Elgar's Hillside

[eyeresist]

(Lest it be thought that I have some prejudice against Andrew Davis, let me say that his Enigma is blisteringly fine. Tip top. Tippest of the toppest.)

Hmm, must listen to that again. The most important question is, can you hear the pennies drumming?

@TheGSMoeller, I have the above in the Andrew Davis box (all of which is at the very least acceptable) BTW. His Music Makers is terrific, but unfortunately all on one track.

[TheGSMoeller]

Thanks, Karl & eyeresist for the responses!

[eyeresist]

Oh, I'd better add I found the recordings of the symphonies in the Davis box a little woolly sounding, lacking in the high frequencies. This isn't just my imagination, because I recall a review saying the Warner reissues had inferior sound to the Telarc originals. This only applies to the two discs with the symphonies; everything else is fine.

[Elgarian]

How familiar is anyone with this collection...

[asin]B0009VYP92[/asin]

...I have the single discs of The Music Makers, etc... and Symphony no.2 from this collection, but I see this is ultra cheap at the MP, and was wondering how the rest of the performances match up.

This raises an interesting question, following on from our earlier discussions about his In The South, and the effect of listening to different recordings one after another.

I'll begin with an anecdote. A few years ago I was staying for a few days in a cottage on the edge of the Malvern Hills, and I had that Andrew Davis box with me (newly bought at the Elgar Birthplace Museum shop), and I listened to all of it, spread over several mornings and evenings, and some pieces twice. At no stage did I ever feel short-changed. There was no occasion when I wished it were some other performance, and there many occasions when I thought it was wonderful.

Since that time I've had a warm regard for the set. I remember being surprised when I looked it up later to discover how sniffy the Penguin Guide (for example) is about it. Sure, they single out certain pieces for high praise (I agree with them entirely that the Enigma is very special) but the 1st symphony, for instance, is described as a 'rather plain reading which falls short at the very end'. Which seemed odd, because it was one of the highlights of my own listening experience, packed with spine-tingling moments and indeed tears, at the end.

Which brings me to the core of the problem. The only occasion when I've had  my doubts about the set was when I listened to the Davis In The South directly after listening to Elgar's own recording, just a couple of days ago, and reported here above. The Davis seemed ponderous and dull after the Elgar. But I'm now inclined to think that what's really in question here is not the Davis performance, but the wisdom of comparing performances in this way. On this occasion the earlier listening to the Elgar recording set up an expectation which the Davis failed to fulfil. But so what, I now ask myself? I've listened to that Davis In The South on previous occasions and, if not carried away by it, have found it no less than acceptable. What if I'd listen first to the Davis and then to the Elgar. Would I have found the Elgar to be too rushed and energetic? (I'm not going to do the experiment to find out.)

So I'm inclined to revoke my various star ratings given earlier (above). I don't think I accept the validity of the method I used to arrive at them. And to anyone wondering about buying the Andrew Davis Elgar box, I'd say don't hesitate. It contains some outstanding performances and no bad ones. Take it on its own merits, and don't mess about doing A/B comparisons with alternatives. And if you feel so inclined, take it to Elgar's own country, and listen to it looking out over Elgar's favourite woodland hills around Birchwood, and I can tell you with confidence that it won't fail that test. (Even with dodgy equipment!)

Incidentally, yes there is a certain warmth - one might call it wooliness - about some of the recordings. Doesn't trouble me particularly, but perhaps that's because I don't hear those high frequencies anyway, these days.

[eyeresist]

Perhaps you are overdoing the fairmindedness? If all must have prizes, how will we know who's Best?



* Capitalised "Best" a reference to Top gear.

** "All must have prizes" originally said by the Dodo in Alice in Wonderland.

[mc ukrneal]

This raises an interesting question, following on from our earlier discussions about his In The South, and the effect of listening to different recordings one after another.

I'll begin with an anecdote. A few years ago I was staying for a few days in a cottage on the edge of the Malvern Hills, and I had that Andrew Davis box with me (newly bought at the Elgar Birthplace Museum shop), and I listened to all of it, spread over several mornings and evenings, and some pieces twice. At no stage did I ever feel short-changed. There was no occasion when I wished it were some other performance, and there many occasions when I thought it was wonderful.

Since that time I've had a warm regard for the set. I remember being surprised when I looked it up later to discover how sniffy the Penguin Guide (for example) is about it. Sure, they single out certain pieces for high praise (I agree with them entirely that the Enigma is very special) but the 1st symphony, for instance, is described as a 'rather plain reading which falls short at the very end'. Which seemed odd, because it was one of the highlights of my own listening experience, packed with spine-tingling moments and indeed tears, at the end.

Which brings me to the core of the problem. The only occasion when I've had  my doubts about the set was when I listened to the Davis In The South directly after listening to Elgar's own recording, just a couple of days ago, and reported here above. The Davis seemed ponderous and dull after the Elgar. But I'm now inclined to think that what's really in question here is not the Davis performance, but the wisdom of comparing performances in this way. On this occasion the earlier listening to the Elgar recording set up an expectation which the Davis failed to fulfil. But so what, I now ask myself? I've listened to that Davis In The South on previous occasions and, if not carried away by it, have found it no less than acceptable. What if I'd listen first to the Davis and then to the Elgar. Would I have found the Elgar to be too rushed and energetic? (I'm not going to do the experiment to find out.)

So I'm inclined to revoke my various star ratings given earlier (above). I don't think I accept the validity of the method I used to arrive at them. And to anyone wondering about buying the Andrew Davis Elgar box, I'd say don't hesitate. It contains some outstanding performances and no bad ones. Take it on its own merits, and don't mess about doing A/B comparisons with alternatives. And if you feel so inclined, take it to Elgar's own country, and listen to it looking out over Elgar's favourite woodland hills around Birchwood, and I can tell you with confidence that it won't fail that test. (Even with dodgy equipment!)

Incidentally, yes there is a certain warmth - one might call it wooliness - about some of the recordings. Doesn't trouble me particularly, but perhaps that's because I don't hear those high frequencies anyway, these days.

Personally,I would approach this a bit differently. There are usually two main questions that I think most buyers ask themselves when they buy a recording (and I am excluding those who buy multiple recordings of the same piece to some degree).

The first question is: Does this recording (and the artists performing it) convey the heart, soul, meaning, flavor, etc. of the piece or not. This is the first question and I suspect that a good majority of recordings do. Perhaps some do and partially do not. But this is the starting point. One can have various criteria when thinking about it: Period performance, instruments used, stylistic approach, heart/soul vs technical, etc.

I think the second question then becomes: How does this recording compare to others and is this the one upon which I should spend my hard earned money? Will I be getting what I want to get out of the piece? This then becomes a comparison of all sorts of data and opinions on an array of subjects. One can compare the merits of different recordings, but I think it IS necessary and helpful to the listener. But that does not mean that one is better than another, only that they are different and that you (or whoever) preferred one approach to another. The important thing is not to know which In the South you prefer, but why you prefer it.

A couple examples: Spirit of England. You and others have been going on and on and on about the Gibson. I don't have it - I have the Dutton release, which I think is fantastic. But when I read your opinions, I see what attracts you and what you think goes over well. I must say that the solo parts are not the most important to me. How one artist stresses a particular word is not going to sway me one way or another. But the impact of the choral singing will (which is great in the Dutton by the way). So you see, the comparisons are helpful. I also think we need to be careful about saying one is better. In most cases, they are just a bit different, and one is necessarily way ahead of the other, though they may be way ahead in only a particular aspect. Really, we are saying that one is preferred.

Music Makers - I have this with Davis (on a single disc) and I think I have fallen for it like you have fallen for Spirit of England. In any case, Davis here is excellent. That alone, in my opinion, makes the Davis set worth considering. Are the others the 'best'  - don't know and don't care. I won't really know how much I like them until I hear them. This is why recommending is fraught with difficulties. What attracts me to the music may not be what attracts you to the music. One can only explain why one prefers one over another and let the reader make their own decision. I used to worry about getting the best. I don't even think about that anymore.

[Elgarian]

Hmm, must listen to that again. The most important question is, can you hear the pennies drumming?

Pennies? You mean ... they don't use real engines?

[Elgarian]

Personally,I would approach this a bit differently. ... I used to worry about getting the best. I don't even think about that anymore.

I think there's great wisdom in all that you say (as represented by my three dots), and as a general rule I don't think my approach in practice (as opposed to what might spill out here in the enthusiasm of the moment) is very different from what you're advocating. My comments above arose directly from a realisation that I'd done something I don't normally choose to do (direct A/B comparisons) and was (perhaps naively) shocked by the outcome.

What the experiment highlights is not merely that we each listen in different ways (and hence choose our favourites differently, as you clearly point out); but also that we listen inconsistently - and the reason why we listen in any one particular way at any one time may not be something we're conscious of. It seems a bit daft of me (and obvious) in hindsight, but when I was comparing the two versions of In The South, I didn't consider what effect the order of listening might have had on how I listened on the second occasion, and reported the result as if it were somehow (albeit personally and subjectively) definitive. But it wasn't, and isn't, and can't be.

[Guido]

Has The Elgarian given us his official pronouncement on the Music Makers? I remember hearing it live 4 or 5 years ago and thinking it was terrible, but I'm more than willing to admit that I was either being unfair, or that it was a subpar performance.

[karlhenning]

I've not yet listened to the recording of The Music Makers in this box (and why not pop it in right now?) . . . the one I've heard is probably the Boult, which I liked very well.

[Elgarian]

Has The Elgarian given us his official pronouncement on the Music Makers? I remember hearing it live 4 or 5 years ago and thinking it was terrible, but I'm more than willing to admit that I was either being unfair, or that it was a subpar performance.

Heaven forbid that I should ever make an official prouncement on anything! Everything I say carries a health warning.

Music Makers isn't a favourite of mine, though I can enjoy it, because Elgar is being so openly nostalgic about his own work. For me, it's a fond pleasure to recognise the references to his own stuff; others might well find it cloying and self-indulgent, and I can understand how that could arise.

[Guido]

My tongue was firmly in my cheek.  I just remember thinking that it didn't hang together well at all, and that everytime he changed something about the original, it was worse than the original! I should probably just give it another spin at some point.

[karlhenning]

Cross-posts . . . .

Good morning, all!

Maiden-Listen Mondays (this recording)!

Elgar
The Music Makers, Op. 69
"Ode"by Arthur O'Shaughnessy
Jean Rigby, mezzo
BBC Symphony Chorus & Orchestra
Sir Andrew Davis

So what did you think of the Music Makers?

Well, this was re-visitation after a long interval.  As a piece generally, I enjoy it as a concert choral work; compositionally, I also enjoy it as a sort of gloss upon the Enigma Variations. I could see being annoyed with a 40-minute piece being a single track on a CD . . . but that's not Elgar's fault.

[madaboutmahler]

I also think quite highly of Solti and Bernstein's Elgar. If Solti's symphonies aren't my absolute favorites (that would be Previn's First and Sinopoli's Second), the Bernstein is my favorite Enigma.

Sarge

I am glad you agree with the Bernstein for the Enigma. Another recording I really adore is Sir Simon Rattle's, this would be my second favourite. A very detailed performance, but not as powerful or passionate as the Bernstein.
I too love the Previn and Sinopoli, but if not Solti, I'd rather have Sir Mark Elder with the Halle for no.1, and Sir Edward Downes with the BBC Phil for no.2. What do you think of these performances?
As the Elgar symphonies are two of my favourite pieces ever written, in fact only beaten by Mahler 6, I believe I have all the recordings available of these two symphonies apart from Tate's, Menuhin's and Ashkenazy's. What does everyone think of these three performances?

Daniel

[madaboutmahler]

Welcome to GMG, Daniel.  From your pal, Ray.  Glad to see you make your first post!   

Thank you Ray, first of many I am sure!

Daniel

[karlhenning]

As the Elgar symphonies are two of my favourite pieces ever written, in fact only beaten by Mahler 6, I believe I have all the recordings available of these two symphonies apart from Tate's, Menuhin's and Ashkenazy's. What does everyone think of these three performances?

Welcome, Daniel!

I've had something of a rumbly road with the symphonies, but FWIW, the Tate/LSO recordings were the ones I was listening to, when at last I reckoned that I do like them . . . .

[madaboutmahler]

Welcome, Daniel!

I've had something of a rumbly road with the symphonies, but FWIW, the Tate/LSO recordings were the ones I was listening to, when at last I reckoned that I do like them . . . .

Hello Karl! Nice to meet you here, and on facebook as well!

That's a shame, what did you not like about them before? I fell in love with the 2nd on first hearing, but maybe the 1st took a bit longer to appreciate. But now, favourite pieces of all time! Ok, well I am glad the Tate recording persuaded you to like them! I shall purchase them soon! Which recordings were you listening to before?

Daniel

[Sergeant Rock]

I too love the Previn and Sinopoli, but if not Solti, I'd rather have Sir Mark Elder with the Halle for no.1, and Sir Edward Downes with the BBC Phil for no.2. What do you think of these performances?

I haven't heard either but I'd like to. Must order (the Elder is particularly appealing because I see it comes coupled with Elgar's song "In the Moonlight," the melody of which he used in the central section of In the South, I believe.

Here's what I have:

Symphony #1

Boult/LPO
Sinopoli/Philharmonia
Previn/RPO
Tate/LSO
Solti/LPO
C.Davis/LSO
Barbirolli/Philharmonia
Barenboim/LPO

Symphony #2

Boult/LPO
Haitink/Philharmonia
Sinopoli/Philharmonia
Tate/LSO
Solti/LPO
C.Davis/LSO
Elgar/LSO
Svetlanov/USSR State SO
Barbirolli/Hallé


Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I believe I have all the recordings available of these two symphonies apart from Tate's, Menuhin's and Ashkenazy's. What does everyone think of these three performances?

Menuhin and Ashkenazy I don't know but have longed loved Tate's Elgar for his broad (in some cases) very broad pacing. I suppose one could say he's interpretively at the opposite extreme from Solti. There is, for example, a five minute difference between their Second Symphony fourth movements.

Sarge

[71 dB]

You mean to say, that I ordered three different recordings of The Spirit of England at a time when Poju himself had never heard the piece? . . .

; )

Well, I got interested about classical music mid 90's, found Elgar in December 1996 and I had a recording (or two) of most Elgar works by the year 2000. I don't remember exactly when I heard Spirit of England the first time. Maybe 1998?