Elgar's Hillside

[Sergeant Rock]

I'm another disappointed by Hahn. It's okay when heard in isolation (and I like Davis' accompaniment) but her vibrato ultimately annoys me and interpretively she doesn't stand up to comparisons with the best--which for me are Chung/Solti (my favorite), Kennedy/Handley and Bean/Groves. Kang is very good too. Nothing wrong with Ehnes/A. Davis (and it has excellent sound) but it seems too close to Kennedy's interpretation to make it stand out. In other words, I'll take the original over the copy.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

Should say that the Kennedy recording I speak of is that with Rattle/CBSO. I've not heard his recording with Handley, and therefore cannot comment on the ways in which the two accounts differ.

[Karl Henning]

I need to revisit the Kang/Leaper . . . .

[raduneo]

I know some folks do enjoy Hahn's recording, but I agree with Karl. I find she makes the concerto seem pretty, and misses the soul of it. Of the fifteen or so recordings I know, I find Hahn's  the least satisfactory.

If you feel there's more to the VC than is found in Bean's account of it, there are certainly some very fine (and very different) alternatives to try. A particular favourite of mine is this one, with Dong-Suk Kang and Adrian Leaper:



This is about as far from Bean as you can get: it's the 'Elgar's Windflower Meets the Raggle-Taggle Gypsies' version. What Elgar (not to mention Alice Stuart Wortley) would have thought of this interpretation I can't say, but I find it fascinating.

For yet another, again very different, approach, you could do a lot worse than the recently released version by Tasmin Little:



Listening to this makes one aware, for example, of how much Hilary Hahn misses the mark. Tasmin Little's is a deeply thoughtful and mature performance, full of nuance and - I think - a real understanding of Elgar's particular response to the feminine. I find that's essential. While there are passages in the VC that invite the display of virtuosity, mere fireworks obscure Elgar's intentions (well, such as I understand them, anyway), and Little seems to get the balance just right. The recording quality is warm and very satisfying too. If I had to give away most of my Elgar violin concerto recordings, Tasmin Little's would be among the last to go, along with Bean and Kang.

Thank you Elgarian for the very informative answer! Two variants I had not considered! I will report to you back when I have some answers!

[raduneo]

I'm another disappointed by Hahn. It's okay when heard in isolation (and I like Davis' accompaniment) but her vibrato ultimately annoys me and interpretively she doesn't stand up to comparisons with the best--which for me are Chung/Solti (my favorite), Kennedy/Handley and Bean/Groves. Kang is very good too. Nothing wrong with Ehnes/A. Davis (and it has excellent sound) but it seems too close to Kennedy's interpretation to make it stand out. In other words, I'll take the original over the copy.

Sarge

Thank you Sergeant Rock! Interpretation wise, what is particular about Chung/Solti and Kennedy/Handley?

[Elgarian]

I need to revisit the Kang/Leaper . . . .

Helpful directions: turn left after entering the forest, and follow the path to the gypsy encampment.

[71 dB]

A particular favourite of mine is this one, with Dong-Suk Kang and Adrian Leaper:

This was my first Elgar violin concerto disc (in fact one of the first Elgar discs I heard and a crucial one in a sense that it made me convinced I should explore Elgar more) and the first performance of the work I ever heard 15 years ago. Very good indeed and costs peanuts. 

[Sergeant Rock]

Thank you Sergeant Rock! Interpretation wise, what is particular about Chung/Solti and Kennedy/Handley?

Here's what I wrote two years ago (before I had acquired Kang, Ehnes and Bean]:

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.

You [Elgarian] 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) 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.


Sarge

[Elgarian]

Interesting comments there Sarge (I don't remember reading them before - maybe I missed 'em, or maybe it's the beginning of brain crunch.) Just picking up a few strands:

1. I think we each have a subtly different take on Elgar - or perhaps, it'd be more accurate to say that we come to him for subtly different things. In one sense I obviously must agree with you that Elgar could be described as quintessentially Late Romantic; and yet I'm always on the lookout for a layer underneath that which is deeply thoughtful and restrained, and which forms a major component of my attraction to some of his music. On a crude level I'd point to the contrast between the bluster of the finale, and the pinpoint precision of some of the solo violin work in the cadenza. (I don't say the cadenza as a whole is restrained - it certainly isn't - but there are passages where he seems to dissect the strands of femininity with almost forensic care.) I think it's this search of mine for this layering that drives me towards Bean, and perhaps Little, too - and away from, say, Kennedy. You might, of course, point to my pleasure in Kang and lift an eyebrow, and I'd accept that there's some inconsistency there!

2. Chung's playing is lovely, but I find Solti too wild - and I think again this is because of those subtle differences between the things we're looking for in the music.

3. The point about masculinity v femininity is so subtly nuanced that I hardly know how to express it. It's not as crude as the idea that a woman might be able to express aspects of it that a man might not - and yet I think there might be a bit of mileage in that. Elgar's attitude to the feminine (nowhere better expressed than in the VC) is seriously complicated, and I really love exploring it, and trying to tease out aspects of it from the music. Bean seems to make that easier for me than anyone else, and maybe that's why I gravitate so much towards him. (I concede of course that this particular game may not be everyone's idea of a good time!) I also think there's something in Tasmin Little's performance that I haven't got to the bottom of, but which tantalises me.

I think what all this shows is that with so many fine performances of the VC available, we'll all be able to find one or two that particularly suit us - and if we don't agree on a 'best', that's not surprising - it just makes it all more interesting.

[raduneo]

Thank you both Sargeant Rock and Elgarian for sharing your wisdom! I really enjoyed reading your posts.

I realized I already had Kennedy/Rattle (Kennedy's 2nd recording of the concerto), and I am quite enjoying it! This is definitely one of Rattle's finer moments! There is definitely a lot of rubato, and you can tell Kennedy knows this work quite well. There is a lot of interplay between the orchestra and the soloist here - the orchestra slows down, and then the violinist goes really quickly (or the opposite).


They don't spend too much time on the passages that can get too loud and heavy (for me this is the biggest trap with Elgar's orchestral music - if not done right, TO MY EARS it can sound too loud/heavy and perhaps a bit turgid. This is not the case with this recording). In fact, this is the main part why I am having trouble with the symphonies - I have mainly been attracted to quicker interpretations so far (Menuhin and Solti). Are there any other good interpretations? (particularly symphony 1 seems harder to get into - a bit bombastic, especially in the first movement).

I will definitely try Kang, I will spend more time with Chung, and I will also check out Tasmin Little (you can find her on youtube). And hopefully I will find out which approach suits me. Ah, the hard work...

P.S.On a sidenote, with Elgar's works for voice and choir I find no potential danger or fault whatsoever. I find them quite heavenly.... some of the best ever written I feel! (and I am generally not a big fan of vocal works!). The songs, Dream of Gerontius, The Spirit of England, Sea Pictures have all made an impression! I will look into his later vocal works soon.

[eyeresist]

They don't spend too much time on the passages that can get too loud and heavy (for me this is the biggest trap with Elgar's orchestral music - if not done right, TO MY EARS it can sound too loud/heavy and perhaps a bit turgid. This is not the case with this recording). In fact, this is the main part why I am having trouble with the symphonies - I have mainly been attracted to quicker interpretations so far (Menuhin and Solti). Are there any other good interpretations? (particularly symphony 1 seems harder to get into - a bit bombastic, especially in the first movement).

On principle I favour quicker takes on the symphonies, but in practice I find Solti too aggressive and Menuhin lacking nuance. Barbirolli remains my choice despite his slower tempos. I haven't listened to him in a while, but I think he is rarely given to bombast (which I admit is a hazard in these works).

[71 dB]

Hurst/Downes on Naxos or Boult on EMI get the job done.

Bombastic my ass.... (Please read Elgarian's post below)

[Elgarian]

They don't spend too much time on the passages that can get too loud and heavy (for me this is the biggest trap with Elgar's orchestral music - if not done right, TO MY EARS it can sound too loud/heavy and perhaps a bit turgid. This is not the case with this recording). In fact, this is the main part why I am having trouble with the symphonies - I have mainly been attracted to quicker interpretations so far (Menuhin and Solti). Are there any other good interpretations? (particularly symphony 1 seems harder to get into - a bit bombastic, especially in the first movement).

I think here you've hit very precisely on why some folks are put off Elgar's music (eg the symphonies). It's the mistaking of nobilmente for bombastissimo! Elgar's nobilmente is not about swagger and bombast, but about nobility, brotherhood, and chivalry. Nowhere is this demonstrated better than in the final movement of the 1st symphony, where he takes an aggressive, militaristic march, and transforms it into one of the most exquisite passages he ever wrote, full of ideas of redemption and hope.

It's very easy to misread his intentions, I think, or rather, mishear it (the listener's expectations can be as important as the conductor's interpretation). I'd say on the whole you can't go far wrong with Boult:



I'm not saying this is 'the best' (whatever that means) - but these are lovely performances of the symphonies.

P.S.On a sidenote, with Elgar's works for voice and choir I find no potential danger or fault whatsoever. I find them quite heavenly.... some of the best ever written I feel! (and I am generally not a big fan of vocal works!). The songs, Dream of Gerontius, The Spirit of England, Sea Pictures have all made an impression!

Aha! You've given me an opportunity to bore everyone yet again with The Spirit of England - my favourite Elgar work. Indeed, my 'desert island' piece of music. May I recommend (if you don't have it already) the version conducted by Alexander Gibson, with Teresa Cahill as soloist? It defines the meaning of the word 'sublime', and her singing finds ways of expressing meaning in the words that no other version can approach.

[madaboutmahler]

About the Elgar symphonies.....

Well, Solti's are the ones I return to most.
But there are quite a few other recordings I do really love. Elder's recordings with the Halle, for example, are excellent. Handley's recording of no.2 is absolutely beautiful. And as mentioned earlier, the Naxos recordings of Hurst (no.1) and Downes (no.2) are brilliant too. In fact, the Downes recording of no.2 remained a favourite for quite a while!

[raduneo]

I think here you've hit very precisely on why some folks are put off Elgar's music (eg the symphonies). It's the mistaking of nobilmente for bombastissimo! Elgar's nobilmente is not about swagger and bombast, but about nobility, brotherhood, and chivalry. Nowhere is this demonstrated better than in the final movement of the 1st symphony, where he takes an aggressive, militaristic march, and transforms it into one of the most exquisite passages he ever wrote, full of ideas of redemption and hope.

It's very easy to misread his intentions, I think, or rather, mishear it (the listener's expectations can be as important as the conductor's interpretation). I'd say on the whole you can't go far wrong with Boult:



I'm not saying this is 'the best' (whatever that means) - but these are lovely performances of the symphonies.

Aha! You've given me an opportunity to bore everyone yet again with The Spirit of England - my favourite Elgar work. Indeed, my 'desert island' piece of music. May I recommend (if you don't have it already) the version conducted by Alexander Gibson, with Teresa Cahill as soloist? It defines the meaning of the word 'sublime', and her singing finds ways of expressing meaning in the words that no other version can approach.

Yes, that is the recording of The Spirit of England that I have! I have not heard any other, but I didn't feel it was unsatisfactory in any way!

I will make sure to give Boult a serious try!

[raduneo]

About the Elgar symphonies.....

Well, Solti's are the ones I return to most.
But there are quite a few other recordings I do really love. Elder's recordings with the Halle, for example, are excellent. Handley's recording of no.2 is absolutely beautiful. And as mentioned earlier, the Naxos recordings of Hurst (no.1) and Downes (no.2) are brilliant too. In fact, the Downes recording of no.2 remained a favourite for quite a while!

Those are quite a few I have not heard! I will make sure to put your advice to good use.

I am curious, what is special about the Downes recording of #2 that everyone speaks so fondly about?

[raduneo]

Hurst/Downes on Naxos or Boult on EMI get the job done.

Bombastic my ass.... (Please read Elgarian's post below)

71 dB, I did not mean that the Symphony itself is bombastic, rather that the interpreter I had heard makes it sound that way!

[madaboutmahler]

Those are quite a few I have not heard! I will make sure to put your advice to good use.

I am curious, what is special about the Downes recording of #2 that everyone speaks so fondly about?

Great - and make sure to let us know what you think!

The Downes... well, it's special to me as it was the first recording of Elgar 2 I owned myself. I listened to it so many times... It's just so excellent overall, the playing is outstanding, I love Downes' interpretation, which is very detailed and expressive, and I believe the performance really allows the magic and passion of the work to speak for itself. I haven't returned to the Downes for a while, I might try and listen to it again this week.

[eyeresist]

71 dB, I did not mean that the Symphony itself is bombastic, rather that the interpreter I had heard makes it sound that way!

Well, yeah. I think the point was slightly missed there

[71 dB]

Downes works in all aspects. The performance brings up Elgar's musical structures well, tempi are good, recorded sound is good,... ...and this Naxos disc can be bought in a very low price in Amazon marketplaces. 

71 dB, I did not mean that the Symphony itself is bombastic, rather that the interpreter I had heard makes it sound that way!

Fair enough.