Elgar's Hillside

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Franco

Which Kennedy Elgar VC recording is the one under discussion: w/ Handly or the later one w/ Rattle?

karlhenning

Well, I only know the one with Rattle.


Scarpia

Quote from: Franco on April 28, 2010, 10:22:02 AM
Which Kennedy Elgar VC recording is the one under discussion: w/ Handly or the later one w/ Rattle?

I started the discussion with Rattle (although I have both recordings) and most of the performance specific comments have been about that one, although Sarge has the Hadley and has discussed his reaction to that one.   I've only listened to the orchestral exposition of Hadley's and by comparison Rattle's seems a lot more driven, Hadley's more noble in tone.  I'm not sure how the Kennedy performances compare.

springrite

Quote from: Scarpia on April 28, 2010, 10:41:45 AM
I started the discussion with Rattle (although I have both recordings) and most of the performance specific comments have been about that one, although Sarge has the Hadley and has discussed his reaction to that one.   I've only listened to the orchestral exposition of Hadley's and by comparison Rattle's seems a lot more driven, Hadley's more noble in tone.  I'm not sure how the Kennedy performances compare.

The Rattle is certainly more exciting but for me, the Handley just seems more right. Kennedy is excellent in both.
Do what I must do, and let what must happen happen.

Elgarian

#625
Quote from: Franco on April 28, 2010, 10:22:02 AM
Which Kennedy Elgar VC recording is the one under discussion: w/ Handly or the later one w/ Rattle?
I have both. I bought the Kennedy/Handley expecting great things but never grew to love it; bought the Kennedy/Rattle, later, with hopes that were dampened and misgivings that were confirmed. Brilliant playing, I guess, and I'm aware of the high reputation of both; I prefer the Handley (I agree with the comment about it seeming more 'nobilmente'), but in both the fiddling seems to miss the depths of longing and soul-searching that I feel are so important in this particular work. But it could be said that I'm an Elgar-VC obsessive, which may or may not be a good thing.

Luke

#626
Quote from: Elgarian on April 28, 2010, 11:47:56 AM
I have both. I bought the Kennedy/Handley expecting great things but never grew to love it; bought the Kennedy/Rattle, later, with hopes that were dampened and misgivings that were confirmed. Brilliant playing, I guess, and I'm aware of the high reputation of both; I prefer the Handley, but they both seem to miss the depths of longing and soul-searching that I feel are so important in this particular work. But it could be said that I'm an Elgar-VC obsessive, which may or may not be a good thing.

I just want to say thank you for your contributions to this thread which I've been reading with great enjoyment and admiration. My understanding and appreciation of the Elgar VC is much as yours is, I think, only you describe things so much more beautifully and passionately than I ever could. Funnily enough, I also share your admiration and preference for Hugh Bean's recording, which I don't think anyone else has commented on - all this discussion of Kennedy and Hahn etc. obscures what a wonderful recording Bean's is, one which I've not heard 'surpassed'. In a funny old way, I'm not sure this doesn't tell us something about the character of the concerto itself - that it's a piece in which a low-profile, thoughtful but not spectacular player with a special connection to the piece seems (to me) to have an advantage over the more powerful, super-charged names who cover it as one step in their leaps from concerto to concerto (I know, I am being dreadfully unfair!). As a concerto, it seems to me, this piece is much the same - and your description of it, to my mind (apologies if I misread you), emphasizes this, particularly the way you describe it drawing into itself in the cadenza rather than charging excitedly for the double bar as it could so easily have done - the way, that is, that it is self-searching and honest and full of integrity.

The Bean is available, very cheaply, on a twofer, with his reading of the VC and the violin sonata on the first disc, and the Allegri Quartet/Ogdon etc in the string quartet and piano quintet on the other disc. It's self-recommending, really

springrite

Haven't listened to the Sammons recording for ages and don't remember how I thought of it. Maybe I will pull it out in the next few days...
Do what I must do, and let what must happen happen.

Elgarian

#628
Quote from: Luke on April 28, 2010, 11:59:19 AM
I also share your admiration and preference for Hugh Bean's recording, which I don't think anyone else has commented on - all this discussion of Kennedy and Hahn etc. obscures what a wonderful recording Bean's is, one which I've not heard 'surpassed'. In a funny old way, I'm not sure this doesn't tell us something about the character of the concerto itself - that it's a piece in which a low-profile, thoughtful but not spectacular player with a special connection to the piece seems (to me) to have an advantage over the more powerful, super-charged names who cover it as one step in their leaps from concerto to concerto (I know, I am being dreadfully unfair!). As a concerto, it seems to me, this piece is much the same - and your description of it, to my mind (apologies if I misread you), emphasizes this, particularly the way you describe it drawing into itself in the cadenza rather than charging excitedly for the double bar as it could so easily have done - the way, that is, that it is self-searching and honest and full of integrity.

The Bean is available, very cheaply, on a twofer, with his reading of the VC and the violin sonata on the first disc, and the Allegri Quartet/Ogdon etc in the string quartet and piano quintet on the other disc. It's self-recommending, really
Thanks for those kind comments - I always think that it doesn't matter whether others agree with our opinions about things that we care a lot about (like the Elgar VC in this instance), but it is always very encouraging to discover that we're understood.

I mustn't turn this into a mutual admiration session, but I feel compelled to say that I think you have perfectly nailed the essential character of the Bean recording, better than I could have said it. There's an inner 'quietness' in it - an innate sympathy with the music that has sustained many, many listenings through the years, for me, while the Kennedy fireworks emerge to brighten the sky for a short time and then return to gather dust on the shelf. That 2CD set of Bean/Groves, plus those glorious chamber works, is, as you say, one of the most rewarding Elgar bargains available. Let's promote it once more:


eyeresist

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 28, 2010, 05:57:35 AM
Hahn's tone disturbs me: very thin with a constant and same vibrato that becomes irritating...at least it irritated this morning.
That was my reaction to Bean's playing, sad to say.

Scarpia

Queued up this recording this evening:



Now that is much, much, much better than that duo of numskulls, Kennedy and Rattle.  Colin Davis knows what he is doing in this music, and Hahn plays with Lyricism, unlike Kennedy, who sounds like a banshee on amphetamines.   I think I may get to enjoy this piece yet!

Elgarian

Quote from: eyeresist on April 28, 2010, 06:37:56 PM
That was my reaction to Bean's playing, sad to say.
There's an interesting hint of a polarisation of preference emerging here, with some lining up on what we might label the 'pro-Kennedy' side of the fence, and others on the opposing side: that is, those who enjoy the VC played with sparks and vigour - dare I say, a more masculine, beefy approach? While others (eg Luke and myself) who are seeking the more reserved approach, perhaps with more emphasis on the soul-wringing longing for the feminine. I'm sure it's by no means so simple as that, but it does suggest that there are at least two contrasting sets of expectations among us, when we approach the piece.

Elgarian

QuoteI think I may get to enjoy this piece yet!
I'm almost relieved to hear you say that. There's so much to be discovered in it that it would be such a pity for you to abandon it as a result of a bad initial experience.

Franco

Quote from: Elgarian on April 28, 2010, 11:51:04 PM
There's an interesting hint of a polarisation of preference emerging here, with some lining up on what we might label the 'pro-Kennedy' side of the fence, and others on the opposing side: that is, those who enjoy the VC played with sparks and vigour - dare I say, a more masculine, beefy approach? While others (eg Luke and myself) who are seeking the more reserved approach, perhaps with more emphasis on the soul-wringing longing for the feminine. I'm sure it's by no means so simple as that, but it does suggest that there are at least two contrasting sets of expectations among us, when we approach the piece.

Where do you place the Menuhin recording?  It's the only one I have in my collection at present.

Archaic Torso of Apollo

Quote from: Franco on April 29, 2010, 02:53:16 AM
Where do you place the Menuhin recording?  It's the only one I have in my collection at present.

Or the Heifetz? It's the only one I have...
formerly VELIMIR (before that, Spitvalve)

"Who knows not strict counterpoint, lives and dies an ignoramus" - CPE Bach

Sergeant Rock

#635
Quote from: Elgarian on April 28, 2010, 11:51:04 PM
There's an interesting hint of a polarisation of preference emerging here, with some lining up on what we might label the 'pro-Kennedy' side of the fence, and others on the opposing side: that is, those who enjoy the VC played with sparks and vigour - dare I say, a more masculine, beefy approach? While others (eg Luke and myself) who are seeking the more reserved approach, perhaps with more emphasis on the soul-wringing longing for the feminine. I'm sure it's by no means so simple as that, but it does suggest that there are at least two contrasting sets of expectations among us, when we approach the piece.

I haven't heard Bean (the recording is not that easy to find at a reasonable price in Europe) so I shouldn't even comment here but, yes, you may be right. You characterize Bean as reserved, Luke says "low-profile" and the Gramophone review says the recording balance suits the "reticent nature" of the performance. So, reserved, low-profile, reticent...those are simply not the adjectives that come to mind when I think Late Romantic, which Elgar quintessentially is, as much as Strauss or Mahler. Elgar the man may have been reserved, as circumspect with his feelings as any good stiff-upper-lipped Englishman of his day...but he poured those bottled-up emotions into his music, fully expecting them to be heard clearly, I think. At least that's the way I want the music performed.

Masculine vs feminine probably isn't the best way to describe the interpretive difference between a Kennedy and a Bean (I don't know about you guys, but the women I've known have not been reticent about their feelings  ;D ) but it's a characterization we can all understand. The concerto contains both elements and that's why, the more I listen, the more I think Solti/Chung managed to get it all in perfect balance. The overt passion of the Late Romantic is there--literally exploding at times, almost out of control, but then always tempered by Chung's interjections, as though she's stroking Solti, calming him, figuratively.

But I will acquire the Bean too...I need to hear what all the "reticence" is about  ;)

Quote from: Luke on April 28, 2010, 11:59:19 AM

...that it's a piece in which a low-profile, thoughtful but not spectacular player with a special connection to the piece seems (to me) to have an advantage over the more powerful, super-charged names who cover it as one step in their leaps from concerto to concerto (I know, I am being dreadfully unfair!).

I can't prove this but I think Kennedy's dedication to the concerto is every bit as strong as Bean's. For a star like him, who's had a controversial career, recording the Elgar twice says something positive, I think. (I'm not saying everyone has to like what he's done ;) )

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"

karlhenning

Scarps, are you kidding? Hahn plays the Elgar like a frog in a school lab what's just had its nervous system sliced out. The sort of frog which (you suspect) was none the most active even before he gave his life for science.

Give me someone like Kennedy who plays like the music MATTERS.

Elgarian

Quote from: Franco on April 29, 2010, 02:53:16 AM
Where do you place the Menuhin recording?  It's the only one I have in my collection at present.
Been working on it for years, and am still hopeful. It's authentic, it's Elgar conducting, Elgar loved the performance ... but although I go back to it at intervals, somehow it doesn't quite make it for me. I have no idea why.

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: Elgarian on April 28, 2010, 08:32:55 AM
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.

I will comment on it when it arrives. Glad to hear such a positive response from you about the performance. I think 71dB loves it too.

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

#639
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 29, 2010, 05:20:23 AM
You characterize Bean as reserved, Luke says "low-profile" and the Gramophone review says the recording balance suits the "reticent nature" of the performance. So, reserved, low-profile, reticent...those are simply not the adjectives that come to mind when I think Late Romantic, which Elgar quintessentially is, as much as Strauss or Mahler. Elgar the man may have been reserved, as circumspect with his feelings as any good stiff-upper-lipped Englishman of his day...but he poured those bottled-up emotions into his music, fully expecting them to be heard clearly, I think. At least that's the way I want the music performed.
We're in extremely difficult territory here, because the nuances of meaning are so hard to convey. I'm not suggesting at all that the Bean performance is not emotional. On the contrary, it's heart-breaking, and the concerto, as you rightly say, is deeply emotional - too deep even for tears, one might say in places (though not in others, when my specs go all misty). When I use the word 'reserved' I'm thinking not of emotional reserve, but something I might describe as a 'technical' reserve. I can't listen to Kennedy without frequently feeling that he's playing to impress me. I may of course be mistaken, but that's the kind of experience I get. Now I don't get that with Bean. I feel almost that he's trying to make himself and his abilities invisible - an art that conceals art. He seems to be offering me a window into Elgar's music, whereas Kennedy seems to be saying 'look at me, and at what I can do'; and thereby he gets in the way of what I feel is the emotional heart of the piece. My personal experience of the VC is not at all a stiff upper lip sort of thing (though of course we do hear such things in a lot of Elgar, if only to be shown how fragile they are) - it's deeply emotional.

I'm not having a go at Kennedy - please be assured that I'm not; I can listen to Kennedy's versions and enjoy them. Neither am I saying that Bean is 'better', and neither am I claiming that my way of looking at it is the 'right' way.  I'm just struggling to convey what I perceive as the difference, and I don't know how best to explain it except like this. On the 'feminine' issue - again, I'm not saying that Bean's playing is feminine; rather, that I feel it allows me to hear the feminine aspects (or the longing for the feminine aspects) of the music more clearly, when that's necessary.

QuoteThe concerto contains both elements and that's why, the more I listen, the more I think Solti/Chung managed to get it all in perfect balance. The overt passion of the Late Romantic is there--literally exploding at times, almost out of control, but then always tempered by Chung's interjections, as though she's stroking Solti, calming him, figuratively.
It's a long time since I last gave Solti/Chung a spin; my memory tells me that I struggled to enjoy the Solti side of that partnership (for the very qualities you describe here), but I'll give it another try.