Elgar's Hillside

[eyeresist]

Once again this forum has led me to music I might otherwise have missed! After reading the last few entries, I listened to The Music Makers for the first time (cond. Andrew Davis, an excellent performance/recording). I think the only previous Elgar choral work I'd heard was "All the young princesses", which sounds about as you might expect. Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), I was very impressed by TMM. Its references to the orchestral works helped of course. So I quickly went out and picked up the Choral Collection on EMI, and now I think I will have to get the Collector's Edition as well. If only the Hickox discs were a little less expensive - it would be nice to hear these works in modern sound.

Yes, Elgar's librettos seem pretty awful. I wonder if some irreverent person has tried resetting Music Makers with words from the Wunderhorn, or some other more worthy text?

[bhodges]

Speaking of Sea Pictures, which I've never heard live, Levine and the MET Orchestra are doing it in December with mezzo Stephanie Blythe, coupled with Mahler's Fifth Symphony.  Details here.

--Bruce

[Martin Lind]

I listened now for the 7th or 8th time to Lux Christi and this time I am more convinced than ever that this is a genuine masterpiece. The score is full of marvelous moments. I am glad that I have bought this box:



It is a genuine bargain. I have of course only heard a smaller part of this box. I don't know wether all this music is so great. But maybe? I liked Lux Christi from the first beginning, but beginning with Lux Christi I was often bored, but listening to it now several times I am really convinced by this music. It obviously lasts some time to really grasp its greatness. And I am convinced that it may be a good thing to listen to Elgar more often!

[jlaurson]

Elgar 75th Death Anniversary Tribute on WETA.

Edward Elgar (1857 – 23 February 1934)


"Library Building" posts are reviews of recordings I find to be essential to every good collection of classical music - recordings of interpretations that are the touchstone for their repertoire.


Looking at Edward Elgar 75 years after he died (today, on February 23rd), he looks to be the quintessential English gentleman composer. From his handlebar mustache to his glee club membership to his avid bike-riding to his compositions that seem to presage that particular type of British "pastoral" music, he has become the mold for a stereotype. There is no composer native to England that is more famous or more often performed.

There can't be many English speaking classical music lovers who don't know at least his Pomp & Circumstance march and the Enigma Variations. His Cello Concerto has received mythical status through the famous EMI recording of Jacqueline du Pré and the LSO under John Barbirolli. His Third Symphony is—with Mahler's Tenth, Mozart's Requiem, Berg's Lulu, and Puccini's Turandot—one of the famous unfinished works that has been 'completed' posthumously.

Information about Elgar is easily found, so in acknowledgment of his 75th death anniversary, I restrict myself to listing recordings of some of his works—famous and obscure—that I think are particularly notable.

(continues here: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=503)

[Guido]

http://www.wrightmusic.org.uk/elgar.html

Another astonishing piece of writing by this guy (see Britten thread). What on earth could drive him to write such a rambling, hateful, and poorly thought through piece?

Here's his "damning" criticism of the cello concerto:

EDIT: I've just seen his ridiculous warning at the bottom of the page about not being able to quote any part of his work - I don't want to get GMG in trouble though, so just check it out - it's about 3/4 of the way down.

What perspicacious, lucid and penetrating musical analysis!! Mental.

[DavidW]

He certainly loves his navy blue knickers!

[Lethevich]

I believe this chap had to be politely told to stop contributing to MusicWeb due to his poisoned pen. Quite the nutter, indeed.

[drogulus]

     This fellow is impressed by the harsh judgment of Elgar's rivals. Is this more important than the influence he had on music and British composers? Who cares what Walton said in 1960? Hadn't he already demonstrated what he owed to Elgar? Bax said if only Elgar had been professionally trained....if only what? He would be a greater artist? Perhaps, but training doesn't impart talent. The success of Elgar shows that someone with great gifts can overcome deficiencies in training.

     You can't "unmask" an artist as an artist. The art is the effect it produces, and any tricks used to achieve this are part of the art. The amateur and poorly trained who overcome their disadvantages are not despised for this. How could they be? Elgar played the leading role in founding a national musical tradition in a country that hadn't had a great native-born composer in centuries. What could Stanford or Parry say that could change that?

     I found this about a comparison that Barbirolli made between Elgar and Bruckner:

     Indeed he once said of Bruckner's Seventh "I find a great affinity with Elgar: not in actual music, of course, but in loftiness of ideals and purpose, richness of melodic line and harmony, and even an affinity of defects." This last comment is particularly fascinating and he went on to elaborate: "The over development, sometimes to the point of padding, the sequences, etc., but all very loveable and to me easily tolerated and forgiven in the greatness of it all."


     That's an opinion, too, so take it for what it's worth. I find the opinions of those who love music valuable, and sometimes critical opinions as well when they demonstrate some understanding.
     
   

[Lethevich]

Bax said if only Elgar had been professionally trained....if only what?

That is rich coming from him! They both have their structural difficulties.

[DavidW]

That is rich coming from him! They both have their structural difficulties.

I disagree, neither one has structural difficulties.  It's said alot, especially about Elgar, and I think I know where it comes from.  These neoromantic composers are seen as throwbacks, as a tonal refuge in the atonal storm.  Well, it takes one extra step to label them as easy listening which many people do.  But they're not, they wrote very complex music that would be assaulting to the ears of someone from the romantic era.  Elgar, Bax etc are not "easy listening" composers, and the only way for those that think so to resolve that cognitive dissonance of calling difficult music easy is to say that they must be poor orchestrators or simply deficient in composing in some way.

But the problem is not with the composers, it's with the audience.  If you accept the music for what it is then you can realize that these are not problematic composers, they simply write in a very unique style shared by only a few.

[Lethevich]

I don't consider those traits to be faults, but I took the training comment to mean he felt Elgar's music could be tidied up to reach a higher level of wider access/appeal or something, when the same criticism could equally be leveled at his music.

[71 dB]

Yes, Elgar wasn't professionally trained but that doesn't mean he was under-trained. I think he was able to self-train himself extremely well. He studied scores (he's father was a owner of a music shop) of great composers. J.S.Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. were his teachers and he learned so much. Professional training can be a problem too. Hovhaness' teachers called his original music stupid! Often it is the teacher in need of education.

I disagree, neither one has structural difficulties.  It's said alot, especially about Elgar, and I think I know where it comes from.  These neoromantic composers are seen as throwbacks, as a tonal refuge in the atonal storm.  Well, it takes one extra step to label them as easy listening which many people do.  But they're not, they wrote very complex music that would be assaulting to the ears of someone from the romantic era.  Elgar, Bax etc are not "easy listening" composers, and the only way for those that think so to resolve that cognitive dissonance of calling difficult music easy is to say that they must be poor orchestrators or simply deficient in composing in some way.

But the problem is not with the composers, it's with the audience.  If you accept the music for what it is then you can realize that these are not problematic composers, they simply write in a very unique style shared by only a few.

Well said DavidW. 

[DavidW]

I don't consider those traits to be faults, but I took the training comment to mean he felt Elgar's music could be tidied up to reach a higher level of wider access/appeal or something, when the same criticism could equally be leveled at his music.

Oh yeah I know, your post was just an excuse to say something that had been on my mind recently!

Well said DavidW. 

Thank you sir!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Эльгар в Москве

Some interesting news for Elgar fans who bemoan the lack of attention paid to their hero outside the Anglosphere. I've been looking at the main Moscow concert website, and for some reason lots of Elgar is being played this year: the Enigma Variations (more than once), the violin and cello concertos, and a bunch of smaller pieces.

I'm a little puzzled, since it's not an anniversary or anything. Still, nice to see. (We also get Walton's 1st Symphony; I'm excited about that)

[vandermolen]

Эльгар в Москве

Some interesting news for Elgar fans who bemoan the lack of attention paid to their hero outside the Anglosphere. I've been looking at the main Moscow concert website, and for some reason lots of Elgar is being played this year: the Enigma Variations (more than once), the violin and cello concertos, and a bunch of smaller pieces.

I'm a little puzzled, since it's not an anniversary or anything. Still, nice to see. (We also get Walton's 1st Symphony; I'm excited about that)

I have a CD of Svetlanov and the USSR SO performing Elgar Symphony No 2 - a very interesting CD.

[secondwind]

I just returned from hearing Elgar's Violin Concerto performed by Nikolaj Znaider with the National Symphony Orchestra under Leonard Slatkin.  My husband and I had such wildly different impressions of the piece, which was new to both of us, that it almost left me wondering if we had in fact heard the same concert! I thought it was lovely, beautifully played, introspective and sensitive, with moments of pastoral lyricism and episodes of inner struggle--whatever.  I liked it a lot.  He said it was the most tedious thing he'd ever heard.  He said other things even less complimentary to the work. 

It's not that we agree on everything, but it is rare indeed for us to come to such vastly different conclusions about a piece of music.  Is this an Elgar thing, or were  we each having our own particular kind of a bad day?  Can this marriage be saved? 

[71 dB]

Elgar's Violin Concerto is my favorite VC! Absolutely awesome work  and totally undervalued.

Is this an Elgar thing,

I think it is. 99 % of people just don't get his music. Really frustrating for us Elgarians.

[Lethevich]

Secondwind - it's a classic "Elgar thing", and it's what seperates the factions who believe that Elgar is one of the greatest cross-century century Romantics and those who consider him over-hyped (by the insidious British Media, as I have learned from this forum ).

His music at its most expansive is surprisingly difficult to grasp - not surprising that his "hits" are the more restrained cello concerto and the Enigma Variations. The symphonies and VC are rather different affairs... They are at once as supremely passionate and nostalgic as Rachmaninoff, but lack the directness that people find in his piano concertos. Many consider the symphonies in particular to be wallowing and loosely structured, but with close listening Elgar can be found to be as structured as Mahler, if not quite so bursting with ideas.

It's strange, as I doubt Elgar intended to write tough music, because it is constantly melodic and appealing to the ear at individual moments, but there is a certain density to his ideas which will always leave many people wondering what on earth he was trying to do - both orchestrationally and structurally - especially in the symphonies. To further contrast with Mahler's style: where Mahler is expansive, he is also chamber-like. His orchestral writing is an x-ray in which you can hear everything. Elgar is less radical, and as a result on a first listen (or even subsequent ones) the music can sound "gloopy" as there is too much going on under the surface. I suspect they would benefit greatly from score-reading, but that is beyond my ability at the moment.

[drogulus]

Once again this forum has led me to music I might otherwise have missed! After reading the last few entries, I listened to The Music Makers for the first time (cond. Andrew Davis, an excellent performance/recording). I think the only previous Elgar choral work I'd heard was "All the young princesses", which sounds about as you might expect. Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), I was very impressed by TMM. Its references to the orchestral works helped of course. So I quickly went out and picked up the Choral Collection on EMI, and now I think I will have to get the Collector's Edition as well. If only the Hickox discs were a little less expensive - it would be nice to hear these works in modern sound.

Yes, Elgar's librettos seem pretty awful. I wonder if some irreverent person has tried resetting Music Makers with words from the Wunderhorn, or some other more worthy text?

      Another vote for The Music Makers....hooray! This is my favorite greatest hits medley ever produced by a classical composer. It might be the only such medley, but no matter, I really like it.

     Wild divergences about Elgar do seem to be common. I get the feeling that some listeners feel Elgar is beneath them, and there's a cultural and political bias involved. I will hazard a guess that much of the real anti-Elgar feeling stems from his association with British imperialism, which is still widely unpopular throughout the world. Elgar is seen not only as supporting imperialism but as being sentimental about it.

      David, you make an interesting point about difficulty with Elgar and Bax. When avant-gardists are difficult it's commonly taken by their partisans as a sign of the music's importance, and its uncompromising nature should inspire efforts to understand it. The music is better than you are, so you'd better buckle down and learn to appreciate it if you want to be taken seriously as a cultured person. Can you imagine such indulgence in the case of neo- or late romantic composers? No, in their case something must be wrong with the music! Look, either view is supportable IMO. Either you work to understand what's difficult or you decide the composer writes the wrong kind of music. What gets me is attacks on the difficulty of Elgar and Bax that assume that difficulty can only be explaned by defects and not by the ambition of the composer.

[Elgarian]

I just returned from hearing Elgar's Violin Concerto performed by Nikolaj Znaider with the National Symphony Orchestra under Leonard Slatkin.  My husband and I had such wildly different impressions of the piece, which was new to both of us, that it almost left me wondering if we had in fact heard the same concert! I thought it was lovely, beautifully played, introspective and sensitive, with moments of pastoral lyricism and episodes of inner struggle--whatever.  I liked it a lot.  He said it was the most tedious thing he'd ever heard.  He said other things even less complimentary to the work. 

It's not that we agree on everything, but it is rare indeed for us to come to such vastly different conclusions about a piece of music.  Is this an Elgar thing, or were  we each having our own particular kind of a bad day?  Can this marriage be saved? 

It took me years to come to terms with the violin concerto, although now it's one of my most treasured pieces of music. I find it almost painfully beautiful and full of expressions of deep longing. I think for many people it has less immediate appeal than the cello concerto, and they find it too long - largely I suspect because of the 10 minute cadenza he attached at the end, which demands really close attention just when they think they've had enough. But everything that's there is essential as far as I can see. For me, it's a piece that benefits by some knowledge of the biographical background - most notably Elgar's relationship with his 'Windflower' (Alice Stuart Wortley),  his struggle with a deep-seated attitude to a certain feminine archetype, and the tug of war that went on within him between the public and private self.

The key to the concerto lies, in my opinion, in the cadenza. After a respectable half an hour's duration (and following a heartbreakingly moving second movement), just as he seems to be about to wind things up, 10 minutes into the last movement, suddenly a question is raised. Strikingly, the cadenza is announced by an eerie thrumming on the strings and the two 'windflower' themes (introduced so hauntingly in the first movement)  begin a kind of tortured dialogue on the solo violin, as if to say that matters are still unresolved between us. That 10-minute cadenza at times struggles to continue - there are a couple of moments when one feels the music is about to die, almost for sheer lack of momentum. The parallel with Elgar's personal temperament is unmissable, I think - the conflict between public and private persona; the conflict between woman as lover, and woman as mother - I think the cadenza seeks to make a musical resolution that symbolises a possible solution of his emotional conflicts. At the end, it seems that some kind of acceptance is reached - an acceptance that these are the conflicts that drive his music, perhaps? - and the thing is wrapped up with surprising suddenness, as he papers over the cracks with a last blast of the public self.

If you're as interested in Elgar the man as much as I am, then the violin concerto is a fascinating piece of music to explore over a lifetime. If you're not, then maybe that's when these criticisms about it being too long, etc, start to tell. But even so, I'd have thought most people could grow to love the sheer lyrical beauty of the second movement.