiformal" style.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

karlhenning

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2008, 08:27:18 AM
. . . Some people have admitted there's something in Elgar after listening to his music more carefully. Some other people won't admit Elgar's greatness no matter what.

And then, some of us find some patches of Elgar's oeuvre greater than other patches.  I don't think the symphonies are that great.  The concerti, and Falstaff:  these are great.

Kuhlau

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2008, 08:27:18 AMI have never undertood this obsession of formal composition. Isn't formal often boring? Elgar is not "formal" in sense of certain time period or style but is a (brilliant) combination of many styles of different times. Yes, Elgar was self-taught but that's not a weakness. He found his strenghts and created his own rich "multiformal" style.

I meant 'formal' as in according with established forms, conventions and requirements. Many other great composers - greater than Elgar, certainly - received formal compositional training, and I hardly think we can say that much of the writing of Boccherini, Beethoven, Brahms or Britten (to select a few composers beginning with 'B') is 'often boring'.

As to the concept of Elgar's music as 'multiformal', I'm afraid I don't follow you. You'll need to explain in more detail.

FK

karlhenning

Quote from: Kuhlau on November 05, 2008, 08:52:25 AM
I meant 'formal' as in according with established forms, conventions and requirements.

And — not to get too repetitive — I find Elgar's concerti (& Falstaff) examples of a fine artist creatively re-thinking traditional form, genre and conventions, in ways I find disappointingly absent from the symphonies.

Wanderer

Quote from: karlhenning on November 05, 2008, 08:39:14 AM
I don't think the symphonies are that great.

Karl, I was always puzzled by the fact that although I never really cared for the Second Symphony, I nevertheless find the First to be among the most convincing utterances of the genre. So, I agree with you - literally -  half-heartedly!  ;D

karlhenning

Cool. Not cool.

Wanderer


Kuhlau

Talk of Elgar's symphonies has me listening again to No. 1 - arguably the finest of his three.

The recording I've selected from the four or five in my collection is this one:



Elder and the Halle Orchestra (an earlier line-up of which give this work its premiere) seem to me to be right on the money with this symphony. All of the ... shall we say 'complexity'? ... of this work is clearly articulated in very good sound; much better, at least, than the Naxos recording with the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra under the baton of George Hurst. This is a thoughtful rendition, intelligently shaped and concerned with ensuring that soloists, where they appear, get the attention they deserve. Certainly, it has more colour than most of the other versions I've heard. And I agree with Wanderer that this is, indeed, a convincing utterance.

FK

drogulus


     Falstaff is an astonishing work.

     I didn't warm to the 2nd symphony right away. It took a trip to England in the early '90s, after which I listened to the symphony and everything just clicked. It was a typical example of musical meaning arriving by a circuitous route.

     The comparison of Elgar and Brahms is a natural one, especially since Symphony No. 2 seems to have some relation to Brahms 3 (in my mind, anyway). He's really closer to Strauss and Mahler, though. Falstaff is certainly quite Straussian.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Kuhlau

Quote from: drogulus on November 05, 2008, 01:33:34 PMThe comparison of Elgar and Brahms is a natural one, especially since Symphony No. 2 seems to have some relation to Brahms 3 (in my mind, anyway).

Really? That's some mind you have there. ;D

I hear these two symphonies as differently as a wind chime and an obnoxiously loud car. One puts me at my ease, the other grates on me. I'm too charitable to say which does which. ;)

FK

drogulus

Kuhlau, I think there is something grating about the 2nd symphony. In fact I've only found one version that I can really totally endorse. Neither the Barbirolli nor the Slatkin are convincing, and in fact I don't even want to hear them. Perhaps this symphony needs nothing less than a perfect interpretation. If so the Handley/LPO is just that:

     [mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/11/2/1559968/1%20Allegro%20vivace%20e%20nobilmente.mp3[/mp3]

     Someone put this symphony on their 100 best list. If I made a list this one would be on it, and so would the Rachmaninov 2nd, so I should make a list of Most Disparaged Great Symphonies. Then everyone can fire away. :) (lime green is the color of Grateness :P)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

karlhenning

Quote from: drogulus on November 05, 2008, 01:33:34 PM
     Falstaff is an astonishing work.

Aye, it is.  I thought the Naxos recording a dud.  At least, from that recording, I got a lackluster impression of the piece, which I was nonetheless sure was misleading.  Here again, Elder and the Hallé have saved the day . . . .

Quote from: Ernie
     I didn't warm to the 2nd symphony right away. It took a trip to England in the early '90s, after which I listened to the symphony and everything just clicked. It was a typical example of musical meaning arriving by a circuitous route.

Always glad to hear such stories.