Elgar's Hillside

[DavidRoss]

Despite received opinion that Elgar's 2nd Symphony is finer than his first. I have always preferred Number 1. It is some time since I gave the Second an outing and I always enjoyed it. The only recording I have is Solti. I listened to it yesterday and suddenly, it sounded bombastic and overblown. I turned it off after the third movement.

Can't help, Mike.  I prefer the first, too, and seldom make it all the way through the second, so put off am I by the bombast.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[knight66]

I guess what I am trying to grasp is whether the bombast is Elgar or Solti. Some bombast is fine, but I felt as though Solti had given me a battering.

Sarge, yes, I don't want it as though it is happening under water.

BTW, a few days ago I heard an extract of this:



It sounded terrific and I have just ordered it.

Mike

[DavidRoss]

I guess what I am trying to grasp is whether the bombast is Elgar or Solti. Some bombast is fine, but I felt as though Solti had given me a battering.

It's not just Solti.  The Davis/LSO recording I have sounds as if Colonel Blimp is at the helm.

[knight66]

 

[Sergeant Rock]

I guess what I am trying to grasp is whether the bombast is Elgar or Solti. Some bombast is fine, but I felt as though Solti had given me a battering.

Solti's version is very close to Elgar's own so yeah, it may be the music not the performance. Handley has a reputaton for straight-forward, non-eccentric interpretations. Penguin praises the sound quality, too, and says Downes is more distantly recorded, lessening the impact. But maybe that would be a plus in your case.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

Can't help, Mike.  I prefer the first, too, and seldom make it all the way through the second, so put off am I by the bombast.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

  ..nice Seinfeld allusion, David.

Elgar's Second is the very definition of hyper-Late Romanticism. To me it's an emotional roller-coaster, akin to Mahler especially in the versions I prefer--which prolong the "agony"    Definitely one of my favorite symphonies and yes, it a masterpiece of its kind. Not for everyone obviously.

Sarge

[DavidRoss]

  ..nice Seinfeld allusion, David.

It's gratifying when I'm not the only one amused by my little jokes. 

[knight66]

Sarge, Thanks. I had read that Elgar's own recording was rather reticent and lacking in drama. Anyway, I will get hold of another version. Perhaps it was just the mood I was in as I have known the symphony for many years.

Mike

[Scarpia]

Sarge, Thanks. I had read that Elgar's own recording was rather reticent and lacking in drama. Anyway, I will get hold of another version. Perhaps it was just the mood I was in as I have known the symphony for many years.

Mike

No one de-bombastifies Elgar like Barbirolli.

[eyeresist]

Solti's version is very close to Elgar's own

This conventional wisdom is questionable. Where did it originate?

You might think the musical connection would be made clear in the August 1972 Gramophone review of the Solti 1st symphony, but that review is largely full of high-spoken waffle.

What the reviewer does specifically say about the performance is that no-one after Elgar gave the motto theme sufficient "movement and lift", nor tied the various tempos together with sufficient terseness - the implication is that Solti does do these things, but the reviewer does not actually come out and state this. All other descriptions of the actual performance make the point of how much this differs from Elgar's approach:

Not that Solti follows Elgar slavishly. It would be easy to point out dozens of divergent points, but the real difference is one of spirit. Elgar's conviction was something born of an intense creative intimacy. Solti's approach is naturally more distant— almost, one might say, more 'sophisticated'. The conviction is less prominently placed.

The legend that Solti speaks for the composer begins here with the reviewer's assertion that:

In the April issue (p. 1694) Edward Greenfield contributed a fascinating piece about the sessions which resulted in this new version. And at the basis of Solti's interpretation, he makes clear, is Elgar's own recording. What Mr Greenfield modestly omits to say is that he himself used Elgar's recording to foster Sir Georg's interest in the work.

Now, what exactly is it that Mr. Greenfield actually "made clear"?

The short Gramophone article about the recording session (scroll down), by Edward Greenfield, appearing in the April 1972 issue, is called "SIR GEORGE'S ELGAR". The only evidence here for Elgar's influence on Solti is:

...I suggested at once that he should hear the composer's own recording which so passionately develops on what is contained in the score. Since then World Record Club has reissued that historic recording on LP, and Sold has taken advantage of that. This was plain enough in the Festival Hall performance...

...and he goes on to give no specifics whatsoever, in terms of tempo, rubato, portamento (none in Solti's recording, that I can recall), or dynamics.

For myself, I don't hear much Elgar in Solti's hard-bitten attack on the music.

[karlhenning]

Yes, it's true that the 2nd is a finer work. When you agree with that then you know you understand Elgar's music! 

Ah, the ever-helpful Poju!

[karlhenning]

Only the one dollar bill?  Not the twenty?  Or the fifty?  Oh, well...so long as it's not the three, I suppose.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Hah!

[Sergeant Rock]

For myself, I don't hear much Elgar in Solti's hard-bitten attack on the music.

You've been talking about Elgar 1 and we're discussing Elgar 2. What Gramophone had to say about Elgar and Solti's Seconds is: "Solti's reading as a whole strikes me as making the closest approach on records to the spirit of Elgar's own (and he has studied the composer's recording, as he says, "very much"). Yet it is no slavish imitation. Solti's eager, driving phraseology, through the big opening statements is more extreme than Elgar's, and almost all his pulses are faster. But they catch Elgar's spirit superbly."

I do hear Elgar in this recording although I don't agree entirely with that quote. For one thing, Solti's overall timing is actually slower than Elgar's in the first movement, and very much slower in the Larghetto (15:30 vs 12:59). The opening of the symphony--speed, phrasing--sounds almost identical. The last two movements are virtual twins as far as timing. To my ears Elgar is as aggressive as Solti (although admittedly Solti's recording sounds fiercer because the inner details are more prominent, reinforcing the rhythmic drive).

Full Gramophone review here

Sarge

[karlhenning]

Any opinions here on Tate/LSO here?  I've had the GEMIni two-fer of the symphonies for a year or more, but haven't listened to them yet (gosh, I wonder why?)

[DavidRoss]

No one de-bombastifies Elgar like Barbirolli.

Thanks for the reminder.  I listened to this 2nd yesterday and enjoyed it very much.  Grace, poetry, dignity, and beauty abound.

[Sergeant Rock]

Any opinions here on Tate/LSO here?  I've had the GEMIni two-fer of the symphonies for a year or more, but haven't listened to them yet (gosh, I wonder why?)

Like Sinopoli, Tate is a polar opposite of Elgar's own interpretation. Timings will tell you much:

Solti    15:28   15:30   7:49   12:33

Elgar  14:33   12:59   7:55   12:20

Tate   19:17   17:21   8:28   17:23

I don't find it a soggy performance though. It's rhythmically vital and the sound of the recording is stunning, especially brass and percussion.


Sarge

[karlhenning]

Like Sinopoli, Tate is a polar opposite of Elgar's own interpretation. Timings will tell you much:

Elgar  14:33   12:59   7:55   12:20

Tate   19:17   17:21   8:28   17:23

I don't find it a soggy performance though. It's rhythmically vital and the sound of the recording is stunning, especially brass and percussion.

Thanks, Sarge.  The 'composer's own' look quite brisk!  I wonder if this is anything like Shostakovich, who was reported to play all his own music on the quick side . . . shy diffidence, perhaps a degree of fear (if he were to let the music 'take its time') that he would lose the audience . . . .

[DavidRoss]

FWIW, timings for Barbirolli in the recording above and for Davis/LSO live:

Barbirolli  19:19  13:47  8:18  14:16

Davis       18:23  16:19  8:26  14:30

[Sergeant Rock]

Thanks, Sarge.  The 'composer's own' look quite brisk!  I wonder if this is anything like Shostakovich, who was reported to play all his own music on the quick side . . . shy diffidence, perhaps a degree of fear (if he were to let the music 'take its time') that he would lose the audience . . . .

I wouldn't be surprised if that too were the case with Elgar. I read somewhere that when Elgar conducted, his times in the movements could vary from concert to concert by as much as five minutes, depending on certain factors--his own mental state being one. So Tate (and the other conductors who are much slower than the Elgar recording) may not be "wrong."

Barbirolli  19:19  13:47  8:18  14:16

Thanks for the Barbirolli timings, David. I don't own his Elgar--I should rectify that (I do own the Davis box).

Sarge

[Lethevich]

Hmm, Davis feels a lot slower than he actually is