Elgar and Berlioz Compared

[71 dB]

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

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

[karlhenning]

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

[71 dB]

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? 

[71 dB]

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?

[karlhenning]

Berlioz and Elgar are NOT identical!

Good.

[lukeottevanger]

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

[lukeottevanger]

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

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', 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. 

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 ) - 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. 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.

[71 dB]

Great presentatation! 

Mendelssohn, that other great Elgarian (he wrote Oratorios and a Violin Concerto in a minor key too, don’t you know ) - represent one type of this sort of writing.

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

1. Elgar 2. Handel. 3 Mendelssohn.

[BachQ]

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 . . . . . . .

[lukeottevanger]

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 

[71 dB]

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.

[MishaK]

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.

[Harry]

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"

[val]

karlhenning

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?

[T-C]

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

Who says he's Elgar the Great?

[71 dB]

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.

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!

[71 dB]

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

Who says he's Elgar the Great?

"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.

[karlhenning]

Is that enough for you Karl?

I rest content 

[lukeottevanger]

I rest content 

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

[karlhenning]

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