Elgar's Hillside

[knight66]

Yes thanks, the dyslexia is kicking in good style tonight. I should use the spellcheck. I am also on MSN and that is almost indecipherable.

Mike

[BachQ]

I should use the spellcheck.

By George ........ upon applying the spellchecker, it appears that STRAUSSIAN has made it into the spellchecker's vocab! 

[Mark]

By George ........ upon applying the spellchecker, it appears that STRAUSSIAN has made it into the spellchecker's vocab! 

I know - it's amazing! I appreciate that this isn't bespoke forum software, but the number of words you'd assume the spellchecker on a site like this would know, yet which it doesn't, is astonishing.

[71 dB]

I don't agree, it comes across as a patchwork of quotes sewen together. Although I quite like it, I don't rate it as one of his best works.

Mike

Yes, it is quotes sewen together but I am still fond of it. I don't rate it one of Elgar's best either but still nice.

[Larry Rinkel]

A most unsophisticated comment.

Grow up.

[71 dB]

I was in that recording as a chorister.

Mike

COOL!!   

[Hector]

I read Mark's use of the adjective as descriptive, and not derisive/negative.

I'm sure if he dislikes the symphonies, it's for some reason other than the 'chaos' 

Agreed, but it is only his opinion. If that is what he hears, fine, but it is not chaotic. Perhaps a poor description. i cannot answer for him.

[Mark]

Hector, surely I shouldn't have to qualify every post I make by stipulating that what I write is never more than my own opinion?

In any case, let's just rewind a little and study the facts. Karl questioned the use of the word 'lucid' in connection with Elgar's orchestration of his Second Symphony. He then seemed to be reaching for a more appropriate word, and I merely suggested that it might be 'chaotic':

Might 'chaotic' be a more appropriate word? The Second Symphony certainly sounds all over the place (at times) to my untrained ears.

Whether or not I find the Second Symphony 'chaotic' was never the point. As a matter of fact, I do, but that's my view and I don't expect others to share in it.

[Hector]

And I would suggest you refrain from the personal insults. Those of us who have reservations concerning Elgar are not necessarily stupid, insensitive, unsubtle, careless, or whatever epithets you choose to fling. I have given Elgar's symphonies a number of tries through the years and I continue to find aspects of them overblown and even vulgar (e.g., the way the return of the main themes in #2, outer movements, are punctuated by big chords on the brass and cymbal crashes). It is precisely the lack of subtlety at such moments that alienates me from this strain in Elgar, and his tendency towards grandiosity without irony that makes those pieces less than first-rate in my opinion. It's precisely the subtler works - perhaps above the string quartet, the cello concerto, and Falstaff - that have most won me over. In the first two especially, there is an elegiac tone that is more subtle and moving to me than most anything in the symphonies. There are other works of Elgar I truly admire - the Intro and Allegro, the Cockaigne Overture with its bracing good spirits, and In the South.

The latter of these reflects yet another problem I have with Elgar - trying to hear a distinctive personality that makes his work instantly recognizable. For example, in the first movement of the Piano Quintet I hear a lot of Brahms, especially those quarter-quarter-quarter-eighth note triplet rhythms; and I've referred to In the South as one of my favorite pieces by Richard Strauss. (The music depicting ancient Rome about 6 minutes into the piece is not Straussian, however, and those 3-4 minutes sound both highly original and one of the most powerful passages I know in all of Elgar.)

You read into my posts what you want but it seems to me that I have struck a nerve.

What you hear in the symphonies is not there  but you continue to bang on about it.

Yes, you hear Brahms, but I can think of a number of composers of this period that that is true of. So what?

I detect Elgarian tendencies in Reger or is it Regerian tendencies in Elgar. I cannot remember but they were friends. What are your thoughts on this?

Personally, I struggle to like, let alone love, 'Falstaff' as I struggle with 'humour' in music. A magnificent failure as far as I'm concerned, perhaps (we all have our 'deaf' spots)?

I know many think 'Falstaff' Elgar's greatest orchestral work. It might be, I don't care, I prefer the symphonies and Richard Strauss' 'Alassio' ('Aus Italien' extended?).

Unable to hear a distinctive personality? That is your problem and, no doubt, others will clamour to support you!

[longears]

And I would suggest you refrain from the personal insults. Those of us who have reservations concerning Elgar are not necessarily stupid, insensitive, unsubtle, careless, or whatever epithets you choose to fling. I have given Elgar's symphonies a number of tries through the years and I continue to find aspects of them overblown and even vulgar (e.g., the way the return of the main themes in #2, outer movements, are punctuated by big chords on the brass and cymbal crashes). It is precisely the lack of subtlety at such moments that alienates me from this strain in Elgar, and his tendency towards grandiosity without irony that makes those pieces less than first-rate in my opinion. It's precisely the subtler works - perhaps above the string quartet, the cello concerto, and Falstaff - that have most won me over. In the first two especially, there is an elegiac tone that is more subtle and moving to me than most anything in the symphonies. There are other works of Elgar I truly admire - the Intro and Allegro, the Cockaigne Overture with its bracing good spirits, and In the South.

I agree whole-heartedly.  As for "unsophisticated," why, that's one of the highest compliments imaginable!

[karlhenning]

Personally, I struggle to like, let alone love, 'Falstaff' as I struggle with 'humour' in music.

Very interesting, Hector.  In a broad (medieval) sense of humor, yes, I enjoy the humor of Falstaff, and I think rather more of it than of the symphonies (which, in my view of things, much more readily qualify as "magnificent" [or large, at any rate] "failures").  In my enjoyment and admiration for Falstaff, there is no emphasis on chuckly chortles . . . that is simply (and again, just to judge from my own read of the music) beside much more germane points.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Re Hector's: "Personally, I struggle to like, let alone love, 'Falstaff' as I struggle with 'humour' in music. A magnificent failure as far as I'm concerned, perhaps (we all have our 'deaf' spots)?"

I don't like 'Falstaff' either, try as I might.

Re Larry Rinkel's interesting criticism about Elgar's 'grandiosity without irony': apart from the question whether grandeur per se is a bad thing, so that only when you undercut it, you demonstrate subtlety, I would argue that Elgar 'criticises', if you will, this grandiose gesture implicitly in the rest of the symphony. It's a bit like the Alma theme in the first movement of Mahler's Sixth - ever so slightly over the top, for the precise purpose of putting it violently into perspective in the next movement(s). Back to Elgar - I think Elgar is very 'tactful' with his brass and his cymbals in the Second. I can't see any vulgarity. There is only an intensity of expression.

[Larry Rinkel]

Hector, surely I shouldn't have to qualify every post I make by stipulating that what I write is never more than my own opinion?

In any case, let's just rewind a little and study the facts. Karl questioned the use of the word 'lucid' in connection with Elgar's orchestration of his Second Symphony. He then seemed to be reaching for a more appropriate word, and I merely suggested that it might be 'chaotic':

Whether or not I find the Second Symphony 'chaotic' was never the point. As a matter of fact, I do, but that's my view and I don't expect others to share in it.

You see, Mark, what we have here from the resident Elgarians is not a disinterested, open-minded attempt to evaluate this composer's strengths and weaknesses, but a kind of hagiography in which any criticism of St. Edward must be countered by personal attack ("what you hear is not there," "that is your problem," "a most unsophisticated comment" and the like). I hear a grandiosity in some of the work that I find off-putting, and I doubt I'm alone. Why the Elgarians are at such pains to snipe at any criticism of their idol is - well, perhaps their problem. But it is not the way to win anyone else over to their point of view.  

[Larry Rinkel]

Very interesting, Hector.  In a broad (medieval) sense of humor, yes, I enjoy the humor of Falstaff, and I think rather more of it than of the symphonies (which, in my view of things, much more readily qualify as "magnificent" [or large, at any rate] "failures").  In my enjoyment and admiration for Falstaff, there is no emphasis on chuckly chortles . . . that is simply (and again, just to judge from my own read of the music) beside much more germane points.

Actually I consider Falstaff one of Elgar's greatest successes - not only for its tone of humor, but for its formal fluidity. The way in which Elgar keeps in play a highly complex amount of thematic material with very little repetition reminds me, above all, of Debussy's technique in Jeux - another extremely sophisticated work that has never won broad public acclaim.

[Mark]

Why the Elgarians are at such pains to snipe at any criticism of their idol is - well, perhaps their problem. But it is not the way to win anyone else over to their point of view.  

True. But Mahlerites can get even more tetchy.

Actually I consider Falstaff one of Elgar's greatest successes - not only for its tone of humor, but for its formal fluidity. The way in which Elgar keeps in play a highly complex amount of thematic material with very little repetition reminds me, above all, of Debussy's technique in Jeux - another extremely sophisticated work that has never won broad public acclaim.

Had a copy of Falstaff on my shelves for months but it's been left unplayed - indeed, I don't know the work at all. Think I'll spin it this afternoon.

[karlhenning]

Actually I consider Falstaff one of Elgar's greatest successes - not only for its tone of humor, but for its formal fluidity. The way in which Elgar keeps in play a highly complex amount of thematic material with very little repetition reminds me, above all, of Debussy's technique in Jeux - another extremely sophisticated work that has never won broad public acclaim.

A musically excellent comparison, and yet another work I like a whole lot.

[Larry Rinkel]

True. But Mahlerites can get even more tetchy.

I don't know about that!!!! 

[karlhenning]

Actually I consider Falstaff one of Elgar's greatest successes - not only for its tone of humor, but for its formal fluidity.

Indeed.  For me, the real barrier of the symphonies is not the material, not the tone, not the character, not the texture or orchestration (for in all these I find a good deal to like) . . . but how they wear their symphoniness like a concrete cummerbund.

[Kullervo]

A musically excellent comparison, and yet another work I like a whole lot.

You think so? I thought the way he used the themes in Falstaff was like the Wagnerian leitmotif. Jeux to me seems more akin to serialism, in that it's constantly renewing itself with almost no repetition. </Cretin's analysis>

[Mark]

Wow! Falstaff's certainly an interesting proposition. Not quite sure what to make of it after the first hearing.

It definitely has 'Elgar' stamped all over it. Like Delius, Elgar seemed to enjoy that undulating 'rise and fall' to his orchestration - first soft, then loud, then soft, etc. Gave away the piece as his immediately.

But did I like it? And did I like better than his Second Symphony? Hard to say. Not as dense as his symphonies - a fact I appreciated. Would I play it often? Probably not: it feels like it should accompany some stage or cinematic action, and I'd love to hear parts of it so used. But it's not a work I'm likely to fall head over heels in love with, whatever it's merits or charms.