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.

Scarpia

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 27, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Interesting.

Now, for me, it's the symphonies which are borderline monstronsities . . . where the Concerto I like very well.


Maybe my experience will follow Elgerian and I will like it 20 years from now.

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: DavidRoss on April 27, 2010, 08:40:30 AM
I've probably heard their Lark nearly two dozen times.  It is my favorite recording of the piece among the half-dozen I own, all acquired incidental to the purchase of other works.  I listened to it last night, in fact, before bed, wanting to hear something serenely beautiful to set my troubled mind at ease.

It is a hauntingly beautiful piece. I love it too. Listened to it today, matter of fact, not to the Hahn version but Iona Brown and the ASMF that comes coupled with the Chung/Solti Elgar VC. With me the concerto came first, today--the Lark an afterthought.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 09:45:10 AM
I came to the Elgar concerto with a strong positive disposition, but I remain pessimistic that this work will ever win me over.  I don't find that the "romantic" violin concerto is one of my favorite genres, the exceptions are the Brahm, Beethoven and Sibelius.   Baroque, Classical or neo-Classical VCs are more to my liking (Bach, Martinu, Stravinsky, Hindemith, etc).

My characterization, too many notes, still holds, too much incessant figuration from the violin.  My favorite concerti don't have that.  The idea of a 10 minutes cadenza doesn't make any sense to me.  There is a 100 piece orchestra sitting there cooling it's heels and I should be listening to a single violin squawking away (even if it's not Kennedy)?  I am interested in thematic contrasts and development that people have described, but I wish Elgar had put them into a third symphony instead of this monstrosity!

Does not compute. My brain uses a different operating system obviously.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

Scarpia

Even Kennedy's Lark is listenable.

Elgarian

Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 09:45:10 AM
The idea of a 10 minutes cadenza doesn't make any sense to me.
It sounds to me as though you're not going to get there this time around at least. The cadenza, as I've explained at some length, not only makes very great sense in its context, but actually lifts the concerto into quite a different realm, in my view. But it is absolutely necessary to follow closely the dialogue between the windflower themes, and to relate that to what went before in the first movement, or I suppose it may indeed sound like endless squawking, as you are finding.

QuoteThere is a 100 piece orchestra sitting there cooling it's heels and I should be listening to a single violin squawking away (even if it's not Kennedy)?
This statement tells me something important about the way you're listening - or rather, what you're not listening to. Fact is, the orchestra isn't sitting there cooling its heels. As I pointed out in my first post, this is an accompanied cadenza, and the orchestra makes crucial commentary and interjections all the way through the violin's explorations in the cadenza. If you're not hearing that, then I don't understand what's going on.

It's a truism, but a work of art that proves difficult to engage with does have to generate some degree of fascination in the first instance, in order to stimulate the necessary persistence. (As I said, it's taken me many fascinated years of listening to come to admire it as much as I do now, but it did have to intrigue me in the first place or I'd have given up). It sounds as though (for whatever reason) that's not happening for you at the moment, and I doubt the Kennedy is bad enough to provide an explanation. In other words, it seems unlikely that a different recording will solve the problem for you. Probably best to drop it, but if you do choose to persist, I wonder if you might do better in the first instance listening to the second movement a few times. Its sad, gentle and lovely lyricism might help you to feel better disposed towards the work as a whole.

QuoteI wish Elgar had put them into a third symphony instead of this monstrosity!
It's quite shocking to see such a profound and exquisite work described as a monstrosity, but as for the third symphony - well he did his best but died before it was finished, and Anthony Payne composed a 'completed' version from Elgar's sketches. The result is astonishingly fine, and sounds a lot more like Elgar than it has any right to do.

Scarpia

#605
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2010, 12:29:08 PM
It sounds to me as though you're not going to get there this time around at least. The cadenza, as I've explained at some length, not only makes very great sense in its context, but actually lifts the concerto into quite a different realm, in my view. But it is absolutely necessary to follow closely the dialogue between the windflower themes, and to relate that to what went before in the first movement, or I suppose it may indeed sound like endless squawking, as you are finding.

This statement tells me something important about the way you're listening - or rather, what you're not listening to. Fact is, the orchestra isn't sitting there cooling its heels. As I pointed out in my first post, this is an accompanied cadenza, and the orchestra makes crucial commentary and interjections all the way through the violin's explorations in the cadenza. If you're not hearing that, then I don't understand what's going on.

Yes, I did not fail to notice that the orchestra accompanied the violin during the cadenza.  If thematic transformation is the focus, those themes could have been explored using the sections of the orchestra in an orchestral fantasia.  The overall shape of the piece, that a large orchestra, which we have heard play at length in opulent orchestration, falls silent except to accompany the much thinner sound of a single stringed instrument for 10 minutes at a stretch, is essentially unsatisfying to me. 

Quote
It's a truism, but a work of art that proves difficult to engage with does have to generate some degree of fascination in the first instance, in order to stimulate the necessary persistence. (As I said, it's taken me many fascinated years of listening to come to admire it as much as I do now, but it did have to intrigue me in the first place or I'd have given up). It sounds as though (for whatever reason) that's not happening for you at the moment, and I doubt the Kennedy is bad enough to provide an explanation. In other words, it seems unlikely that a different recording will solve the problem for you. Probably best to drop it, but if you do choose to persist, I wonder if you might do better in the first instance listening to the second movement a few times. Its sad, gentle and lovely lyricism might help you to feel better disposed towards the work as a whole.
It's quite shocking to see such a profound and exquisite work described as a monstrosity, but as for the third symphony - well he did his best but died before it was finished, and Anthony Payne composed a 'completed' version from Elgar's sketches. The result is astonishingly fine, and sounds a lot more like Elgar than it has any right to do.

A shame Elgar didn't take up a third symphony until it was too late, after so many years of writing so little music of consequence.

Elgarian

Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 12:51:29 PM
The overall shape of the piece, that a large orchestra, which we have heard play at length in opulent orchestration, falls silent except to accompany the much thinner sound of a single stringed instrument for 10 minutes at a stretch, is essentially unsatisfying to me.
I've done all I can to explain why I find it one of the most deeply satisfying pieces of music I know; so there's nothing left to say, I think.

QuoteA shame Elgar didn't take up a third symphony until it was too late, after so many years of writing so little music of consequence.
Well of course he was a broken man after the death of his wife, so there was a long gap where he wasn't very productive as a composer. (On the other hand, he did make a large number of recordings during that time, and I wouldn't want to be without those.) It's characteristic, though, that when he did start to compose seriously again, an important part of the third symphony was inspired by yet another female 'muse' (Vera Hockman), and the dialogue with the feminine that's so crucial in the VC plays a significant, indeed unmistakable, role there also.

Scarpia

Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2010, 01:46:18 PM
I've done all I can to explain why I find it one of the most deeply satisfying pieces of music I know; so there's nothing left to say, I think.

Don't think I discount your analysis.  I am quite interested in the interplay of themes you describe.  It is the sound of the piece (taken in the viceral sense) that gives me no pleasure.

eyeresist

#608
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2010, 01:46:18 PM

Well of course he was a broken man after the death of his wife, so there was a long gap where he wasn't very productive as a composer. (On the other hand, he did make a large number of recordings during that time, and I wouldn't want to be without those.)
I understand he did a lot of revision during this period, and made arrangements of some early pieces, so it wasn't time completely wasted. A bit like Brahms, who spent his last years polishing his legacy.

Scarpia

Back to Kennedy, I was leaving Amazon Marketplace feedback and came upon the order for this disc.



It cost me 80 cents!   Efficient market theory at work!

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 08:57:42 PM
Back to Kennedy, I was leaving Amazon Marketplace feedback and came upon the order for this disc.



It cost me 80 cents!   Efficient market theory at work!

Now that you know you hate it, if you want to sell it, I'll give you a buck for it. You'll make a 25% profit  ;D

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

Elgarian

Quote from: eyeresist on April 27, 2010, 07:43:35 PM
I understand he did a lot of revision during this period, and made arrangements of some early pieces, so it wasn't time wasted.
Yes you're right, the period wasn't the complete vacuum that's often supposed. There was the Arthur Suite, for example, which, although it's hardly prime Elgar, is by no means a negligible work (he re-used part of it in the sketches for the 3rd symphony), and it re-emphasises the importance of understanding the chivalric ideal as a key component of Elgar's inspiration.

But even though there was this activity during that late period, there was nothing comparable to the flow of major works (the chamber music, the cello concerto) that had preceded it, until he started work on the 3rd symphony, too late.

Elgarian

Quote from: Scarpia on April 27, 2010, 02:17:00 PM
It is the sound of the piece (taken in the viceral sense) that gives me no pleasure.
I guess that particular aspect could be partly a Kennedy issue. I'd recommend leaving it alone for a while, but maybe keep an eye open for a cheap copy of this:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elgar-Violin-Concerto-Quartet-Quintet/dp/B0001ZM8VI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1272452126&sr=1-1

Even at full price it's very cheap, and on the 2 CDs you also get the three great chamber works. So even if you decide you don't like Bean's performance either (which is nowhere near as flashy as Kennedy's), at least you get three other pieces of Elgar at his finest.

karlhenning

I just want to say that I like Kennedy just fine in the Elgar Vn Cto.  Almost certainly prefer him to la Hahn.

Carry on.

Sergeant Rock

#614
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 28, 2010, 03:51:05 AM
I just want to say that I like Kennedy just fine in the Elgar Vn Cto.  Almost certainly prefer him to la Hahn.

Carry on.


I do too. I just finished a comparative listen to my three CD versions (Kennedy/Handley, Chung/Solti, and Hahn/Davis) and Kennedy is the best fiddler of the three in this work. Hahn's tone disturbs me: very thin with a constant and same vibrato that becomes irritating...at least it irritated this morning. Chung is "feminine" too but with considerably more grit and a wider range of tonal shades. I really like her, and like too what Solti does with the orchestra: he's very sensitive to his soloist, follows her lead into emotional depths we usually don't associate with this conductor but when on his own, he takes the opportunity to let the orchestra explode. Tuttis are thrilling...I doubt anyone does them better, with more passion. The performance then makes a clear distinction (if I may borrow from Elgarian) between the masculine and feminine elements in the music. I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Chung/Solti and Kennedy/Handley for the desert island.

Thanks to all the folks who've contributed (even negatively--Scarpia is the catalyst of the discussion) I've come to love the concerto even more (and understand it far better thanks to Elgarian). I'm buying more versions. Ehnes/Andrew Davis is on the way and I just ordered Dong-Suk Kang/Leaper which is supposed to be a very different kind of interpretation than we're used to: faster, more volatile.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

Scarpia

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 28, 2010, 05:57:35 AM
I do too. I just finished a comparative listen to my three CD versions (Kennedy/Handley, Chung/Solti, and Hahn/Davis) and Kennedy is the best fiddler of the three in this work. Hahn's tone disturbs me: very thin with a constant and same vibrato that becomes irritating...at least it irritated this morning. Chung is "feminine" too but with considerably more grit and a wider range of tonal shades. I really like her, and like too what Solti does with the orchestra: he's very sensitive to his soloist, follows her lead into emotional depths we usually don't associate with this conductor but when on his own, he takes the opportunity to let the orchestra explode. Tuttis are thrilling...I doubt anyone does them better, with more passion. The performance then makes a clear distinction (if I may borrow from Elgarian) between the masculine and feminine elements in the music. I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Chung/Solti and Kennedy/Handley for the desert island.

Thanks to all the folks who've contributed (even negatively--Scarpia is the catalyst of the discussion) I've come to love the concerto even more (and understand it far better thanks to Elgarian). I'm buying more versions. Ehnes/Andrew Davis is on the way and I just ordered Dong/Leaper which is supposed to be a very different kind of interpretation than we're used to: faster, more volatile.

Sarge

Thanks Sarge.  My Hahn recording arrived today.  What you say about the Chung/Solti sounds intriguing, except that I really didn't like Solti's way with the symphonies, too aggressive and lacking in nuance.  Maybe now that I feel I have a handle on the symphony No 1 I can revisit Solti's performance with more perspective.  Unfortunately, the Chung VC is out of print and cheap copies are hard to come by.

In any case, I hope nobody minds that I play devil's advocate in these threads to try and get people to be forthcoming about what they like about music I'm having difficulty with.

Elgarian

#616
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 28, 2010, 05:57:35 AM
I just ordered Dong/Leaper which is supposed to be a very different kind of interpretation than we're used to: faster, more volatile.
I think Dong Suk Kang/Leaper is a real firecracker of a version and I'll be very interested to hear what you think of it, Sarge. He really sets it on fire in a way that I love, unlike Kennedy, who (I don't want to labour the point) is too self-consciously virtuoso for me. I was shocked when I first heard the Dong Suk Kang, because it is nothing like my favourite, Bean/Groves, and yet it has a wild, romany flavour to it that entirely convinces me, against the odds. I've often wondered why it's so convincing (when I somehow feel that it oughtn't to be), and the closest I've ever got to an answer is that it allows a different kind of feminity to come through: more Persephone than Demeter, perhaps: more the kind of gal who's more likely to run off with the raggle-taggle gypsies, than settle down one day as somebody's mum.

What Elgar would have thought of it I can't imagine. But if I could only take two Elgar VC recordings to my desert island, they'd be Hugh Bean/Groves and Dong Suk Kang/Leaper. (I should add, though, that I've only heard about a dozen different ones - there are still a lot out there that I'm not familiar with.)

Renfield

Quote from: Scarpia on April 28, 2010, 07:34:50 AM
In any case, I hope nobody minds that I play devil's advocate in these threads to try and get people to be forthcoming about what they like about music I'm having difficulty with.

Let me chip in at this point and see, please, do go on playing devil's advocate! This has been one of the most interesting, absorbing, and informative threads on this forum for quite a while (at least in my estimate).


Re Elgar's violin concerto, I do have at least one of the Kennedy versions, I'm pretty sure I have the Hahn, and also pretty sure I liked it quite a bit; but - call me old fashioned! - I've come to know the piece via Menuhin/Elgar.

My impressions of it have generally focused on the innocence a lot of it projects, down to its seemingly (to me) wandering structure.

I additionally seem to recall I was impressed with Ehnes, whose version I do have somewhere, but bought right before I moved country a couple of years ago and didn't get a chance to rip (like many recordings I tend to mention like this).

If I find it, I'll give it a spin and comment. If not, I assure you (and indeed Elgarian), I will be reading anyway.

Elgarian

QuoteIn any case, I hope nobody minds that I play devil's advocate in these threads to try and get people to be forthcoming about what they like about music I'm having difficulty with.
I've had several attempts over the years to try to piece together an account of where I think the greatness of the VC lies, and of how it hangs together, but I can never arrive at a definitive account because my understanding of the piece is in a more or less continual state of flux; changing like a tree, rather than like a cloud, I hope - but changing nonetheless. I suspect there are changes of emphasis brewing every time I listen.

So your original post gave me the opportunity to revisit all that, pool the ideas together, and try to write a coherent account; and although I embarked on it because I hoped it might be helpful to you, by the end I was mainly finding it helpful to me. So carry on, by all means.

karlhenning

There will be carrying on in any event, but let me go on record as encouraging the on-carrying.