GMG Classical Music Forum

[Had to move this from another thread where it just Did Not Belong]

Quote from: 71 dB on April 11, 2007, 07:30:10 AM
You need one work from both Berlioz and Elgar to make the comparison and hear the similarities.

(1)  I have heard several works of both composers, a collective duration of at least twenty hours of music.  That puts me in a much better position to judge than you, wouldn't you think?  My only "disadvantage" is, that I do not labor under the overwhelming need to praise Elgar, at any cost to facts and to the truth.

(2)  All right:  so which one of Berlioz's works have you heard?  ;D

(3)  Now, demonstrate your musical expertise, already:  write us four paragraphs, with musical references, detailing the similarities between the two composers.

Come now, according to you it is easy;  you only need to know one piece by each composer.

Both are terrific composers. La Sinfonia Fantastica is one of my favorite works by anyone. But Elgar happens to be preferred by me overall, if that's what this thread is about.

Elgar's Symphonies can really rewarding, but I think his chamber music is where his real Genius lies, especially his often awe-inspiring Cello works.

Just opinion.

Quote from: Haffner on April 11, 2007, 08:14:06 AM
Both are terrific composers. La Sinfonia Fantastica is one of my favorite works by anyone. But Elgar happens to be preferred by me overall, if that's what this thread is about.

I thought humiliation was the theme of this thread.

Quote from: Haffner on April 11, 2007, 08:14:06 AM
Elgar's Symphonies can really rewarding,

How deep is your appreciation of the 1st mvt of Elgar's 1st symphony?  Do you honestly enjoy that entirely and without abatement?  If so, hats off to you . . . . . .

Quote from: D Minor on April 11, 2007, 08:49:21 AM
How deep is your appreciation of the 1st mvt of Elgar's 1st symphony?  Do you honestly enjoy that entirely and without abatement?  If so, hats off to you . . . . . .

Does that mean you don't like it, D? I'm just asking. I happen to like the Symphonies quite alot. But that's just me.

Quote from: D Minor on April 11, 2007, 08:49:21 AM
How deep is your appreciation of the 1st mvt of Elgar's 1st symphony?  Do you honestly enjoy that entirely and without abatement?  If so, hats off to you . . . . . .

Yes, that 1st Movement can be a chore.  Sometimes I think that Elgar got "stuck" on the basic theme and couldn't let it go.

Quote from: Haffner on April 11, 2007, 08:52:33 AM


Does that mean you don't like it, D? I'm just asking. I happen to like the Symphonies quite alot. But that's just me.

As Don suggests, the 1st mvt of the 1st symphony is a chore to plod through (some have called it "crap", and, historically, I have not been quick to disagree with that assessment . . . . . .)

Quote from: D Minor on April 11, 2007, 08:59:27 AM
As Don suggests, the 1st mvt of the 1st symphony is a chore to plod through (some have called it "crap", and I have not been quick to disagree with that assessment . . . . . .)

Maybe it is a bit repetitive...hmmm, sounds okay to me. I'm weird  :-\.

Quote from: Haffner on April 11, 2007, 09:00:41 AM


Maybe it is a bit repetitive...hmmm, sounds okay to me. I'm weird  :-\.

Well, there's repetition in most muscial works, but I do have some problems with the amount of it in the 1st Movement.  About twice a year, I tackle that movement again; I'm not convinced that I can't appreciate it much more than I currently do.

Quote from: Don on April 11, 2007, 08:17:01 AM
I thought humiliation was the theme of this thread.

You are mistaken.  I don't believe Blom is in any position to be humiliated by this thread, even if that were its theme.

Quote from: Haffner on April 11, 2007, 08:14:06 AM
Both are terrific composers. La Sinfonia Fantastica is one of my favorite works by anyone. But Elgar happens to be preferred by me overall, if that's what this thread is about.

Elgar's Symphonies can really rewarding, but I think his chamber music is where his real Genius lies, especially his often awe-inspiring Cello works.

Just opinion.

Both are indeed terrific composers;  I enjoy them both a great deal.  Stylistically and aesthetically, they carve out such different space, I should have trouble comparing them;  so any neighbors who can shed light, have my gratitude and attention.

Blom has made a peculiar statement attempting to link the orchestration of Berlioz and Elgar.  Now, 71 dB simply adores Elgar, and why not?  He is welcome to his musical joys.  Adoring Elgar isn't for everyone, but no matter.  And since the Blom quote tends simply to laud Elgar, by way of tying him to great composers before him, its appeal for 71 dB is obvious.

The theme of this thread is an inquiry into the question of whether the work of the two respective composers is really comparable.

Elgar's wonderful chamber works are no particular help, it seems to me, since Berlioz hardly wrote any chamber music.

Elgar's symphonies are surprisingly 'conservative' in overall design, especially compared to the five Berlioz works which the latter considered his own symphonies.  And rhetorically, the tow composers inhabit different worlds.  These concerns are not a matter of orchestration directly, but the orchestration is intimately connected.

The only concerted work of Berlioz, Harold en Italie, does not sustain ready comparison to either the Violin or Cello Concerto of Elgar.

So perhaps the angle at which we might best compare and contrast the orchestration techniques of the two composers, would be the oratorios, L'enfance du Christ and The Dream of Gerontius.  Even here, meseems that we find two composers on two different planets.

Parenthetically, Elgar's symphonies are still eluding me somewhat, but I give them time.  No hurry.

Quote from: Haffner on April 11, 2007, 09:00:41 AM


Maybe it is a bit repetitive...hmmm, sounds okay to me. I'm weird  :-\.

Hey, if YOU enjoy it, that's the important thing!  I don't want to be your killjoy . . . . . . even if it means that you're wasting your time listening to crap!  :D  :D  :D

Quote from: Don on April 11, 2007, 09:04:18 AM
Well, there's repetition in most muscial works, but I do have some problems with the amount of it in the 1st Movement.  About twice a year, I tackle that movement again; I'm not convinced that I can't appreciate it much more than I currently do.

That's more or less where I am with the two symphonies, generally.  I am hoping that the Tate/LSO recording may adjust that.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2007, 09:05:16 AM
The only concerted work of Berlioz, Harold en Italie, does not sustain ready comparison to either the Violin or Cello Concerto of Elgar.

I'm not sure that Harold en Italie sustains ready comparison to ANY work by ANY composer . . . . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2007, 09:05:16 AM
Parenthetically, Elgar's symphonies are still eluding me somewhat, but I give them time.  No hurry.

The time pays off. Excellent post, maestro Karl!

I find, and sorry I dance out of line, them absolutely wonderful, and what's more his Symphonies played under the baton of Solti, are fast and invigorating. I find no fault at them, and don't think them old fashioned. They are full of good melodies, and are well written to my ears.
The first movement does not strike me as repetitive, or to long. As to the rest of his works, I find myself equally Elgar friendly, but I have to admit, that his vocal works are not my cup of tea alltogether.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2007, 09:05:16 AM
You are mistaken.  I don't believe Blom is in any position to be humiliated by this thread, even if that were its theme.

71 dB, not Blom.

Quote from: Harry on April 11, 2007, 09:12:31 AM
I find, and sorry I dance out of line, them absolutely wonderful, and what's more his Symphonies played under the baton of Solti, are fast and invigorating. I find no fault at them, and don't think them old fashioned. They are full of good melodies, and are well written to my ears.
The first movement does not strike me as repetitive, or to long. As to the rest of his works, I find myself equally Elgar friendly, but I have to admit, that his vocal works are not my cup of tea alltogether.

Why, you are always welcome to the dance, and you are never out of turn, Harry.

All I really meant by calling Elgar's symphonies 'conservative in design,' is that where Berlioz (in particular) took Beethoven's Opus 125 as an invitation to composers to reimagine what The Symphony could be, later symphonists such as (in especial) Brahms and Elgar seemed perfectly happy to let the symphony be a four-movement affair, for orchestra alone (and perhaps not the largest of orchestras, either).

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2007, 08:04:11 AM
[Had to move this from another thread where it just Did Not Belong]

(1)  I have heard several works of both composers, a collective duration of at least twenty hours of music.  That puts me in a much better position to judge than you, wouldn't you think?  My only "disadvantage" is, that I do not labor under the overwhelming need to praise Elgar, at any cost to facts and to the truth.

(2)  All right:  so which one of Berlioz's works have you heard?  ;D

(3)  Now, demonstrate your musical expertise, already:  write us four paragraphs, with musical references, detailing the similarities between the two composers.

Come now, according to you it is easy;  you only need to know one piece by each composer.

(1) Okay, you are superior to me so I better stop listening to music and die away...

(2) L'Enfance du Christ, Tristia, Harold in Italy, Symphonie fantastique. That's 4.

(3) I believe there are plenty of this in ELGAR O.M. by Percy Young. However, I read it years ago. The similarities are about efective use of instruments. I haven't studied music theory much, I listen to music and recognice musical structures as they are without trying to name them. A person can see the similarities and differencies between the windows of two buildings without studying architecture.

I respect both Elgar and Berlioz as composers. I should explore Berlioz more and I will.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 11, 2007, 09:22:14 AM
(2) L'Enfance du Christ, Tristia, Harold in Italy, Symphonie fantastique. That's 4.

And how do any of these pieces relate to Elgar's orchestration, please?

Quote from: 71 dB on April 11, 2007, 09:22:14 AM
(3) I believe there are plenty of this in ELGAR O.M. by Percy Young. However, I read it years ago. The similarities are about efective use of instruments.

Well, both Berlioz and Elgar make effective use of instruments, no argument.  My point, 71 dB, is that if a dozen composers make effective use of instruments, it does not specifically link their work to Berlioz's.  I think that there are much closer instrumentation affinities between Berlioz (and Mendelssohn) and Tchaikovsky, for instance, than anything to connect Elgar's work to Berlioz.

QuoteI haven't studied music theory much, I listen to music and recognice musical structures as they are without trying to name them. A person can see the similarities and differencies between the windows of two buildings without studying architecture.

I think the differences between the two composers are much greater than the similarities (which is why I called Blom's remark a Real Turkey).

And a person who can see the similarities and differencies between the windows of two buildings without studying architecture, can describe and discuss those differences;  not as an architect might, but still with some perception and intelligence.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2007, 09:28:27 AM
And how do any of these pieces relate to Elgar's orchestration, please?

So, Elgar developped his own orchestration from cratch without any influencies?

Thank you for another non-answer, 71 dB.  A list of four Berlioz works does not "demonstrate" anything.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2007, 10:00:41 AM
Thank you for another non-answer, 71 dB.  A list of four Berlioz works does not "demonstrate" anything.

Perhaps Eric Blom heard only 3 works by Berlioz?  ;D

Berlioz and Elgar are NOT identical! Berlioz is a French early romantic composer, Elgar is English late romantic composer. There are differencies but also similarities. Elgar studied Berlioz's music orchestration and applied the tricks to his own musical language. If you can't agree with this then disagree. What do I care?

Quote from: 71 dB on April 11, 2007, 10:06:55 AM
Berlioz and Elgar are NOT identical!

Good.

Got a pinch of salt handy, Karl?.......

Just for the fun of it, I had a go at your challenge.... ;D

FAO: Dr Henning

Assignment: 'Elgar's masterly craft is reminiscent of Berlioz' - Eric Blom - Dicuss this statement in four paragraphs, with musical references, detailing the similarities between Berlioz and Elgar.

Differences between Berlioz and Elgar are easy to point out - 'any ass can see that (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,201.msg2611.html#msg2611)', as Brahms said when the resemblance between the finale of his first symphony and Beethoven's Ninth was pointed out. Similarities, such as those posited by Blom, are certainly more elusive, and yet, as my deeply penetrating analysis will reveal, they go right to the heart of the music of both men.  ;D

At the root of this Berlioz-Elgar axis lies their auto-didacticism,* a factor which surely impacted in comparative ways on both men, personally and professionally. Musically speaking it is manifested in many ways - formal free-thinking, ambitious scale and unconventional subject matter etc., etc. - but in two above all. Firstly, and famously, both Elgar and Berlioz had an individual approach to harmony which has often be supposed to spring from their untutored beginnings. At various times, both composers have been censured for this 'failing' but it is increasingly being seen as a positive aspect of their writing. Charles Rosen has convincingly argued that the peculiar effectiveness of such Berlioz masterpieces as the Nuits d'ete is down to a large part to his 'faulty' harmony and voice-leading, and could not be achieved in any other way - his analysis of L'absence makes the point particularly forcefully. The case of Elgar seems to be more complex; early on, whilst tutoring himself, he was aware of the 'rules' of harmony and attempted to follow them - but they never ran deep and true with him, and interesting study can be made of the changes in Elgar's style as he allowed rougher, 'incorrect' harmony into his music: Falstaffs death, for instance, in spite of, or more likely, because of  its parallel fifths and its clunky and bizarre voice-leading, is an inimitable piece of writing which, like the finest 'mistakes' of Berlioz, could not have been obtained in any other fashion.

The second main manifestation of this auto-didacticism, of course, is the fact that neither composer ever thought primarily in pianistic terms. Elgar did more so than Berlioz, of course - hence the relatively successful piano parts to his Piano Quintet and Violin Sonata, and his projected but (significantly?) never completed Piano Concerto - but truth be told, both composers thought first and foremost in terms of the orchestra.**  The musical result is obvious: again and again in the orchestral works of both Berlioz and Elgar we come across textures and chordal layouts which lie unnaturally for the piano and are conceived purely as orchestral sonorities. Feather-light and fundamentally unpianistic Scherzi such as the Queen Mab (Berlioz) and that in Elgar's Cello Concerto - Scherzi the like of which which hardly exist in the works of intervening composers, with the exception of Mendelssohn, that other great Elgarian (he wrote Oratorios and a Violin Concerto in a minor key too, don't you know :P) - represent one type of this sort of writing. Another type is a particular kind of 'floating' or 'suspended' chordal writing - long-held sequences which are unplayable on the piano because of their utter lack of percussive 'impact', such as the opening chords of the Romeo et Juliette Scene d'amour (Berlioz) (when Michael Finnissy came to make a piano transcription/arrangment of this masterpiece he had to somewhat scud over these pages); similar textures exists in much of Elgar's writing, particularly Gerontius, where this characteristically French writing is patently Berlioz-filtered-through-Franck. Despite the vast spectre of Wagner looming between Elgar and Berlioz, and the orchestral genius of Rimsky-Korsakov, a glance at the great composers born between Berlioz and Elgar reveals that none were quite as orchestrally innovative, in the sense of inventing new instrumental techniques. To Berlioz we owe the spotlighting of techniques such as woodwind glissandi, playing the timpani with sponge sticks, and the horn 'pavilions en l'air', to mention only a few of the techniques found in the first few pages of the last movement of the Symphonie Fantastique. To Elgar, we owe 'thrumming', which has, of course, gone on to make enormous impact on orchestral music ever since. :P Finally, of course the massive brass writing of Berlioz, allied to the British Brass Band tradition, issues forth directly in the spectacular effects of Elgar's Cockaigne and similar pieces.

As McVeagh attests (Edward Elgar, His Life and Music, 1955), Elgar's three greatest loves in the Romantic repertoires (outside the Brahms Symphonies he claimed to play each night) were Wagner, Berlioz and Liszt. As this essay has convincingly demonstrated, Berlioz was not the least amongst his influences.

*An axis, by the way, on which we also find that other great Berlioz- and Elgar-ian, Havergal Brian, certain extensive passages of whose Gothic Symphony, a work in whose genesis Elgar also figures heavily, are effectively a homage to, and occasionally a literal quotation of, Berlioz. This piece of Havergal Brian's also shares Berlioz's proto-minimalist ability to create purely ostinato-driven textures.

** For this reason, the orchestral works of both composers transfer only with difficulty and relatively unsuccessfully to a solo piano arrangement, Liszt's masterly transcription of the Symphonie Fantastique notwithstanding.

Great presentatation!  :)

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 11, 2007, 10:26:59 AMMendelssohn, that other great Elgarian (he wrote Oratorios and a Violin Concerto in a minor key too, don’t you know :P) - represent one type of this sort of writing.

Of course I know! My top 3 oratorio composers are:

1. Elgar 2. Handel. 3 Mendelssohn.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 11, 2007, 10:26:59 AM
The second main manifestation of this auto-didacticism, of course, is the fact that neither composer ever thought primarily in pianistic terms.

Very good point.  Same can be said (more-or-less) with Mahler, Wagner, and R. Strauss.  Query whether a predominantly keyboard-oriented perspective helps or hinders the "originality" of a composer's orchestration . . . . . . .

Quote from: D Minor on April 11, 2007, 12:56:06 PM
Very good point.  Same can be said (more-or-less) with Mahler, Wagner, and R. Strauss.  Query whether a predominantly keyboard-oriented perspective helps or hinders the "originality" of a composer's orchestration . . . . . . .

...or just pushes it in a different direction. Ravel, for instance, was a great (or at least very fine) pianist, but his orchestration rarely uses piano figuration to make its effect - the opposite in fact: his piano pieces are sometimes like 'orchestral music in disguise' which is why he could orchestrate them so idiomatically - look at Alborado del Gracioso, for instance - its repeated notes and chordal glissandi hideously tricky for ten fingers, marvellously conceived for orchestra.

It should be emphasized, btw, that I was just seeing if I could make the Berlioz-Elgar case with my little essay above. It seems plausible in its own little way to me, but no more so than Wagner-Elgar, Liszt-Elgar, Mendelssohn-Elgar, Brahms-Elgar, Schumann-Elgar and Bach-Elgar, in their various ways. And in fact, I was deliberately twisting facts to fit my case - there are quite a few (relatively) pianistic textures in Elgar's scores, certainly more so than in Berlioz, where they are completely absent AFAIK.

The thing about Berlioz and Brian was true, though  ;D

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 11, 2007, 01:05:50 PM
It should be emphasized, btw, that I was just seeing if I could make the Berlioz-Elgar case with my little essay above. It seems plausible in its own little way to me, but no more so than Wagner-Elgar, Liszt-Elgar, Mendelssohn-Elgar, Brahms-Elgar, Schumann-Elgar and Bach-Elgar, in their various ways. And in fact, I was deliberately twisting facts to fit my case - there are quite a few (relatively) pianistic textures in Elgar's scores, certainly more so than in Berlioz, where they are completely absent AFAIK.

Yeah, Berlioz definitely wasn't the only influence for Elgar who took elements from all the composer mentioned plus Handel, Mozart and Beethoven. That's what makes Elgar's music so rich and versatile in my eyes. In many ways Elgar's music sums up what had happened in western music during the previous 200 years.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 11, 2007, 01:25:27 PM
In many ways Elgar's music sums up what had happened in western music during the previous 200 years.

But Berlioz took a small spark of inspiration from Beethoven and produced something that looked far into the future.

There is a more than interesting article about Elgar in the Gramophone issue from May, by Andrew Farach-Colton, which sheds light on some darkness concerning his role, Elgar, in the classical music world.
I advise everyone to read that. It tells many things about his life and circumstances, and deals with all the prejudices against Elgar.

"The composer's Edwardian image has blinded generations to the loneliness and beauty in his music"

Quotekarlhenning

Now, demonstrate your musical expertise, already:  write us four paragraphs, with musical references, detailing the similarities between the two composers.

No need for musical references. It is obvious that Berlioz and Elgar had a lot of points in common. I will mention 10 as example:

1. Both were not german.
2. None of them was influenced by Boulez.
3. None of them composed a work for the harpsichord.
4. Both composed two Symphonies without voices.
5. Both composed Lieder with orchestra that were very well performed by Janet Baker.
6. Both were born in the XIX century.
7. Both composed several works based on English writers: (Shakespeare, Byron, for Berlioz).
8. None of them had a computer.
9. There are a lot of B, C, D, E, F, G, major and minor, in their works. And flats and sharps.
10. Both were in love for english women.

Is that enough for you Karl?

And another comparison: Elgar vs Sibelius, this time, by Norman Lebrecht...

Who says he's Elgar the Great? (http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/070411-NL-elgar.html)

Quote from: O Mensch on April 11, 2007, 03:04:47 PM
But Berlioz took a small spark of inspiration from Beethoven and produced something that looked far into the future.

I don't deny that in any way. Berlioz is the father of orchestration for me.

Quote from: Harry on April 12, 2007, 01:10:55 AM
There is a more than interesting article about Elgar in the Gramophone issue from May, by Andrew Farach-Colton, which sheds light on some darkness concerning his role, Elgar, in the classical music world.
I advise everyone to read that. It tells many things about his life and circumstances, and deals with all the prejudices against Elgar.

"The composer's Edwardian image has blinded generations to the loneliness and beauty in his music"

Interesting! Thanks Harry!

Quote from: T-C on April 12, 2007, 02:22:42 AM
And another comparison: Elgar vs Sibelius, this time, by Norman Lebrecht…

Who says he's Elgar the Great? (http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/070411-NL-elgar.html)

"The cellist Julian Lloyd Webber, an Elgar loyalist, argued against me on Radio 4’s Today programme last week that Elgar was, somehow, the equal of J. S. Bach"

Well, J. S. Bach and Elgar are the two greatest composers imo.

"Where Bach made a template that serves composers up to our own time, Elgar’s style was rejected by his immediate successors, who looked elsewhere for ideas – Holst to folk music, Vaughan Williams to Ravel, Britten to Mahler, Birtwistle to Stravinsky."

The same happened to Bach. His template was rejected by the Viennese composers of classism and found again when romantic era started. This is natural in art. It takes time until the templates of geniuses are fully accepted and understood. It's time to re-evaluated Elgar. Julian Lloyd Webber knows that, I know that. All Elgarians know that in their hearts.

Quote from: val on April 12, 2007, 02:01:11 AM
Is that enough for you Karl?

I rest content  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2007, 04:02:07 AM
I rest content  8)

:'( :'( Val is obviously teacher's pet...I wrote a proper essay and got no mark at all. ;D

Why, Luke, your post was pure delight to read, and requires no comment from me!  :)

Elgar and Berlioz are also notably (not to say, notoriously) allied in their conjoint non-writing of a clarinet concerto.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 03:58:26 AM
Well, J. S. Bach and Elgar are the two greatest composers imo.

I just don't get this, I don't know where it comes from. And, note, I'm not one who sneers at Elgar - I do think he is often a very fine composer indeed, though not consistently so, and his best works certainly deserve to be ranked very highly, without the qualifications that are often expressed here.

However, though I'm all for it when people find a single composer who strikes home with them particularly deeply, as indeed Janacek does for me, I find it, shall we say, more troubling when those people then glibly and without respect for generally-accepted opinion, state that their composer-of-choice is 'the greatest imo'. Yes, yes, there's a nice little qualifying 'imo' present, but nevertheless the more honest and humble thing is to accept that the adjective 'greatest' implies a general level of consent which that qualifier 'imo' cannot chime with.

To my mind, the only way that a statement such as this, which proposes something that most informed opnion would not agree with, can be acceptable is if a relatively convincing argument, on musical or aesthetic grounds, can be made that composer x could indeed be considered 'the greatest', even if only from one particualr veiwpoint. Otherwise it isn't really even an 'imo' opinion, it's no more than a general feeling you have.

Soberly and penetratingly expressed, Luke.

As marvelous, and inarguably crème-de-la-crème as the best of Elgar is — and his best is a gratifyingly substantial legacy — his work strikes me as too mixed, for me to readily rank him in 'the first tier' (and I am more liberal than many in my own admissions to the first tier, likely).

And lest ardent Elgarians take umbrage overmuch at that, I recall the story of a music professor about to discuss Mendelssohn, whom a student challenged with, "But Mendelssohn's a Grade B composer, isn't he?"

The professor paused a second, and then earnestly assured the student, "Yes, but I don't believe you understand how frightfully good that still is."

Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2007, 05:51:29 AM
The professor paused a second, and then earnestly assured the student, "Yes, but I don't believe you understand how frightfully good that still is."

This always comes to mind when I see criticism of composers on this forum.  As if they could do better.

Quote from: Catison on April 12, 2007, 06:22:29 AM
This always comes to mind when I see criticism of composers on this forum.  As if they could do better.

Yup. Tried it. Failed. :-\  ;D

Edit for reinforcement and clarification: Failed miserably!

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 12, 2007, 05:38:18 AM
I just don't get this, I don't know where it comes from. And, note, I'm not one who sneers at Elgar - I do think he is often a very fine composer indeed, though not consistently so, and his best works certainly deserve to be ranked very highly, without the qualifications that are often expressed here.

However, though I'm all for it when people find a single composer who strikes home with them particularly deeply, as indeed Janacek does for me, I find it, shall we say, more troubling when those people then glibly and without respect for generally-accepted opinion, state that their composer-of-choice is 'the greatest imo'. Yes, yes, there's a nice little qualifying 'imo' present, but nevertheless the more honest and humble thing is to accept that the adjective 'greatest' implies a general level of consent which that qualifier 'imo' cannot chime with.

To my mind, the only way that a statement such as this, which proposes something that most informed opnion would not agree with, can be acceptable is if a relatively convincing argument, on musical or aesthetic grounds, can be made that composer x could indeed be considered 'the greatest', even if only from one particualr veiwpoint. Otherwise it isn't really even an 'imo' opinion, it's no more than a general feeling you have.

As long as it's okay to say Beethoven was the greatest composer I keep saying Elgar is the greatest imo. I don't expect everybody find Elgar the number one but I'd say he deserves to be in the Top 10 of much more people than he has been (btw, Beethoven is in my top 10). Why do I think Elgar is the greatest?

1. Sophisticated musical structures

I hear much more musical dimensions in Elgar's music than other's. Elgar must have been an increabible genius to understand the orthogonal nature of dimensions and the having the musical means to keep things orthogonal. Elgar's music is like holograms. You can listen to them from different angles and hear different things. Bach has many dimension too. Saint-Saëns show them too but Elgar is in his own league.

2. Orchestration

I love Elgar's use of instruments. His strings are juicy. The violins never "scream" unpleasantly. The woodwinds always add refreshing colours. Elgar has the craftmanship of Berlioz with Rodrigo-like colours. That's the way to go!

3. Sense of eternal and universal beauty

Elgar really tried hard to get beauty in his music and that shows! I find his music as if it has existed always and Elgar was the one who could "carve" it out from the air around us. Elgar said there is music in the air and he only need to pick it as much as he needed. Elgar was a genius of universal beauty and there will never be a time when people find his music ugly. His music sound English and late romantic because that's the world where he lived but his music is timeless.

4. Combination of joy, nobility and sadness/melancholy

I don't know how Elgar managed to combine these things so perfectly but he did. His works are like different persons having moments of joy and sadness in their lives and trying to maintain their nobility.

5. Versatility

People who are familiar with Elgar's less-known works know how versatile he was. There isn't much redundance in his works. One violin concerto. One Cello Concerto. One Violin sonata etc. When I found Elgar and started to explore his music I has stunned by how almost every work relealed a new side in his music. This composer made music for children's plays, war music to raise money for Dutch people and almost anything between.

Well, for a balance in keeping with the Theme of the Thread ::

1. Sophisticated musical structures

Sophistication in musical structures is a property of the method, not of the template.  In fact, sophistication sometimes consists in how one works with the simplest of musical means.

Berlioz's 'structural' range runs impressively from his creative adaptation of the antique Cantus Firmus technique (in any number of pieces), to the shrewd cionstruction of what is essentially a monothematic sonata-allegro design in the first movement of the Symphonie fantastique, to the brooding fugato passages which open such works as La damnation de Faust and L'enfance du Christ, to his playful habit of combining, sometimes different themes which have been exposed separately (the fifth movement of the Symphonie fantastique serving as merely the most obvious example), sometimes material of different tempi, as in Roméo et Juliette and Harold en Italie.

Who but Berlioz (in his day) would have begun a march (which is not a funeral march) piano? — a stroke of musico-architectural daring in the Rakóczy March which provoked a threat of censure in Hungary.

2. Orchestration

The flutes-&-harp trio in Part III of L'enfance du Christ;   the recitative in Part IV of La damnation de Faust with the accompaniment of four horns;  the King of Thule Ballad from the same work;  the scoring of the final numbers of Act I of Béatrice et Bénédict and Act IV of Les Troyens;  the Hostias from the Requiem . . . .

3. Sense of eternal and universal beauty

The flutes-&-harp trio in Part III of L'enfance du Christ;   the recitative in Part IV of La damnation de Faust with the accompaniment of four horns;  the King of Thule Ballad from the same work;  the scoring of the final numbers of Act I of Béatrice et Bénédict and Act IV of Les Troyens;  the Hostias from the Requiem . . . .

4. Combination of joy, nobility and sadness/melancholy

The flutes-&-harp trio in Part III of L'enfance du Christ;   the recitative in Part IV of La damnation de Faust with the accompaniment of four horns;  the King of Thule Ballad from the same work;  the scoring of the final numbers of Act I of Béatrice et Bénédict and Act IV of Les Troyens;  the Hostias from the Requiem . . . .

5. Versatility

Why, the word might have been invented for Berlioz.  Only to start with:  the five works which he numbered as his "symphonies" are each of an absolutely individual scoring and conception.  His versatility also expressed itself in the musical means he found to express himself compositionally, when he was essentially shut out from the Paris opera scene.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 03:58:26 AM
The same happened to Bach. His template was rejected by the Viennese composers of classism and found again when romantic era started. This is natural in art. It takes time until the templates of geniuses are fully accepted and understood. It's time to re-evaluated Elgar. Julian Lloyd Webber knows that, I know that. All Elgarians know that in their hearts.

Well, please give credit where credit is due: Mozart (the Viennese classicist!) recognized Bach's greatness and absorbed much from his studies of Bach's music.

So not all was lost on the generation after Bach (nor his peers...Bach did have a steady job...).

More troubling to me is this idea that somehow redemption for an artist is inevitable as long as one waits a generation...or two...or three. There are too many instances where recognition is the mere publication of a work away to say this type of thing "is natural in art".

So while applying this romanticized notion of the "unrecognized greatest" to Elgar is fun, it's not the standard.

Besides, we are now a generation away and I still have problems placing Elgar alongside the Bach's, the Mozart's, etc...

Of course, that's no knock on anyone's admiration of Elgar (besides, try being a Martinu fan...now there's unrecognized!).

I don't think anyone who belongs to this small fraternity that is classical music is against any composer "making it big". And reevaluation is an everyday thing for most of us (I would think). It's just that sainthood demands a level of consensus before it's deemed legit. In Elgar's case, I hear more from his devoted followers than from his music! ;D And and am not prepared to assign him a place amongst the stars...

...yet!! :)

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 07:05:18 AM
Why do I think Elgar is the greatest?

1. Sophisticated musical structures
[etc.]
2. Orchestration
[etc.]
3. Sense of eternal and universal beauty
[etc.]
4. Combination of joy, nobility and sadness/melancholy
[etc.]
5. Versatility
[etc.]

This is more like what I mean - and my reducing your points themselves to 'etc.' is not meant dismissively. It's more to save space, as for the purposes of this post what you've filled in under your headings is not to the point: it is the headings themselves that I am interested in.

The reason is that, if one is making a case for a composer to be the greatest, one can only do so under certain criteria - the most obvious examples of the failure to do so which we see here are statements such as 'Bach wasn't that great - he had no sense of the theatre.' Which obviously misses the point somewhat.

So, therefore, headings = 'criteria which are important in person x's assessment of what it means to be great' (therefore, if, in my extreme case, person x truly believes that an aptitude for the theatre really is an absolute pre-requisite for 'greatness' then, indeed, Bach is not great - thankfully I've never met soeone like that, though on a board like this its only a matter of time!). What your post is therefore saying is that factors such as

Sophisticated musical structures
Orchestration
Sense of eternal and universal beauty
Combination of joy, nobility and sadness/melancholy
Versatility

are what it takes to be great. That is where I would start to dispute your contention that Elgar is the greatest - simply because my criteria are not the same as yours. I seriously don't think orchestration is really such a big issue, certainly not a greatness-defining one (if it was, there would be many evidently lesser composers higher up the greatness list than Elgar); nor do I think your third and fourth points are - they are really a similar thing anyway, one single point saying 'the things I find in Elgar's music' which are found in equal or greater measure by many other listeners in the music of countless certainly-great composers. Versatility, too, isn't everything, as we could discuss ad nauseum.

If I was to try to make an argument that my favourite composer, Janacek, be considered to be 'the greatest' - and I'm not, mind you, and I'm only doing this for illustration - I wouldn't do it by listing positive aspects of his music things in this way, though I'd love to do that on other ocassions. If trying to convince others of his greatness, I could do nothing better than head straight for his aesthetic, which I consider to be practically unique and which thus sets him apart from other composers automatically (and indeed, he has been called a composer who makes 'all others seem irrelevant'). In other words, I'd have recourse to something like the argument 'Janacek put the concern for Truth-over-Beauty at the core of his music as no other composer has done; this aesthetic appeals to me greatly, and for that reason I consider Janacek to be the greatest of composers.' If this aesthetic doesn't attract you, than maybe Janacek ain't for you (though his music is, funnily enough, always beautiful, and indeed to him ugliness and beauty are the same thing).

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 09:29:49 AM
Well, please give credit where credit is due: Mozart (the Viennese classicist!) recognized Bach's greatness and absorbed much from his studies of Bach's music.

Yes, true. Similarly Britten Sentimental Saraband is a homage to Elgar.

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 09:29:49 AMBesides, we are now a generation away and I still have problems placing Elgar alongside the Bach's, the Mozart's, etc...

Yes, Elgarians have a huge job making people open their eyes. And not only Elgar but many many other great but neglected composers (you mentioned Martinu).

QuoteI don't think anyone who belongs to this small fraternity that is classical music is against any composer "making it big". And reevaluation is an everyday thing for most of us (I would think). It's just that sainthood demands a level of consensus before it's deemed legit. In Elgar's case, I hear more from his devoted followers than from his music! ;D And and am not prepared to assign him a place amongst the stars...

...yet!! :)

That's because you are not interested about Elgar's music, only trying to protect the status of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. Wanna hear from "Une Voix dans le Désert"?







[/quote]

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 07:05:18 AM
1. Sophisticated musical structures
2. Orchestration
3. Sense of eternal and universal beauty
4. Combination of joy, nobility and sadness/melancholy
5. Versatility

You could make much better arguments for a number of other composers in all of these categories. The issue with Elgar, as people have been trying to explain here, is not that he isn't great, but that he isn't of consistently high caliber. The Enigma Variations, the Cello and Violin Concertos are enduring masterpieces. But The Wand of Youth Suite No.I or Starlight Express just aren't, however you look at it. Even his symphonies are uneven. Composers like Brahms or Bruckner were simply a lot more judicious in their output. You can rightfully say he's your favorite. But whatever qualifiers you add, you can't say he is the greatest of all time, because it invites the sort of questioning you are getting here. And then you're bound to be disappointed by the results because even Elgar's best simply isn't as self contained of a compositional universe as say Bach's Chaconne or Mozart's Jupiter.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 11:09:58 AM
That's because you are not interested about Elgar's music, only trying to protect the status of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach.

Well, what you're proposing is a false dichotomy.

If it were my intention to merely "protect the status of Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach" then I certainly wouldn't have mentioned Martinu.

So obviously composers less well known need not fear the burden of comparisons from me. The "big guns" exist but that's not to diminish the importance or enjoyability of "the little guys".

However, what you seem to be implying is that those of us who don't like Elgar are biased in some way in favor of the greats. That we're blind to the the Elgar's and such due to our misguided allegiance to the canonical composers. But that's where your argument falls flat. Elgar has simply yet to hit home with me and that's that.

That I enjoy Martinu should be proof enough that I'm willing to explore the musical hinterland and am far, far from a musical and artistic crony.

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 12:00:12 PM
...what you seem to be implying is that those of us who don't like Elgar are biased in some way in favor of the greats...

or even those of us who do like him, but somehow, in the final analysis, still prefer Beethoven, Bach etc.

Quote from: O Mensch on April 12, 2007, 11:20:37 AM
The Enigma Variations, the Cello and Violin Concertos are enduring masterpieces. But The Wand of Youth Suite No.I or Starlight Express just aren't, however you look at it. Even his symphonies are uneven.

The Wand of Youth suites a based on music Elgar composed as a child and corrected+orchestrated much later. They are extremely lovely suites and add the versatility of the composer.

Elgar's symphonies are the best I have heard. That's not uneven to me.

Quote from: O Mensch on April 12, 2007, 11:20:37 AMComposers like Brahms or Bruckner were simply a lot more judicious in their output.

Judicious in what sense? Brahms and Bruckner wanted to be "academic" and "dry". To me that means less interesting output.

Quote from: O Mensch on April 12, 2007, 11:20:37 AMYou can rightfully say he's your favorite. But whatever qualifiers you add, you can't say he is the greatest of all time, because it invites the sort of questioning you are getting here. And then you're bound to be disappointed by the results because even Elgar's best simply isn't as self contained of a compositional universe as say Bach's Chaconne or Mozart's Jupiter.

Elgar's best is the best music I have heard. It makes me almost lose my conciousness because it's so good, it causes me muscle spasms etc. Even Bach's music does not do that to me.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:07:27 PM
Brahms and Bruckner wanted to be "academic" and "dry".

Documentary evidence, please!

(btw, Elgar was so blown away by the Brahms Symphonies that he said he played them every night before bed....)

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 12, 2007, 12:11:49 PM
Documentary evidence, please!

(btw, Elgar was so blown away by the Brahms Symphonies that he said he played them every night before bed....)

What evidence? I find Brahms' and Bruckner's output less interesting than Elgar's. That's that.

Brahms' symphonies are charming yet simple. They inspired me to compose my 2nd symphony 4 years ago.   :)

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 12, 2007, 12:03:37 PM
or even those of us who do like him, but somehow, in the final analysis, still prefer Beethoven, Bach etc.

Yup. :)

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:17:05 PM
What evidence? I find Brahms' and Bruckner's output less interesting than Elgar's. That's that.

That's not an answer.

You make a bold claim that Brahms and Bruckner WANTED their music "academic" and "dry".

Where do you get your information?

Give sources. Not opinions.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:07:27 PM
The Wand of Youth suites a based on music Elgar composed as a child and corrected+orchestrated much later. They are extremely lovely suites and add the versatility of the composer.

Note that I specifically mentioned No.I. No.II is far better. In any case, that's still no excuse for the cheese that is Starlight Express. His output is a hodgepodge of true genius and fluff.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:07:27 PM
Elgar's symphonies are the best I have heard. That's not uneven to me.

"Best" as to what variables?

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:07:27 PM
Judicious in what sense? Brahms and Bruckner wanted to be "academic" and "dry". To me that means less interesting output.

That suggests that you have understood neither. Your judgments are purely esthetic expressions of taste. So far you have not shown an understanding of the compositional nature of the out put of the composers you discuss. BTW, the one time Brahms specifically wrote an "academic" work, it was anything but.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:07:27 PM
Elgar's best is the best music I have heard. It makes me almost lose my conciousness because it's so good, it causes me muscle spasms etc. Even Bach's music does not do that to me.

Look, you can keep your preferences. that's fine. If Elgar is your favorite, nobody will talk you out of it. Just don't pretend your musical tastes are based on any sort of universal truths about qualitative superiority of his work. Neither do we claim the opposite as regards our tastes. The more hyperbolic your discourse, the less believable you are.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:17:05 PM
Brahms' symphonies are charming yet simple.

Ouch! What a gross error in analytical thinking.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:17:05 PM
What evidence? I find Brahms' and Bruckner's output less interesting than Elgar's. That's that.

You stated, plain as day, that Brahms and Bruckner wanted to be academic and dry. That's what I want evidence of. If you find them to be so, that's your prerogative, but it does reveal a real lack of understanding, if you don't mind me saying so. Bruckner, who is a composer I don't talk about often and is no axe to grind for me, is as far from academic a symphonist as one could imagine; the beauty of Brahms is that he is the best equipped composer, in a technical sense, since Mozart and Bach, but also that he puts this wondrous technique at the sole service of the music. There is not a page in Brahms which is academic for the sake of it - it is always subservient to the expressive, musical sense, and indeed, the music could not acheive the power it does without this phenomenal ability.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:17:05 PMBrahms' symphonies are charming yet simple.

There's nothing to say to that. It's amongst the most errant nonsense I've read on this forum...although, if they are so simple, I find it hard to see how they are also so desperately academic. No, Brahms's symphonies are ideal models of clarity - deeper, more thorough-going motivic integration than anything before (or much since - certainly not Elgar) adding its power to structures and surfaces of unrivalled poise and clear-sightedness. There is literally nothing else in the repertoire like them.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 12, 2007, 12:03:37 PM
or even those of us who do like him, but somehow, in the final analysis, still prefer Beethoven, Bach etc.

Don't forget that Bach is almost on Elgar's level for me. The opening chorus of St. John Passion is mindblowing and pretty much on the level of Elgar's best moments. I don't think all other composers suck, Beethoven just do not need me, he is valued anyway.

Quote from: O Mensch on April 12, 2007, 12:24:32 PM
Note that I specifically mentioned No.I. No.II is far better. In any case, that's still no excuse for the cheese that is Starlight Express. His output is a hodgepodge of true genius and fluff.

I like Starlight Express very much. Not cheese to me.

Quote from: O Mensch on April 12, 2007, 12:24:32 PM"Best" as to what variables?

Musical impact.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:27:50 PM
Don't forget that Bach is almost on Elgar's level for me. The opening chorus of St. John Passion is mindblowing and pretty much on the level of Elgar's best moments.

Bach would be so pleased to hear that....

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:27:50 PM
I don't think all other composers suck, Beethoven just do not need me, he is valued anyway.

I'm not sure Elgar actually needs you, to tell you the truth. He's doing perfectly well, is loved by millions of music lovers. You're not really helping him, though I think from reading your posts that you intend to. In fact what your posts are doing, if anything - like CPs old ones on Gould, and Eric's on Pelleas - is making us see Elgar through more disgruntled eyes.

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 12:23:30 PM
That's not an answer.

You make a bold claim that Brahms and Bruckner WANTED their music "academic" and "dry".

Where do you get your information?

Give sources. Not opinions.

You are right. I don't know what they wanted. Their music sounds "academic" and "dry" to me so I assumed they wanted that.




[/quote]

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:36:05 PM
Musical impact.

How does one measure that objectively?

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:07:27 PM
Elgar's best is the best music I have heard. It makes me almost lose my conciousness because it's so good, it causes me muscle spasms etc. Even Bach's music does not do that to me.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:27:50 PM
Don't forget that Bach is almost on Elgar's level for me.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:39:45 PM
Their music sounds "academic" and "dry" to me so I assumed they wanted that.

I love reading this stuff, really I do.

For the record, Bach's music does not induce muscle spasm in me, either.

(I wonder if muscular spasm will catch on as a gauge of musical merit? . . .)

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:39:45 PM
You are right. I don't know what they wanted. Their music sounds "academic" and "dry" to me so I assumed they wanted that.

Small point - if Elgar's music sounds tedious, overblown and derivative to me can I assume he wanted that? (Not that it does, often). Of course not - that would be too self-important a way of looking at it.

I wish I could explain Elgar's music. Instead I need to explain stupid things.
I can't do anything right. Damn!

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:39:45 PM
You are right. I don't know what they wanted. Their music sounds "academic" and "dry" to me so I assumed they wanted that.

But leave Brahms and Bruckner to their own devices!

Enjoying Elgar shouldn''t necessitate an endless list of "what's wrong with the other guys".

Right? :)

I enjoy Martinu but that last thing I feel the need to do is compare him to anyone else.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:39:45 PM
You are right. I don't know what they wanted. Their music sounds "academic" and "dry" to me so I assumed they wanted that.

The hole you've dug for yourself is getting deeper and deeper.  To assume you know the motivation of a composer simply by your reaction to his/her music is taking "the self" to an entirely unreasonable level.

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 12:51:46 PM
I enjoy Martinu but that last thing I feel the need to do is compare him to anyone else.

Excellent, donwyn!

Though I admit, I was not much expecting any, "I love Martinů's work, and he just leaves Berlioz in the dust," from you :-)

Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2007, 12:55:23 PM
Though I admit, I was not much expecting any, "I love Martinů's work, and he just leaves Berlioz in the dust," from you :-)

Dang! I really must break out the Koncert pro dva smyčcové orchestry, klavír a tympány tomorrow!

The problem is that "great" is a word for dilettantes.  It has absolutely no meaning and therefore arguing about what it does mean seems rather innane.

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 12:51:46 PM
Enjoying Elgar shouldn''t necessitate an endless list of "what's wrong with the other guys".

Right? :)

And enjoying other guys shouldn''t necessitate an endless list of "what's wrong with Elgar".

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 12:51:46 PMI enjoy Martinu but that last thing I feel the need to do is compare him to anyone else.

I enjoy many many composers.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:59:45 PM
And enjoying other guys shouldn''t necessitate an endless list of "what's wrong with Elgar".

Nothing's wrong with Elgar or enjoying his music more than any other composer's works.  Come to think of it, there's nothing wrong with me either.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:59:45 PM
And enjoying other guys shouldn''t necessitate an endless list of "what's wrong with Elgar".

Indeed, it doesn't. But claiming that he is the greatest of all times, necessitates responses straightening out that misperception.  ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on April 12, 2007, 12:59:45 PM
And enjoying other guys shouldn''t necessitate an endless list of "what's wrong with Elgar".

I haven't said, nor implied, anything of the sort.

QuoteI enjoy many many composers.

So do I yet you took it upon yourself to imply - in writing - that MY listening habits are bound up in "the greats" alone (a few posts back).

You make far too many assertions that are completely untenable. That's what we're on about. Not whether Elgar is greater than Brahms...or vice versa.

Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2007, 12:55:23 PM
Excellent, donwyn!

Though I admit, I was not much expecting any, "I love Martinu's work, and he just leaves Berlioz in the dust," from you :-)

One would hope...

But then again, we haven't touched on this, have we? ;D

Quote from: karlhenning on April 12, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
Dang! I really must break out the Koncert pro dva smy?cové orchestry, klavír a tympány tomorrow!

There's a spiffy recording of this work by Karel Senja and the CPO on Supraphon. It's a tough disc to locate these days but worth it all the same.

Quote from: Don on April 12, 2007, 01:02:24 PM
Nothing's wrong with Elgar or enjoying his music more than any other composer's works.  Come to think of it, there's nothing wrong with me either.

Quote from: O Mensch on April 12, 2007, 01:10:55 PM
Indeed, it doesn't. But claiming that he is the greatest of all times, necessitates responses straightening out that misperception.  ;D

Quote from: donwyn on April 12, 2007, 01:12:02 PM
I haven't said, nor implied, anything of the sort.

That's good. Everything is okay then except it bothers me to be an outsider. It's okay to like symphonies of any other composer but if I say I prefer Elgar's symphonies people are like "What? You like Elgar's 2nd symphony?" Well, it just happens to be the best symphony I have heard in my life. Until I hear a better one it will be the best symphony in the world for me. If there were 10 times more Elgarians in the world I wouldn't perhaps feel an alien, but there aren't. I had a text "The only Elgar fan in Finland" text on my website. Then I got an email from another Elgar fan asking me to change the text because I am not the only one.  ;D So funny!

Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 03:58:53 AM
It's okay to like symphonies of any other composer but if I say I prefer Elgar's symphonies people are like "What? You like Elgar's 2nd symphony?" Well, it just happens to be the best symphony I have heard in my life. Until I hear a better one it will be the best symphony in the world for me. If there were 10 times more Elgarians in the world I wouldn't perhaps feel an alien, but there aren't. I

You really don't need this persecution complex! No one is in the least against you loving Elgar's Second more than any other symphony - their argument is when you try to make some objective case that it is definitively the best symphony of all. It may well be so to you, but it isn't to them, or to most music lovers, so why shouldn't they be able to say so without you feeling persecuted? I would hope people would take me to task if I made a similar statement about e.g. Janacek's 2nd Quartet, which in truth I happen to prefer to all other quartets, and which affects me more profoundly than all other quartets, but which I couldn't in all honesty say, objectively, is the best quartet ever written.

In the same way no one is in the least against Elgarians (any more than they are against Sibelians, Straussians, Mahlerians, Berliozians and Boulezbians; Wagnerians, of course, are another matter ;D). He's just one more great composer composer, a great composer of some wonderful music most of us wouldn't want to be without. He's just not, in the generally accepted view, one of the very top rank.

What really rubs some of us up the wrong way is your contention/implication that there's some kind of conspiracy out there, because otherwise, to sum up the impression your posts make, the composer you like best would surely be thought of as the best by everyone else. It is fairly insulting, actually, because your posts have an all-knowing attitude about other composers - 'I tried that, I realised it wasn't very good' - which betrays a lack of humility which we really ought to feel in the face of great music.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 07:18:18 AMBoulezbians;

Is that a new sexual minority?  ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 09:31:29 AM
Is that a new sexual minority?  ;D

Just a silly choral scholar's joke from my student days....

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 11:02:04 AM
Just a silly choral scholar's joke from my student days....

Okay. Janacek is one composer I need to explore. I know next to nothing about him.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 11:04:16 AM
Okay. Janacek is one composer I need to explore. I know next to nothing about him.

You should my friend, and there are plenty of good and cheap recordings, just look on JPC! :)

Quote from: Harry on April 13, 2007, 11:07:05 AM
You should my friend, and there are plenty of good and cheap recordings, just look on JPC! :)

I am almost done exploring Rodrigo so Janacek could be the next target... ...but I don't have a clue where to start. Opera? Piano music? String Quartets?

Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 11:17:40 AM
I am almost done exploring Rodrigo so Janacek could be the next target... ...but I don't have a clue where to start. Opera? Piano music? String Quartets?

Start with the pieces for piano, on a cheap Brilliant two far box, that will give you insight into Janacek's harmonies, they go for the SQ, and from thereon you can figure out yourself if he is your man our not. From the SQ there are many cheap and good recordings, so plenty to chose! :)

Quote from: Harry on April 13, 2007, 11:22:00 AM
Start with the pieces for piano, on a cheap Brilliant two far box, that will give you insight into Janacek's harmonies, they go for the SQ, and from thereon you can figure out yourself if he is your man our not. From the SQ there are many cheap and good recordings, so plenty to chose! :)

Or you could start with his Sinfonietta or the amazing Glagolitic Mass.

Quote from: O Mensch on April 13, 2007, 11:23:06 AM
Or you could start with his Sinfonietta or the amazing Glagolitic Mass.

Well the Sinfonietta yes, but is the Mass not a bit too strong for someone beginning with Janacek?

No, I don't think so, not if they already love Gerontius - though the Glagolitic does pack a pretty extraordinary punch. The essential Janacek, IMO, is:

1 Glagolitic Mass
2 Quartets
3 Piano pieces (Mists, Sonata, Overgrown Path)
4 Choruses (Bezruc)
5 Operas (Vixen, Katya, House of the Dead, Makropulous, Broucek)
and then other bits and pieces - above all the Diary, then Mladi, Concertino, Capriccio, Sinfonietta, Fiddler's Child and (for the full picture) Riklada, before all others, I'd say.

Of these, for the most concentrated Janacek of all I'd recommend the Diary and the Second Quartet.

I must emphasize that Janacek is something special and unique, not just 'another composer' - this isn't just IMO, I think, he's generally recognised as a very special, stand-alone case. Rodrigo is all very well, a nice composer indeed, but Janacek is something very different - I find it funny to see this implied equality between them! But hopefully you'll discover that for yourself when you get to know his music. :)

Quote from: Harry on April 13, 2007, 11:22:00 AM
Start with the pieces for piano, on a cheap Brilliant two far box, that will give you insight into Janacek's harmonies, they go for the SQ, and from thereon you can figure out yourself if he is your man our not. From the SQ there are many cheap and good recordings, so plenty to chose! :)

Okay thanks!  :)

Quote from: O Mensch on April 13, 2007, 11:23:06 AM
Or you could start with his Sinfonietta or the amazing Glagolitic Mass.

Thanks!  :) Glagolitic Mass sounds promising.

Quote from: Harry on April 13, 2007, 11:25:14 AM
Well the Sinfonietta yes, but is the Mass not a bit too strong for someone beginning with Janacek?

Please don't underestimate me Harry.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 11:41:38 AM
No, I don't think so, not if they already love Gerontius - though the Glagolitic does pack a pretty extraordinary punch. The essential Janacek, IMO, is:

1 Glagolitic Mass
2 Quartets
3 Piano pieces (Mists, Sonata, Overgrown Path)
4 Choruses (Bezruc)
5 Operas (Vixen, Katya, House of the Dead, Makropulous, Broucek)
and then other bits and pieces - above all the Diary, then Mladi, Concertino, Capriccio, Sinfonietta, Fiddler's Child and (for the full picture) Riklada, before all others, I'd say.

Of these, for the most concentrated Janacek of all I'd recommend the Diary and the Second Quartet.

I must emphasize that Janacek is something special and unique, not just 'another composer' - this isn't just IMO, I think, he's generally recognised as a very special, stand-alone case. Rodrigo is all very well, a nice composer indeed, but Janacek is something very different - I find it funny to see this implied equality between them! But hopefully you'll discover that for yourself when you get to know his music. :)

Thanks! This helps me a lot! I didn't compare Rodrigo and Janacek. I am just almost done with exploring Rodrigo (buying his works on CD) and I can start funding other exploring projects. It could be Janacek's turn.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 13, 2007, 11:49:26 AM


This helps me a lot! I didn't compare Rodrigo and Janacek.

No, I know you didn't, I just found the juxtaposition amusing, as you would if someone said something like 'well, I've nearly finished getting hold of all the music of Mozkowsky, so perhaps I'll try Elgar next'  :) - the implied equality is funny, no?

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 11:54:04 AM
No, I know you didn't, I just found the juxtaposition amusing, as you would if someone said something like 'well, I've nearly finished getting hold of all the music of Mozkowsky, so perhaps I'll try Elgar next'  :) - the implied equality is funny, no?

Well, isn't it a good idea to explore something very different for a change?  ???

Elgar's orchestration is like a Victorian living room: chock full of heavy, upholstered furniture, overlaid with doilies and swaths of fabrics, hung with ancestral armour and old brasses, carved oak and tapestry from distant Rome, rare "blue and white" Venetian finger-glasses, rich oriental rugs, luxurious sofa pillows, and everything that isn't old, from Gillow's.

He never wrote a woodwind solo he didn't feel the need to double in some other instrument.

Hmm, that may be a slight exaggeration! Actually, what is unusual about Elgar's orchestration is its extreme precision - the most careful calculation of doubling I've seen in music of this period, so that the colours are constantly shifting, mosaic-like (as McVeagh puts it). There is also his amazing attention to detail in matters of articulation (!) and subtleties of notation - I've been re-reading through Gerontius and some other works these last days and noticed all sorts of notational oddities that can only really be explained by an ultra-sensitivity to nuance and indeed to an understanding of the mentality of the orchestral player. So it won't do to cariacature him as just ladling on the doublings unthinkingly. It seems he was often praised by his performers for his practical considerations - writing music that was always playable, and that always 'sounded', and that always had purpose, (even if the purpose was a practical one, such as a pp bass clarinet doubling that is actually a way for the the player to warm up their instrument before a big solo). In this, he has been seen by some orchestral players as unique, exceeding Wagner, Strauss etc. in these matter.

Just to be fair.... ;)

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 11:41:38 AM
5 Operas (Vixen, Katya, House of the Dead, Makropulous, Broucek)

Have you deliberately excluded Jenufa?

This is the first Janacek work I got acquainted with.

And of course, Taras Bulba is another exciting orchestral work.

Quote from: T-C on April 14, 2007, 12:03:39 AM
Have you deliberately excluded Jenufa?

This is the first Janacek work I got acquainted with.

And of course, Taras Bulba is another exciting orchestral work.

Yes, it was deliberate. Jenufa is a very great, significant and powerful work, but I've never honestly considered it the equal of the last five, which taken together present a much more mature, integrated and fully-rounded picture of Janacek (Broucek being the one I would drop first, though, of those five). This is just IMO, naturally, and I still think Jenufa is a wonderful piece, vastly more powerful and gut-wrenching than any other similarly 'realistic' opera of the time. I just think that Janacek could do even better than it, so it doesn't make the very top of my list. So, for instance, although of course they are very different operas, there is enough similarity in Katya, for instance, for us to compare the two profitably, and Katya I think comes off as pretty undoubtedly the superior work.

Taras Bulba I think is the weakest of Janacek's well-known orchestral pieces (there are lesser ones, even among his mature pieces, such as the Ballad of Blanik, which is relatively uninspired, I think, though even then a very memorable and interesting piece); again, though, it is chock-full of very beautiful or exciting stuff and typically Janacekian, at least on a note-to-note level. It suffers, I think, from a lack of involvement - Janacek is at his best when every note has really been through the fires, as it were, and I don't think this was the case with Taras Bulba, which seems a little forced, more like the sort of thing other composers write ;) ;D in comparison with e.g. the lesser known but more personal Fiddler's Child. The latter is just IMO, of course, but it should be noted in passing that there is a tendency to find Taras Bulba quite a troubling work in this respect; some people, for instance, feeling it to be let down structurally.

However, all Janacek is superb, really, from Amarus onwards, and I'm just nit-picking - every one of these works is something very special.

Personnally I love both, with a slight preference for Berlioz (I guess they are in my top 10 & top 20 respectively, thanks to 71db regarding the 2nd).
I love Elgar's 1st symphony, including the 1st movement (I didn't notice it was 20mn long before I read it on the booklet).

I find it a good kind of thread, as it is really surprising. Who else would have thought of comparing Elgar and Berlioz?

My knowledge of Elgar is still limited to his orchestral works but it's enough for me to assume they are really different ;D.
I find it possible that Elgar's orchestration was influenced by Berlioz, but it does not change that they're not similar in form and in expressivity. One sticking to the classical development when the other "almost" writing his symphonies like an opera. And I'm not talking about Romeo & Juliet, which I consider as an oratorio  (Is there a reason why I'd be wrong?)

It was impossible that Berlioz wrote a real concerto, I assume. He wrote the most concerting work he could. This guy needed to give an important role to every instrument of the orchestra, each one of them being a passion for him.

I also assume that normally, we shouldn't pronounce the "Z" at the end of his name (as well as for "Avoriaz" or "Chamonix", cities of his region). But it's true I keep pronoucing it anyway"

Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 14, 2007, 01:38:31 AM
And I'm not talking about Romeo & Juliet, which I consider as an oratorio  (Is there a reason why I'd be wrong?)

Well, the fact that Berlioz thought of it and conceived it as a symphony? ;D ;) - explicitly 'neither an opera in concert form nor a cantata, but a symphony with chorus'

It's a unique form that he evolved in this piece, but it's closer to symphony than oratorio if only for the reason that the bulk of the work, the terrific central movements, are purely orchestral. The vocal parts are confined to the outer movements, and they are purely to set the scene and get the plot out of the way, so that the central sections don't have to be burdened with setting it, but can take wing according to inner musical logic. I find this a very interesting attempt to solve the problem of abstract vs. programmatic music.

The notes to the Eulenburg score puts it this way

Quote from: John Burk, intorduction to Eulenburg scoreThe composer has restricted the solo voices to narration, realizing that if they were given dialogue or musical characterization he would have found himself writing an opera or canata. He has solved the problem of maintaining a symphonic medium by relegating the textual exposition to the first part of the symphony in which he outlines the whole story in recitative style. In this way he has disencumbered himself of verbal impedimenta and is free to translate into purely orchestral tones the supreme moments of Shakespeare's tale as he had seen and experienced them many years before

which uis exaclty what I said, only better expressed!

allright :)

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on April 13, 2007, 06:41:08 PM
Elgar's orchestration is like a Victorian living room: chock full of heavy, upholstered furniture, overlaid with doilies and swaths of fabrics, hung with ancestral armour and old brasses, carved oak and tapestry from distant Rome, rare "blue and white" Venetian finger-glasses, rich oriental rugs, luxurious sofa pillows, and everything that isn't old, from Gillow's.

He never wrote a woodwind solo he didn't feel the need to double in some other instrument.

If I may say so your opinion of Elgar's orchestration may be prejudiced. Try Elgar's lighter works.

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 13, 2007, 11:20:46 PM
Hmm, that may be a slight exaggeration! Actually, what is unusual about Elgar's orchestration is its extreme precision - the most careful calculation of doubling I've seen in music of this period, so that the colours are constantly shifting, mosaic-like (as McVeagh puts it). There is also his amazing attention to detail in matters of articulation (!) and subtleties of notation - I've been re-reading through Gerontius and some other works these last days and noticed all sorts of notational oddities that can only really be explained by an ultra-sensitivity to nuance and indeed to an understanding of the mentality of the orchestral player. So it won't do to cariacature him as just ladling on the doublings unthinkingly. It seems he was often praised by his performers for his practical considerations - writing music that was always playable, and that always 'sounded', and that always had purpose, (even if the purpose was a practical one, such as a pp bass clarinet doubling that is actually a way for the the player to warm up their instrument before a big solo). In this, he has been seen by some orchestral players as unique, exceeding Wagner, Strauss etc. in these matter.

Just to be fair.... ;)

Wow! I feel like reading my own text! Thanks lukeottevanger for explaning something that is diffucult for me. Elgar's attention to orchestral details is something I haven't experienced elsewhere in classical music. All the constant shifts of colour and harmony bring the musical dimensions to life.

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on April 13, 2007, 06:41:08 PM
Elgar's orchestration is like a Victorian living room: chock full of heavy, upholstered furniture, overlaid with doilies and swaths of fabrics, hung with ancestral armour and old brasses, carved oak and tapestry from distant Rome, rare "blue and white" Venetian finger-glasses, rich oriental rugs, luxurious sofa pillows, and everything that isn't old, from Gillow's.

He never wrote a woodwind solo he didn't feel the need to double in some other instrument.

I tend to agree but it's good anyway

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 14, 2007, 12:58:17 AM
Jenufa is a very great, significant and powerful work, but I've never honestly considered it the equal of the last five, which taken together present a much more mature, integrated and fully-rounded picture of Janacek (Broucek being the one I would drop first, though, of those five). [...]
Taras Bulba I think is the weakest of Janacek's well-known orchestral pieces (there are lesser ones, even among his mature pieces, such as the Ballad of Blanik, which is relatively uninspired, I think, though even then a very memorable and interesting piece);

I don't know if Jenufa is Janacek's greatest opera, but for my taste, it is definitely the opera I love most. My own preferences:

1. Jenufa
2. Kata Kabanova
3. The Cunning little vixen Opera
4. From the House of the Dead
5. Vec Makropulos
6. Osud
7. The Excursions of Mr. Broucek
8. Sarka

It is true that in Jenufa Janacek's mature operatic style is still in the formation. But for me opera is not only about integrated and mature style, but first and foremost about the conveying of human feelings in music. In a brilliant performance, Jenufa is one of the most moving operas there is. In that aspect nothing in the other Janacek's operas, which I adore, can compete with for example, Jenufa's Act II. Just take for example the orchestral accompaniment to Jenufa's farewell to her step mother before she goes to sleep: Dobrou noc, mamiuko. This is music of sublime beauty, of rare quality even with Janacek...

As for Taras Bulba being one of Janacek's weakest orchestral pieces, I couldn't disagree more. I know all the pieces that you mentioned. Again, for me, not being a professional musician, music is not only about form and structure; it is also about beauty, feelings and excitement. For my taste, Taras Bulba third movement, where Janacek draws in sound in a most realistic way Bulba's last battle, where he is being tortured and burnt live, and with brilliant orchestration, is a great and moving piece of music because of what it succeeds to convey.

And to say something about this thread topic: no, I definitely don't think that Elgar symphonies are the best there are. Fine, but not even in the vicinity of the greatest...  ;)

Quote from: T-C on April 14, 2007, 02:17:55 AM
And to say something about this thread topic: no, I definitely don’t think that Elgar symphonies are the best there are. Fine, but not even in the vicinity of the greatest…  ;)

Accepting Elgar's symphonies among other 'fine' symphonies is much better than the current state where Elgar isn't recognized even a symphonist! Sibelius dominates the playground too much (at least here in Finland where other composers are "non-existing") and many other 20th century symphonists (e.g. Nielsen) are in his shadow.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 14, 2007, 02:04:02 AM
Wow! I feel like reading my own text! Thanks lukeottevanger for explaning something that is diffucult for me. Elgar's attention to orchestral details is something I haven't experienced elsewhere in classical music. All the constant shifts of colour and harmony bring the musical dimensions to life.

Well, I do think it's important that you know we're not anti-Elgar here - well I am certainly not! :) I am full of praise for certain aspects of his writing, in fact, and his orchestration does seem to me to be pretty faultless,  on its own terms. He also has an original and personal approach to orchestration, which I tried to indicate here. He's not alone in that, though - the best composers do tend to develop their own special ways with the orchestra, which work perfectly for them but which wouldn't transfer to anyone else so well (Janacek is an example of this, in fact - his orchestration is in some respects 'bad', certainly full of faults in the textbook sense, but it is deeply felt, instantly recognisable and suits his aesthetic perfectly, so it ends up being a very strong point).

It seem that Elgar, btw, was dumbfounded by Dvorak's orchestration, among others, not for its extrovert colour or dazzle, but because it always sounds full and beautifully balanced even when only one or two linstruments are playing. This is interesting, I think, because it shows what he prioritised in orchestration. Read in this light, we can see what his complex and ever-shifting doublings are trying to acheive, and why, and I think it works.

I want to add - what is important to me is always the music above all, and respect for the composer, much more than any petty disagreements that might go on on this board. That's why, even if it seems to you I have been taking an anti-Elgarian stance (which isn't actually my standpoint at all), I am always going to leap to Elgar's defence when I think he is misunderstood - in this case, I think Mark was right to the extent that Elgar's scores are undeniably very full; but I think he was wrong to imply that this is a fault, when continuous, carefully-shaded and blended textures are really as deep a part of Elgar's aesthetic as Janacek's exposed lines, peculiar balances, strange tessiture and block orchestration are to his.

OTOH, and in the same vein of fairness-to-all-composers, I'd really like to leap to Sibelius's defence too, though, against your charge of his being a 'non-relative' in contrast to the 'relative' Elgar (have I remembered that right?) because I think that misrepresents a composer who was extremely 'relative' (in the sense you meant). Sibelius is full-to-bursting with these incredible, almost geological layers of texture, all working at different paces and heard in relation to each other, creating a very complex system of relationships. Just wanted to say....

I think - and it's probably a problem with my own post - that you are misreading my reasons for rating Janacek's pieces as I do, putting it down to a kind of academicism on my part v. pure response on your part. And that isn't really fair - I'm simply trying to put into words the reasons for my own responses.

So, for instance...

Quote from: T-C on April 14, 2007, 02:17:55 AM
It is true that in Jenufa Janacek's mature operatic style is still in the formation. But for me opera is not only about integrated and mature style, but first and foremost about the conveying of human feelings in music.

Absolutely. It is for me too, which is why I continue to rate Jenufa very highly indeed, and above most other operas of its type. Janacek was nothing if not a master of psychological penetration, and it's there in Jenufa as much as in the later operas. But in Janacek, more than any other composer I can think of, and quite consciously on his part, these two factors you put up against each other - Integration (a word Janacek used very specifically and with a quasi-scientific meaning) and 'conveying of human feelings in music' - are actually more or less one-and-the-same-thing. Integration, in Janacek's case, means tightening-up, eliminating extraneous music (unifying melody and accompaniment, for instance), shortening motives, and generally doing everything that can be done to get right to the Truth (J's capitalisation!) of the Human Condition (my capitalisation). 'Integration' only became a conscious aim of Janacek's from about 1917 - which is why it is really synonymous with his mature style -  and it's then that we see his music condense dramatically, so that each and every note really comes from the heart of the singer/player. Bear in mind, too, his theories of the napevky mluvy - speech melody - which state that the intonation of a single word is enough to tell if the speaker is old, young, tired, lying, loving etc. etc. That's the sort of thought which lies at the root of the inward journey of Integration.

That's the 'academic' reason. But it translates into the way I hear Janacek too - it is, aurally and experientially, the reason that late Janacek, culminating in his supreme opera, From the House of the Dead is so overwhelmingly powerful on a human level, from first note to last. Jenufa, as I have said, is also an extremely intense experience, partly, of course, because of the plot etc. but for me, musically, it doesn't speak with the same end-to-end, every-single-note burning fire that Katya or House of the Dead have.

Quote from: T-C on April 14, 2007, 02:17:55 AMAs for Taras Bulba being one of Janacek's weakest orchestral pieces, I couldn't disagree more. I know all the pieces that you mentioned. Again, for me, not being a professional musician, music is not only about form and structure; it is also about beauty, feelings and excitement. For my taste, Taras Bulba third movement, where Janacek draws in sound in a most realistic way Bulba's last battle, where he is being tortured and burnt live, and with brilliant orchestration, is a great and moving piece of music because of what it succeeds to convey.

One of his weakest well-known pieces, I said; I still think, as pure music, it is very fine indeed. So, basically, I was comparing it to the Sinfonietta, as the only other widely-known orchestral work of his. Again, your 'for me, not being a professional musician, music is not only about form and structure; it is also about beauty, feelings and excitement' is an attempt to play the old mind vs heart card and portray me as over-analysing things (note for instance that my comment about structure was an aside, and that it referred to other peoples' issues with the piece, not mine). In fact, my POV is quite the opposite from the one you imply - my mind would love to react to Taras Bulba in a visceral way (it would make things so much easier!), but my heart can't do so. Why? Because however realistic the battle and torture scenes, I don't get the feeling they are really coming from the heart as most of Janacek's later music does (he's always at his best in the intimate and personal anyway, as his operas amply demonstrate). He wrote the piece because he was a Russophile, not, I think, out of any great identification for the hero, and to me that shows. It's more of a standard symphonic poem as other composers have written - and on these terms an excellent one indeed - but Janacek doesn't mean that to me. He is bigger than that.

You named your first post on this matter - essential Janacek.

The bottom line of my post was to stress that for me (and for quite a few others I know...) both Jenufa and Taras Bulba are very essential Janacek. You think these are good pieces but second rate in Janacek's oeuvre.

I think that if Mladi, Riklada etc. are mentioned in a list of Janacek works, than a major work that I consider as a great masterpiece like Jenufa has to be there too.

I know dozens of symphonic poems: Liszt, Dvorak, Sibelius, Nielsen, Smetana, Tchaikovsky etc. I think that Taras Bulba is unique. Definitely not the 'standard symphonic poem as other composers have written'. And even if it were a standard symphonic poem, it could still be a masterpiece...

You obviously don't agree with me...   

Quote from: T-C on April 14, 2007, 04:46:25 AM
You named your first post on this matter - essential Janacek.

Yes, I didn't think I had to add a qualifying 'IMO'  ::)

In any event, my post was answering one which asked which genres to explore first with Janacek - that's the context in which I offered Riklada, Mladi etc as being essential, i.e. in their genre. For all that Jenufa is a spectacular and very affecting work, I don't think it is quite as essential to understanding Janacek opera as the five I mentioned, which 'cover all the bases', so to speak. Surely I'm free to that opinion? I should have added, btw, the Violin Sonata too (simply forgot), though not the cello and piano Pohadka, even though I like it equally, on the same basis that is probably not quite as echt-Janacek.

And I think, btw, that these two pieces we are discussing are more than 'good' - they are both masterpieces, utterly so. I just think that, in their repsective genres, there are even finer and more representative works in Janacek's output. So don't try to dampen down the fact that I've used superlatives aplenty about them.

Actually you wrote essential Janacek IMO...  ;)

But everything we write here about the evaluation of works of art is IMO.

I just wondered if you really think that Broucek is a better opera than Jenufa.

Although I love Broucek, I don't think it is essential Janacek. Jenufa is.

Quote from: T-C on April 14, 2007, 05:17:12 AM
I just wondered if you really think that Broucek is a better opera than Jenufa.

Although I love Broucek, I don't think it is essential Janacek. Jenufa is.

All this perhaps hinges on your reading of 'essential', then. Does it mean favourite/best? or does it mean 'contains the essence of'? You're choosing the former, my choice, opera-wise is really geared towards helping with the latter, in as few purchases as possible!

So, it's possible that I prefer Jenufa, as whole, to Broucek, which lacks in intensity compared to the other operas, though there are long passages of Broucek I love just as much, and it is one of Janacek's most fantastically coloured scores. But Broucek, whether one thinks it is as great as Jenufa or not, is (IMO) just as essential a part of 'who Janacek is' (in the sense that, - again IMO - Taras Bulba is not). Those last five operas present five completely different sides to him, all important, though some more immediate than others. Jenufa, as I said earlier, seems to be something fairly similar to Katya in this matter, for all their many differences, and so to choose one over the other I go for Katya.

So that's it, really - 'essential' to me, and in the context of the question, meant both 'in terms of different genres' (hence Riklada and the Bezruc choruses etc) and also 'the works which taken together sum him up quickest' (hence, of the operas, the last five). But, please, add Jenufa in if it's so important to you! - I've already said many times that it is a magnificent work. I am the last person to criticise Janacek, I assure you, as a look at my posting and personal history will tell you.

I would start a Janacek thread, Luke, but I think such a task should be left to our resident expert.  These insightful posts really belong there, when they will be more useful to us all.

I'd clean forgotten about this thread, but had to revive this wonderful post of our Luke's:

Quote from: lukeottevanger on April 14, 2007, 02:28:58 AM
Well, I do think it's important that you know we're not anti-Elgar here - well I am certainly not! :) I am full of praise for certain aspects of his writing, in fact, and his orchestration does seem to me to be pretty faultless,  on its own terms. He also has an original and personal approach to orchestration, which I tried to indicate here. He's not alone in that, though - the best composers do tend to develop their own special ways with the orchestra, which work perfectly for them but which wouldn't transfer to anyone else so well (Janacek is an example of this, in fact - his orchestration is in some respects 'bad', certainly full of faults in the textbook sense, but it is deeply felt, instantly recognisable and suits his aesthetic perfectly, so it ends up being a very strong point).

It seem that Elgar, btw, was dumbfounded by Dvorak's orchestration, among others, not for its extrovert colour or dazzle, but because it always sounds full and beautifully balanced even when only one or two linstruments are playing. This is interesting, I think, because it shows what he prioritised in orchestration. Read in this light, we can see what his complex and ever-shifting doublings are trying to acheive, and why, and I think it works.

I want to add - what is important to me is always the music above all, and respect for the composer, much more than any petty disagreements that might go on on this board. That's why, even if it seems to you I have been taking an anti-Elgarian stance (which isn't actually my standpoint at all), I am always going to leap to Elgar's defence when I think he is misunderstood - in this case, I think Mark was right to the extent that Elgar's scores are undeniably very full; but I think he was wrong to imply that this is a fault, when continuous, carefully-shaded and blended textures are really as deep a part of Elgar's aesthetic as Janacek's exposed lines, peculiar balances, strange tessiture and block orchestration are to his.

OTOH, and in the same vein of fairness-to-all-composers, I'd really like to leap to Sibelius's defence too, though, against your charge of his being a 'non-relative' in contrast to the 'relative' Elgar (have I remembered that right?) because I think that misrepresents a composer who was extremely 'relative' (in the sense you meant). Sibelius is full-to-bursting with these incredible, almost geological layers of texture, all working at different paces and heard in relation to each other, creating a very complex system of relationships. Just wanted to say....