Elgar's Hillside

[Elgarian]

Lay your burden down!

The Moore biography is a VERY hefty tome, and would make a good metaphor for the burden of my conscience.

[Moonfish]

Some years ago I did a comparison of the three available remasterings of the Beatrice Harrison cello concerto - the two you mention, and the Mike Dutton remastering. They are all slightly different because of the compromises that are made during the cleaning up - if you clean up more, you lose ambience; if you clean up less, you keep more ambience but get more noise.

My feeling was that I slightly preferred the Dutton to the other two, because the music seemed to have a bit more space to breathe in. But in all honesty, I'm quite sure that without careful direct A/B/C comparison, I wouldn't able to guess which I was listening to, and my enjoyment of the music certainly doesn't depend on it in any way. Of course others may be more sensitive to the differences.

Thanks, Elgarian!
I was quite impressed with the remastering in the Elgar Electrical Recordings edition. It would be a miracle if the Naxos rendition surpassed it in any major way. I appreciate your impressions although I am well aware of how perceptions are likely to vary. After all, that is the beauty of music.  I still cannot quite get over how good the electrical recordings sound. The people involved in the project must have been completely devoted to bringing the music alive again.

[Moonfish]

The Moore biography is a VERY hefty tome, and would make a good metaphor for the burden of my conscience.

In my house the Moore biography will be in good company. Hefty tomes truly abound in my book stacks...     

[Sergeant Rock]

In my house the Moore biography will be in god company. Hefty tomes truly abound in my book stacks... 

Sharing shelf space with all your Bibles? 

Sarge

[Moonfish]

Sharing shelf space with all your Bibles? 

Sarge

err....good company...    .... Elgar's music?   
*slippery keyboard*

[revdrdave]

Finished the Kennedy biography of Elgar. Wish I could say it got better. I can't...so poorly written, so many areas unexplored, so many questions unanswered. I did, however, come away from the book thinking how much of Elgar's behavior fits that of someone with bipolar disorder.

I have my hopes now pinned on the Moore biography, which is on its way. As is the EMI set of all the electrical recordings.

[Elgarian]

Finished the Kennedy biography of Elgar. Wish I could say it got better. I can't...so poorly written, so many areas unexplored, so many questions unanswered. I did, however, come away from the book thinking how much of Elgar's behavior fits that of someone with bipolar disorder.

I have my hopes now pinned on the Moore biography, which is on its way. As is the EMI set of all the electrical recordings.

I share your view of the Kennedy biography, so congratulations on getting to the end of it.

I do feel though ... well, those other books I listed - Dora, Rosa, and Billy Reed ... after I'd read those, I felt as if I knew Elgar in a way that no formal biography has ever come close to offering. Moore has all the facts - well, as many as you can fit into 800+ pages. But I'm talking about connaitre, rather than savoir, here. All three (D, R, & B) are needed, because each account is biased according to the nature of their friendship with Elgar. Dora on her own (though my favourite) is too gushing; Rosa too stern; Billy too respectful. But taken together they create a very vivid portrait - and a real portrait too, which is not just a likeness, but offers some inner knowledge of the man. So I'd recommend pinning your hopes on them, rather than Moore, to provide what I think you might be looking for.

Not sure about the bipolar, though I understand why you said it. Certainly the graph of Elgar's mental state would be far from even: lots of jagged ups and downs. There's a characteristic mood swing that takes place whenever he finishes a major work, where he plummets into despair and seems to hate what he's just made. That has a bipolar character to it, but I don't know what it must be like to produce a seriously sublime piece of work, 'all systems full on' for months on end, and then, suddenly, STOP, when it's done. I have no idea what degree of mental intensity is involved in such a process, or what it feels like to stop. I get the merest glimmer of what it might be like, from knowing how I feel when I finish a writing project of my own, but there's such a gulf between that, and what he did, that it can be no more than a glimmer.

[revdrdave]

I share your view of the Kennedy biography, so congratulations on getting to the end of it.

I do feel though ... well, those other books I listed - Dora, Rosa, and Billy Reed ... after I'd read those, I felt as if I knew Elgar in a way that no formal biography has ever come close to offering. Moore has all the facts - well, as many as you can fit into 800+ pages. But I'm talking about connaitre, rather than savoir, here. All three (D, R, & B) are needed, because each account is biased according to the nature of their friendship with Elgar. Dora on her own (though my favourite) is too gushing; Rosa too stern; Billy too respectful. But taken together they create a very vivid portrait - and a real portrait too, which is not just a likeness, but offers some inner knowledge of the man. So I'd recommend pinning your hopes on them, rather than Moore, to provide what I think you might be looking for.

Not sure about the bipolar, though I understand why you said it. Certainly the graph of Elgar's mental state would be far from even: lots of jagged ups and downs. There's a characteristic mood swing that takes place whenever he finishes a major work, where he plummets into despair and seems to hate what he's just made. That has a bipolar character to it, but I don't know what it must be like to produce a seriously sublime piece of work, 'all systems full on' for months on end, and then, suddenly, STOP, when it's done. I have no idea what degree of mental intensity is involved in such a process, or what it feels like to stop. I get the merest glimmer of what it might be like, from knowing how I feel when I finish a writing project of my own, but there's such a gulf between that, and what he did, that it can be no more than a glimmer.

Yes--Dora, Rosa, and Billy Reed would have an intimate knowledge of Elgar in the way Moore could not, no matter how long his biography or how many facts it contains.  Knowing about someone clearly is not the same as knowing them.  I have these other books coming as well and will probably read them before I read Moore.

A further thought about the possibility of Elgar being bipolar (acknowledging up front that this is nothing but speculation on my part)... Yes, there were the inevitable emotional crashes after he completed a major work, but the mood swings were not limited just to times such as those.  Whatever the shortcomings of the Kennedy biography, he does do a good job of charting Elgar's rollercoaster-like emotions, page after page of quotes from letters where Elgar writes of being un-appreciated, written-out, and unable to see anything but misery and meaninglessness, only to then, several days later, be up again as a consequence of a visit from/to someone or a conducting engagement that went well.  Kennedy often refers to these moods of Elgar's as "tiresome," suggesting that such an assessment is not his alone but was shared by a number of Elgar's acquaintances.  Elgar certainly wouldn't be alone as a manic depressive--classical music history, to the extent the condition can be diagnosed in hindsight, is full of bipolar musicians (Mahler and Otto Klemperer quickly come to mind). 

Now--why does it matter if Elgar was bipolar?  Well, only to the extent that it helps explain his character--why he vacillated between charming and boorish behavior--and, to the extent it impacted his composing, the duplicity often found in his music.  The "inner" and "outer" Elgar, in other words, might have something to do with the manic and depressive Elgar.  To provide a concrete example: if Elgar was bipolar, how much of the emotional world of the Violin Concerto really had to do with Windflower and how much with just Elgar's own stuff?  Of course, the challenge there is how do you separate them--the inner/the outer, the manic/the depressive, love for Windflower/Elgar's emotional state are inextricably linked.   

[Karl Henning]

[...] There's a characteristic mood swing that takes place whenever he finishes a major work, where he plummets into despair and seems to hate what he's just made.

I know an artist who at times has something of a similar reaction (as above modified), and that in spite of the fact that the work is of the very top notch.

[North Star]

I know an artist who at times has something of a similar reaction (as above modified), and that in spite of the fact that the work is of the very top notch.

Only one? 
Famous artists' biographies are full of this stuff, of course. Sibelius and Brahms are obvious examples.
Of course, this feeling often plays a large role in the creation of the following work.

[Karl Henning]

Well, that is true.

[Elgarian]

Now--why does it matter if Elgar was bipolar?  Well, only to the extent that it helps explain his character--why he vacillated between charming and boorish behavior--and, to the extent it impacted his composing, the duplicity often found in his music.  The "inner" and "outer" Elgar, in other words, might have something to do with the manic and depressive Elgar.  To provide a concrete example: if Elgar was bipolar, how much of the emotional world of the Violin Concerto really had to do with Windflower and how much with just Elgar's own stuff?  Of course, the challenge there is how do you separate them--the inner/the outer, the manic/the depressive, love for Windflower/Elgar's emotional state are inextricably linked.

I've been letting this stew quietly, wondering what I think and not being sure. I know I feel uneasy about attempting a diagnosis of a mental condition of someone who lived over a century ago, on the basis of reported behaviour (it must be hard enough making such a diagnosis of someone here and now and in the room). I think I think it doesn't matter much anyway, because I find myself asking: why would we want to separate out all these constituent strands? The music is born, not from the Windflower (as such), not from a definable mental condition, but from Elgar's inner experience, however that comes about. So the music is a symbol of something (a symbol of feeling, according to the philosopher Susanne Langer); and once created, it potentially 'contains' all these things.

I think what I'm getting at is that first, there's the music. Second, there's what happens to us when we listen to it. Third, there's how we reason about what our experience of the music has been. And (in that third mode) we can talk about Windflowers, and we can talk about bipolar, and we can talk about public and private, but the music is none of those things (though in a strange sense it may seem to 'contain' them). So if we're tempted to seek 'the answer' to the Elgar 'enigma' (you see how deeply my tongue is embedded in my cheek, here), I don't think 'bipolar' is it, any more than is his tendency to tinnitis or his fondness for chemistry.

And now, having got this far, I'm wondering whether I've actually managed to say anything at all! Its only claim to deserving your attention may be that it's what oozed out in response to your interesting post!

[Karl Henning]

I've been letting this stew quietly, wondering what I think and not being sure. I know I feel uneasy about attempting a diagnosis of a mental condition of someone who lived over a century ago, on the basis of reported behaviour (it must be hard enough making such a diagnosis of someone here and now and in the room). I think I think it doesn't matter much anyway, because I find myself asking: why would we want to separate out all these constituent strands? The music is born, not from the Windflower (as such), not from a definable mental condition, but from Elgar's inner experience, however that comes about. So the music is a symbol of something (a symbol of feeling, according to the philosopher Susanne Langer); and once created, it potentially 'contains' all these things.

I think what I'm getting at is that first, there's the music. Second, there's what happens to us when we listen to it. Third, there's how we reason about what our experience of the music has been. And (in that third mode) we can talk about Windflowers, and we can talk about bipolar, and we can talk about public and private, but the music is none of those things (though in a strange sense it may seem to 'contain' them). So if we're tempted to seek 'the answer' to the Elgar 'enigma' (you see how deeply my tongue is embedded in my cheek, here), I don't think 'bipolar' is it, any more than is his tendency to tinnitis or his fondness for chemistry.

And now, having got this far, I'm wondering whether I've actually managed to say anything at all! [...]

However (and among other things), I think your most interesting response has, I think, underscored the probable irrelevance of the dubious back-diagnoses . . . .

[revdrdave]

I've been letting this stew quietly, wondering what I think and not being sure. I know I feel uneasy about attempting a diagnosis of a mental condition of someone who lived over a century ago, on the basis of reported behaviour (it must be hard enough making such a diagnosis of someone here and now and in the room). I think I think it doesn't matter much anyway, because I find myself asking: why would we want to separate out all these constituent strands? The music is born, not from the Windflower (as such), not from a definable mental condition, but from Elgar's inner experience, however that comes about. So the music is a symbol of something (a symbol of feeling, according to the philosopher Susanne Langer); and once created, it potentially 'contains' all these things.

I think what I'm getting at is that first, there's the music. Second, there's what happens to us when we listen to it. Third, there's how we reason about what our experience of the music has been. And (in that third mode) we can talk about Windflowers, and we can talk about bipolar, and we can talk about public and private, but the music is none of those things (though in a strange sense it may seem to 'contain' them). So if we're tempted to seek 'the answer' to the Elgar 'enigma' (you see how deeply my tongue is embedded in my cheek, here), I don't think 'bipolar' is it, any more than is his tendency to tinnitis or his fondness for chemistry.

And now, having got this far, I'm wondering whether I've actually managed to say anything at all! Its only claim to deserving your attention may be that it's what oozed out in response to your interesting post!

However (and among other things), I think your most interesting response has, I think, underscored the probable irrelevance of the dubious back-diagnoses . . . .

"Dubious" I'm willing to accept..."irrelevance," well, hear me out...

It is, of course, a treacherous proposition to speculate--and that's all I'm doing..speculating--about the mental or emotional dynamics at work in any artist, and especially one who lived a century ago.  I also am very well aware of the special challenges that arise if the dynamic (re: condition) in question is bipolar disorder.  I have up-close-and-personal experience with bipolar disorder in my own family, so I know how tricky diagnosis can be even if you have the person in front of you (as opposed to one hundred years behind you).  And I also want to be quick to point out that I'm new to Elgar and his music, so anything I say is based on admittedly limited experience. 

That said, in earlier installments of this particular conversation, it was agreed that in Elgar's case, perhaps more so than in the case of some other composers, you separate Elgar the man from Elgar's music at your peril.  To understand one you have to understand the other.  Of course you can relate to his music knowing little or nothing about him, but relating to it more fully really does require you know something of both his inner and outer life.  It was also agreed that there's more to a life than facts--connaitre you said, Alan, as opposed to savoir.  To the extent any of this is true, the possibility that Elgar was bipolar (or schizophrenic or ADHD or any other mental/emotional condition) is relevant because it impacts both the inner and the outer man, significantly so in the case of bipolar disorder where, undiagnosed and/or untreated, it impacts every area of life and the lives of those around you.

I don't have much patience with retroactive psychoanalytic biography.  It too often becomes like the old saying, give a boy a hammer and everything starts to look like a nail: suddenly, people are finding underlying psychoses everywhere they look.  But, to me, that doesn't mean we should dismiss the potential impact of a composer's emotional/mental state on his/her music because a) we're removed from them in time and space, and b) can't ourselves make a clinical diagnosis. I'm not saying Elgar was bipolar. I'm merely suggesting that what we know of his behavior could be explained by bipolar disorder.  And the reason I think such speculation, dubious though it may be, is nonetheless relevant is because it potentially casts in a rather different light the inner man--and, to the extent it is a reflection of the inner man, his music.

Short of unearthing a doctor's report that Elgar was diagnosed manic depressive, nothing even approaching definitive can come of such speculation.  But if, in the process of speculating, different possibilities for relating to his music arise, I find that intriguing. 

[Karl Henning]

All right.  But what is speculative, we ought to be able to separate from the music without peril, yes?

[revdrdave]

All right.  But what is speculative, we ought to be able to separate from the music without peril, yes?

Yes--agreed.  Although we might lose something in the process.

[Elgarian]

I'm not saying Elgar was bipolar. I'm merely suggesting that what we know of his behavior could be explained by bipolar disorder.  And the reason I think such speculation, dubious though it may be, is nonetheless relevant is because it potentially casts in a rather different light the inner man--and, to the extent it is a reflection of the inner man, his music.

I'm still not at all sure how I feel about this. I acknowledge all that you say, and if we're examining the Elgar biography (as we are) then I can see it's worth discussing. And I can see that I've painted myself into a corner already by saying that I find it hard if not impossible to separate the man from the music.

And yet ... and yet ... I still find myself wondering if it matters whether we can identify the mental condition as a known disorder. Now that may be because I myself have no proper understanding of the nature of the disorder - I recognise that. But ultimately, I want to say that if he feels what he feels, and expresses that through his music, then it doesn't sound 'manic' (forgive the word, I'm aware of its impropriety) to me. It never does. There are extremes of emotion, yes - but on the whole they seem comparable with those I experience myself, I think. Of course as I write this, I'm aware that this is not an argument, but just a feeling.

Undeniably Elgar the man had some very odd behavioural traits, and I can see there's a bipolar-ish aspect to some of them, but I'm still reluctant to go further than that, really - that is, beyond acknowledging the possibility but being unsure if it matters one way or the other.

[revdrdave]

I'm still not at all sure how I feel about this. I acknowledge all that you say, and if we're examining the Elgar biography (as we are) then I can see it's worth discussing. And I can see that I've painted myself into a corner already by saying that I find it hard if not impossible to separate the man from the music.

And yet ... and yet ... I still find myself wondering if it matters whether we can identify the mental condition as a known disorder. Now that may be because I myself have no proper understanding of the nature of the disorder - I recognise that. But ultimately, I want to say that if he feels what he feels, and expresses that through his music, then it doesn't sound 'manic' (forgive the word, I'm aware of its impropriety) to me. It never does. There are extremes of emotion, yes - but on the whole they seem comparable with those I experience myself, I think. Of course as I write this, I'm aware that this is not an argument, but just a feeling.

Undeniably Elgar the man had some very odd behavioural traits, and I can see there's a bipolar-ish aspect to some of them, but I'm still reluctant to go further than that, really - that is, beyond acknowledging the possibility but being unsure if it matters one way or the other.

Of course.  We don't have to reach consensus on this.  The fact we all approach music from our own experiences and with our own expectations is what makes forums like this, at their best, so enjoyable.  Enjoyable, too, is knowing that one can raise questions...think out loud, as it were...and feel reasonably safe doing so, that others will at least consider the question with you rather than dismiss it (and you) as, well, silly.  That is, I think, how understanding grows.

On to other ideas...

[Elgarian]

Of course.  We don't have to reach consensus on this.  The fact we all approach music from our own experiences and with our own expectations is what makes forums like this, at their best, so enjoyable.  Enjoyable, too, is knowing that one can raise questions...think out loud, as it were...and feel reasonably safe doing so, that others will at least consider the question with you rather than dismiss it (and you) as, well, silly.  That is, I think, how understanding grows.

Yes! The freedom to float ideas and kick them about without some implicit competitive element being involved is crucial, and yet not that easy to find, actually.

I've been thinking (in relation to what we've been discussing) about a very strange incident that Dorabella relates. She was staying with the Elgars at a time when Elgar was in full composing mode, but was 'stuck' in some way, and she describes how they were sitting at a table, when he hit her hand (hard) and jumped up and left the room. See what you make of it when you read it. Very odd behaviour. At the very least, it seems to signify such an intense focus on his predicament that he was completely unaware of the impact he might have on others present.

[Elgarian]

If Elgarian is in the Elgar thread it may create the impression that good times at GMG have returned again.

I have made a conscious decision not to pay attention to the personal attributes of composers or musicians. The music of Elgar (including his nobilmente style, the masculine/feminine dichotomy or other elements of his music) are beautiful and may resonate with my own personal feelings and experiences. This is sufficient. What relationship Elgar's music has to his own character is impossible to know and in any case not relevant to me. If, for the sake of argument, someone told me that Elgar's music was written during a psychotic episode, or was inspired by a heinous genocidal conspiracy, it wouldn't matter a whit to me.

Elgar had a brilliant musical imagination. As far as I know, that is his only remarkable attribute. Take that away and I don't suppose there is much to distinguish him from the bloke that lived in the next cottage.

Hello Scarps. Good to see you here again.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take - set the man aside and listen to his music. I do it myself with regard to other composers (I love Handel's music for example, but just can't get very interested in the man himself).

In the case of Elgar, I think there are aspects of his character that I believe I'd have very much enoyed, if I'd known him, and perhaps that makes the difference. In playing the game of 'Which 5 historical characters would you invite to dinner?', Elgar would always be on my list, regardless of how the others might change.

Which suddenly makes me wonder about a slightly different game of inviting 5 Elgar-flavoured characters to dinner: how about Elgar, Dora Penny, Rosa Burley, Billy Reed, and Alice Stuart Wortley? I bet that would be lively!