Elgar's Hillside

[Elgarian]

As for the chamber works, I've just got one recording with the Nash Ensemble on Hyperion of the Piano Quintet and Violin Sonata. I've listened to this recording once and enjoyed it, but don't enjoy it as much as his orchestral music.

Just give it time, I'd say. The piano quintet and violin sonata are both immensely rewarding works, and worth persevering with. They may present Elgar on a small scale, but small only in terms of numbers of instruments - they're huge in terms of musical ideas.

[Mirror Image]

Just give it time, I'd say. The piano quintet and violin sonata are both immensely rewarding works, and worth persevering with. They may present Elgar on a small scale, but small only in terms of numbers of instruments - they're huge in terms of musical ideas.

I enjoyed the Violin Sonata more than the Piano Quintet, but I'll listen to this recording again.

[Elgarian]

I enjoyed the Violin Sonata more than the Piano Quintet, but I'll listen to this recording again.

I've always felt that with these chamber works, one gets really close to 'the private Elgar' - a very different animal to the public Elgar who often felt the impulse to make grand statements. He wrote them in very unusual circumstances, staying in a remote Sussex cottage ('Brinkwells') with his wife, living in relatively primitive conditions. He became very keen on things like wood-chopping and carpentry, and developed a quasi-mystical relationships with the woodland in which the cottage was situated. This, then, is post-war private Elgar, very intimate, very personal. If there's such a thing as a 'key' to late Elgar, it's in the chamber music of this period.

There's a book written around the cottage and its significance:

[Mirror Image]

I've always felt that with these chamber works, one gets really close to 'the private Elgar' - a very different animal to the public Elgar who often felt the impulse to make grand statements. He wrote them in very unusual circumstances, staying in a remote Sussex cottage ('Brinkwells') with his wife, living in relatively primitive conditions. He became very keen on things like wood-chopping and carpentry, and developed a quasi-mystical relationships with the woodland in which the cottage was situated. This, then, is post-war private Elgar, very intimate, very personal. If there's such a thing as a 'key' to late Elgar, it's in the chamber music of this period.

There's a book written around the cottage and its significance:

One could say that a lot of composers' chamber music is intimate and gives an insight into their private thoughts, but, for me, it comes down to personal preference as with anything. I happen to like grand statements and rollicking percussion. So the orchestral Elgar will always be up my alley. Not to say that I don't appreciate the chamber music, but that it's not important to me. A great composer, like I believe Elgar is, can turn an orchestral work into something as personal as he wants, and being the outstanding orchestrator I believe he was, he has achieved this on numerous occasions.

[Elgarian]

One could say that a lot of composers' chamber music is intimate and gives an insight into their private thoughts, but, for me, it comes down to personal preference as with anything. I happen to like grand statements and rollicking percussion. So the orchestral Elgar will always be up my alley. Not to say that I don't appreciate the chamber music, but that it's not important to me. A great composer, like I believe Elgar is, can turn an orchestral work into something as personal as he wants, and being the outstanding orchestrator I believe he was, he has achieved this on numerous occasions.

Surely it's obvious that I'm not in any sense suggesting some kind of psychological inadequacy in the orchestral works? You couldn't conceivably conclude that, from all I've said. And I'm all for a bit of rollicking grandness, myself. I'm not attempting to persuade you to listen to Elgar's chamber music against your will, you know; neither am I asking you to defend your preference for large-scale works. I'm merely presenting my personal tree of Elgarian knowledge in the hope that some of it may be helpful, and some maybe save you (and anyone else who's interested) some dead ends. On which tree (to quote Ruskin) 'if any fruit grow such as you can like, you are welcome to gather it without thanks; and so far as it is poor or bitter, it will be your justice to refuse it without reviling.'

[Mirror Image]

What is everyone's favorite performance of the Cello Concerto besides du Pre?

[Mirror Image]

My apologies to you, Alan. I do appreciate your help and your suggestions. I didn't mean to come across to like jerk. Gurn is right about me. I do come off sounding like jerk on GMG a lot even though it's never my intention unless I'm intentionally meaning to come across that way.

[TheGSMoeller]

what is everyone's favorite performance of the Cello Concerto besides du Pre?

Same performance can be found on these discs.

[Mirror Image]

Same performance can be found on these discs.

Nice, Greg. I own the 'Masters' recording with the Enigma Variations. It rounds out the 2-CD set of Elgar that Sinopoli conducted.

[Karl Henning]

. . . On which tree (to quote Ruskin) 'if any fruit grow such as you can like, you are welcome to gather it without thanks; and so far as it is poor or bitter, it will be your justice to refuse it without reviling.'

Eminent good sense, and a gracious analogy to boot.

[Karl Henning]

. . . what is everyone's favorite performance of the Cello Concerto

Still partial to Navarra, though sure I need to spend some more time with Schiff.

[TheGSMoeller]

Still partial to Navarra, though sure I need to spend some more time with Schiff.

Who is conducting the Navarra?

[Karl Henning]

Glorious John leads the Hallé.

[TheGSMoeller]

Glorious John leads the Hallé.

Perfect, thanks.
Didn't know if Navarra recorded more than one Elgar CC.

[Mirror Image]

Still partial to Navarra, though sure I need to spend some more time with Schiff.

Do you know what year the Navarra performance is, Karl?

[mc ukrneal]

I'm merely presenting my personal tree of Elgarian knowledge in the hope that some of it may be helpful, and some maybe save you (and anyone else who's interested) some dead ends. On which tree (to quote Ruskin) 'if any fruit grow such as you can like, you are welcome to gather it without thanks; and so far as it is poor or bitter, it will be your justice to refuse it without reviling.'

You have a great deal to share too, which I have always appreciated. But I think sharing the 'dead ends' is an interesting concept, because I must admit that it is sometimes those very 'dead ends' that allow me to take the next step. I'm thinking here of the Shaham played Violin Concerto. Perhaps I would have taken to the piece immediately if I had started with one of your favorites (or someone else's), but then finally hearing what I always knew must be there made it more than worth it when I finally heard it.

I am also intrigued by his chamber works, which (with a few exceptions) are still unexplored territory for me. Chamber was never my thing until fairly recently, but I find that in my 'old age' I am becoming more interested in chamber. But perhaps that is not accurate either - I have always loved saxophone quartets.

[Mirror Image]

Just listened to this recording of Introduction & Allegro and Enigma Variations:



Very good performances all-around. Haitink gives these works some weightiness. Nimrod was handled beautifully. In Haitink's performance, it lasts 4 minutes, 13 seconds which puts it almost in the A. & C. Davis camp. Haitink handled the climaxes beautifully and obviously shows great affinity with the work. So is Haitink a dedicated Elgarian? I can't answer this, because it seems he hasn't recorded any Elgar in a long time unlike a conductor like Andrew Davis who, in my estimate, is the greatest living Elgarian. We're lucky to have these performances with Haitink. The London Philharmonic perform beautifully.

Special note: the GRS movement (Variation No. 12) will give your speakers a workout.

[Mirror Image]

Now listening:

[asin]B000JBWUOE[/asin]

Listening to The Music Makers. This is a very good performance, but I don't have a lot to compare it to as I only own the Andrew Davis recording of it on Warner, which I don't remember. This work is full of haunting lyricism. A great coupling to Sea Pictures.

Edit: Wait a dang minute here, I have four performances of The Music Makers: this one with Wright/Bournemouth, Boult/New Philharmonia, Davis/BBC SO, and Elder/Halle. One of the ones I'm lacking is Hickox's, which is coupled also with Sea Pictures.

[Elgarian]

My apologies to you, Alan. I do appreciate your help and your suggestions. I didn't mean to come across to like jerk. Gurn is right about me. I do come off sounding like jerk on GMG a lot even though it's never my intention unless I'm intentionally meaning to come across that way.

I'll refer to this post first, so that I can show clearly that I've read and accept your apology. However, since I read your earlier post first and was upset by it, I don't propose to let you completely off the hook. Sometimes, not all the consequences of our errors of judgement can be undone, unfortunately. So let's consider what you said - since you chose to leave it in place instead of deleting it (which might have been kinder and wiser than leaving it for me to discover this morning).

No need to get bent out of shape about this, Elgarian. You're offering your perspective and I've giving you my own. Okay? There are many ways to appreciate Elgar's music.

The matter we were discussing is not a simple matter of two perspectives. Let me clarify. I'm not an authority on Elgar, but a lifelong enthusiast. I'll gladly acknowledge that any statement I make about Elgar may be in need of correction, and indeed if I'm wrong, then the sooner I'm corrected the better. But there's a difference between correction and flannel.

I want to draw a sharp distinction between two kinds of statement. On the one hand, there are observations made on the basis of long and detailed acquaintance with Elgar's life and music, particularly (in the case of his chamber music) concerning a specific period of his life which is very well documented and about which it's possible to be well-informed. Even if the observations are disagreed with, they can potentially be refuted, and lessons learned. That way lies real knowledge, or at least the possibility of it. My comments about Elgar's chamber music being a kind of key to his inner life at the time were of that sort. They're not original, but are based on well-established existing scholarship. They could be wrong; but I can argue a case for them. They had nothing to do with liking or disliking chamber music, or with personal attitudes to its importance, or indeed with my personal preferences for anything at all.

On the other hand, there are observations which are loose generalisations about, let's say, chamber music in general, which could be made about any composer, at any time, and which are so vague as to be impossible either to prove or refute. Your response was of that sort. It cuts across any possibility of further rational discussion.

You then went on to tell me, in a patronising manner, not to get 'bent out of shape', because we were merely offering different perspectives? Well, too damn right we were. One of us was offering real information, helpfully meant, while the other was offering flannel and fluff. But how unnecessary it all is. You have a far broader knowledge of music in general than I do; you have nothing to fear from those very few occasions when I (or anyone else) turns out to know a little more than you do. Give us a bit of slack, won't you?


Gurn is indeed quite right. You sometimes do come over as a jerk, and considering the wealth of experience you have to offer (and from which I've benefited myself and am grateful - think of those great chats we had about The Planets, etc), I think it's a terrible shame.

I've had my say. I accept the apology. Can we leave it there and get back to this man's wonderful music? Because there is so much of it, and it's so deeply rewarding, that it ought to be something we can share in friendship, not bicker about in stupid point-scoring manoeuvres.

[Karl Henning]

Do you know what year the Navarra performance is, Karl?

May 1957.