Elgar's Hillside

[North Star]

I actually find with Elgar something similar to Brahms —  ... in the case of both composers, the strength of the work is the overlay of the apparent liberty of the musical essence upon a solid skeleton of watertight (sorry to mix my metaphors) compositional construction.
And it is this understanding of the music which creates probably insurmountable difficulty for me in twigging what one can mean, by suggesting that the larger works are somehow "unsustainable."

Heartily agreed.

[Elgarian]

I second your question. I still can't get my head around what is meant by overblown, how it relates to sustainability, and then the context of the other works that are sustainable (where Elgar is not) and I guess not overblown (which the Elgar apparently is). In all honesty, I simply don't understand the point Beaumarchais is trying to make. I get that he isn't a fan (at least, I think that is what he's saying), but beyond that, I am lost. And it's the terminology that is throwing me I think.

Nicely put. In the case of 'overblown' - which I take to mean something like pretentious or self-important - I can't hear that in the symphonies at all. They seem to me to be beautifully crafted and full of sincere feeling, and indeed I can hardly see how I could have spent so much of my life listening to them if they truly are pretentious. One would think that somewhere along the line the penny would drop eventually. So I come back to my original notion that the discussion here is not about the music intrinsically, but about 'the listener's share'. It's certainly possible for a particular listener to believe that a work of art is pretentious if it generates some such feeling for him/her, but we do very often tend to project these things outwards onto the work as if it were a fault, instead of asking what internal process it is that causes us to feel like this about them. Hence the frequent error: 'I dislike this, therefore it is bad'.

I think the other problem I am having is this terminology is descriptive, but not precise. If I am playing and the conductor says, hey sax player, stop playing so overblown, I wouldn't know how to translate that comment into the sound coming out of the isntrument. The same thing applies to me as a listener. Is it perhaps the nobilimente of the piece, which may differentiate it from others?

I think you just might have it, there. That nobilmente really can rub people up the wrong way. You can chuck some of Elgar out of the window along with all that Late Victorian/Edwardian Imperial sentiment, but if so, one thinks of babies and bathwater.

[Beaumarchais]

Could someone please explain to me what is meant by 'unsustainable' in the context of Elgar's symphonies?

I mean that Elgar's thematic development isn't adequately sustained in a coherent progression but tails off into dead ends and meanders to no recognisable purpose. Elgar obviously had the ability to create memorable themes but they become dull and repetitious when strung out over the length of a symphony unless the composer has the originality to transform them above and beyond their original conception.   

[Elgarian]

I mean that Elgar's thematic development isn't adequately sustained in a coherent progression but tails off into dead ends and meanders to no recognisable purpose.

Ah, we might might be getting somewhere. I find myself wondering about this notion of 'purpose' in a piece of music. If I go for a walk in the countryside I can stride forward coherently and get from A to B very succinctly; or I can wander among the byways and smell the flowers. And may I not regard that wandering and aroma-savouring as being part of - or indeed my chief - purpose in going for the walk in the first place? This begins to look not so much like a lack of purpose in the composer, but a mistaken notion of what that purpose might be. It seems that in his symphonies, he simply isn't a suitable musical companion for you. I'm not sure there's much more to it than that?

[Mirror Image]

Well Mirror I'm sorry that once again the subject of the thread has strayed into other territory, I suppose it's an inevitable consequence where comparisons are being made. Regarding the contradiction, I have to say that it lies in the ear of the listener. My views on Elgar and other composers mentioned, and notwithstanding Sir Thomas Beecham, are my own and made in the knowledge that others may disagree.
Incidentally, Delius is where Sir Thomas and I part company as he was the foremost champion of the composer's work and, apart from La Calinda, I don't much care for Delius's music.
Sir Thomas said he was intrigued by it as it was like a wayward woman and he was determined to tame it.
I have never had much time for wayward women and have usually preferred to leave them to it.

Why would I care what you thought about Delius? More importantly, what does he have to do with the Elgar thread? It seems like to me you have nothing positive or beneficial to add here other than to rile against a composer whose symphonies you don't like.

[Beaumarchais]

Why would I care what you thought about Delius? More importantly, what does he have to do with the Elgar thread? It seems like to me you have nothing positive or beneficial to add here other than to rile against a composer whose symphonies you don't like.

Apologies for once again departing from the subject of this thread but I must take issue with the word 'rile' as I have posted confirmation of my admiration for a number of Elgar's works.

[Mirror Image]

Apologies for once again departing from the subject of this thread but I must take issue with the word 'rile' as I have posted confirmation of my admiration for a number of Elgar's works.

Look at your previous posts, Beaumarchais. You've said more negative things about Elgar than positive. I really don't care if you like the symphonies or not, but there's plenty of people who do love them, so, again, it seems to go against the good nature that this thread should promote. If you would spend more time talking about the music of Elgar's that you do like instead of the music you don't, then I think this could help initiate better conversation. You do what you want, but I think it's obvious that you don't actually care what any of us have to say about the composer just as long as you get your two cents in.

[71 dB]

I mean that Elgar's thematic development isn't adequately sustained in a coherent progression but tails off into dead ends and meanders to no recognisable purpose. Elgar obviously had the ability to create memorable themes but they become dull and repetitious when strung out over the length of a symphony unless the composer has the originality to transform them above and beyond their original conception.

I don't know what coherent progression means and frankly I don't even know if such knowledge makes me dislike those symphonies. Dead ends? Meanders? What? To me this is extremely sophisticated music.

Sometimes I feel Elgar is compared to other composer too much. Elgar was unique composer and had an unique style. Why not just enjoy the music and not think what kind of "coherent progression" other composer would have made instead meandering.

[Jo498]

I think the thread should allow critical remarks and controversial discussions as long as it stays civil. This can often be revealing not only of listener's preferences but of some aspects of the music. I can certainly understand some of Beaumarchais' impressions.
E.g. in the first symphony I find the nobilmente "motto" very beautiful at its earlier, quieter appearances but for me this character and mood is destroyed when it is transformed in a brass apotheosis later on. A lot of Elgar for me is such an uneasy mix of this wistful melancholy and "all hail the British Empire" aspects. (I can appreciate Beecham's Bonmot that seems to imply striving for a gothic cathedral and ending up with a Victorian train station.) As someone mentioned Strauss, I am not a great fan of him either but he is (often) more colorful and entertaining than Elgar, I think. And Strauss' best pieces are operas where there is no comparison to Elgar.

[Christo]

I've collected classical music for 40+ years, and have had a fair representation of Elgar therein all along, but I never really began listening to his music until recently.  Being an Anglophile, I've long had a love of music from UK composers, especially Vaughan Williams, Moeran, and Finzi, but Elgar, for whatever reason, just didn't click for me.

Many thanks for jumping on this forum for music lovers united! And great to learn that you've been in love with RVW and the likes for so long. Yes, the opposition between these very 'English' composers on the one side and those who lean a little more to German Romanticism a/o Brahms at the other, is well known. I myself am struggling with it about as long as you do, being equally prejudiced towards the former. :-) My own salvation is, that the great RVW himself admired Elgar, and Parry, even Stanford (whose choral music is superb, I'ld say, but whose symphonies require some extra sympathy). I'm still trying to listen to Elgar through his ears, and this thread is definitely a great help. Thanks to all of you then. 

[knight66]

Why would I care what you thought about Delius? More importantly, what does he have to do with the Elgar thread? It seems like to me you have nothing positive or beneficial to add here other than to rile against a composer whose symphonies you don't like.

Right......this is a discussion thread, not a fan site. There has been a bit of straying from the topic, but it is perfectly legitimate to discuss other composers in relation to, in or contrast to, the composer in question. It is drawing out some interesting tinking. MI, there is no need to become instantly hostile if someone dislikes something that you don't. No need to go down that well trod road again. Nor do I see signs of trolling, where a poster just wants to throw stones into the water. If that becomes evident.....let me know. So, the discussion needs to continue to be framed in the civilised way most posters have been conveying.

Knight

[Elgarian]

I've been following GMG for awhile but this is my first post.

First, a shout-out to Elgarian who, unbeknownst to him at the time, shepherded me through a discovery of the music of Handel.  It's nice to find him--and the rest of you--here on the Elgar thread as I've begun to find my way back to his music.  I've collected classical music for 40+ years, and have had a fair representation of Elgar therein all along, but I never really began listening to his music until recently.  Being an Anglophile, I've long had a love of music from UK composers, especially Vaughan Williams, Moeran, and Finzi, but Elgar, for whatever reason, just didn't click for me.

I am amazed to discover this morning that I missed seeing this post of yours yesterday, David. Must have been half-asleep. Anyway, it's great to see you posting here and sharing your adventures.

Well, surprise, surprise... Thanks to two performances of two works, I'm discovering the wonders of Elgar, seemingly for the first time.  The first is the Violin Concerto via a Proms performance on Youtube with Nigel Kennedy and the BBC Concert Orchestra conducted by Paul Daniel.  Wow.  I know Kennedy can be an acquired taste among music lovers but this performance just blows me away (a term I don't use too often).  Over and above the sheer beauty of the tone Kennedy produces and his (to my ears) flawless technique, he communicates a depth and profundity in this piece that I never experienced in the recording I've long had in my collection by Chung and Solti.  I've encountered opinion in the past placing the Elgar concerto in the ranks of those by Beethoven, Brahms, and Sibelius but I never understood that until now.  Extraordinary.

It took me a couple of decades to find a satisfactory way into the violin concerto, but once I made it, it zoomed into my personal shortlist of essential items, and has stayed there ever since. There's a LOT of discussion of it in this thread - in fact I find it's one of those pieces of music that particularly rewards some exploration of how it was written, what Elgar had to say about it, what his intentions were, and so on. I found that the more I knew about that side of things, the deeper my fascination with the music became. I would definitely place Elgar's VC up there with those other giants you mention. Some have said it's too long - and certainly it is longer than one might expect - but there are very good reasons for that.

Karl will echo your admiration for the Kennedy performances, and Sarge would I'm sure have some helpful things to say about the Chung/Solti version. My own old, old favourite is Hugh Bean/Charles Groves (as recorded ad tedium earlier in this thread).

Second is the Piano Quintet performed by Ian Brown and the Sorrel Quartet.  This is a piece by Elgar that I did not know, so I'm in no position to speak to the qualities--or lack thereof--of the performance, but the music itself, again, just blows me away.  For me, the piano quintet as a genre has pretty much been Schumann and Brahms and, occasionally, Shostakovich.  That's expanded now to include Elgar.  The quintet is, at this moment, my favorite of his chamber pieces.

Oh, now you're on a roll! The chamber music can be enormously rewarding, and again all three of the major pieces (quartet, quintet, and the stunning violin sonata) are enhanced, for me, by knowing about the circumstances in which they were written, in a secluded cottage in a Sussex wood. An entire book has been written, largely about Elgar's association with the place:



Cheers!

[mc ukrneal]

I mean that Elgar's thematic development isn't adequately sustained in a coherent progression but tails off into dead ends and meanders to no recognisable purpose. Elgar obviously had the ability to create memorable themes but they become dull and repetitious when strung out over the length of a symphony unless the composer has the originality to transform them above and beyond their original conception.   

But is this your problem or Elgar's problem? For example, the nobilemente theme in the first symphony is incomplete, but is transformed throughout the rest of the symphony only to return at the very end. This seems to me to have a very clear and coherent purpose. I suppose if one doesn't understand that purpose (or see value in it) that one might find it repetitious and dull. But I think this might be an example of the dead end you refer to.

It doesn't bother me that you have posted your thoughts and that not all Elgar is your cup of tea. It could be that the ideas/sound/approach doesn't connect with you. It is hard to connect to everyone equally well. As a lover of Elgar, I just try to convey some of the 'why' behind that feeling, so that maybe it will help others (eventually) connect. But I think Elgarian is the most effective in this regard when it comes to Elgar.

[Sergeant Rock]

I agree Sarge that the so-called Symphony of a Thousand is perhaps more of a challenge for the listener as it's a long way fromthe 1st to the 8th and beyond. Admittedly I heard it only once when a colleague wanted to show off his audio system but I was very impressed with the music. Perhaps I should have included the 2nd instead as I have seen it performed a number of times in concert.
To my mind the Alpine Symphony epitomises late romanticism and has been a personal favourite for years
and here's why:

http://youtu.be/xK7z2NhUrsQ

I'm glad you included M8. No other work would have shown me how wrong I was in my initial assumptions concerning your musical likes and dislikes. It was a shock, but a pleasant one. I love all your choices, by the way, which include several of my Top 10 Symphony picks: Mahler 6, Sibelius 5, Saint-Saens 3; the Alpine, of course (although I sometimes do get lost coming down the mountain. The way up is more direct).

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I mean that Elgar's thematic development isn't adequately sustained in a coherent progression but tails off into dead ends and meanders to no recognisable purpose.

I suppose the Second is a bit harder to grasp in this respect but I hear a clear trajectory in the First, from the moment the Nobilmente theme is first heard through the subsequent struggle to reassert itself to the triumphant conclusion. If there are a few byways (thanks Elgarian  ) well, they are places I want to explore.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

If we say simply that Elgar's thematic development isn't sustained in an apparently coherent progression but tails off into dead ends and meanders, I could partially agree 

Id est, I find Elgarian's wondering about this notion of 'purpose' in a piece of music entirely to the purpose here.  I think the occasional indirection, the occasional forgoing of getting somewhere in order to enjoy being here at present, is part of the musical character.

[Karl Henning]

Parenthetically (and this is a group who may be playing some Henningmusick one day):

http://www.youtube.com/v/R8LFOF8x5wU

[Mirror Image]

Right......this is a discussion thread, not a fan site. There has been a bit of straying from the topic, but it is perfectly legitimate to discuss other composers in relation to, in or contrast to, the composer in question. It is drawing out some interesting tinking. MI, there is no need to become instantly hostile if someone dislikes something that you don't. No need to go down that well trod road again. Nor do I see signs of trolling, where a poster just wants to throw stones into the water. If that becomes evident.....let me know. So, the discussion needs to continue to be framed in the civilised way most posters have been conveying.

Knight

Anyone is welcome to like/dislike what they want, Knight. I have no problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with, however, is someone's insistent need to say they dislike something (aka beating a dead horse). I'm all for discussion about music, but I've learned that discussion of music that we all like is much more beneficial, and less troublesome, then continuously remarking on music one doesn't like. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me that he/she dislikes Elgar's symphonies but to go on and on about it seems redundant and is, in my view, a dead-end.

[Sergeant Rock]

Anyone is welcome to like/dislike what they want, Knight. I have no problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with, however, is someone's insistent need to say they dislike something (aka beating a dead horse).

Beaumarchais is not beating a dead horse. He's been responding to posts and questions from the rest of us. That's what we want him to do! It's called a conversation.

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

Beaumarchais is not beating a dead horse. He's been responding to posts and questions from the rest of us. That's what we want him to do! It's called a conversation.

Sarge

Okay, well I haven't been following too closely to the responses he's been given by other members as I've just been reading his posts. By all means, carry on!