Elgar Symphony No 1

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Apologies - reading that now it sounds a lot "bossier" and smart-butt-attempting than it left my keyboard. I would be genuinely interested to hear what might be specifically "Edwardian" features of this, or any, Music - but whilst I can hear the fragmentary, momentarily sunny, wistful mood alternates with descending minor key phrases — hope & uncertainty mingling, and the the shadowy passage after fig.24 in the 1st movement — chromatically shifting harmonies undermining the spirit of delight, or the drifting irresolution in the places you identify, I hear these types of passages in many works of Elgar's continental contemporaries (not just Mahler and Strauss, but Suk and Schönberg, too).

I first heard Elgar's Second Symphony when I was 15 - at a Live concert given by the Hallé under James Loughran. I hated it - it was noisy, and meandered on and on for far too long. Five years later, I was given the Solti recording: literally love at first hearing, and at every subsequent hearing, too - and from many different conductors. Edwardian sensibilities didn't feature in my dislike or adoration.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Of course ferney it could be that these people who don't like the Elgar Syms are these new listeners to R3 with the concentration span of a gnat.

Well - BeefO doesn't particularly like them, and he's a Celibidache Bruckner/Goodall Wagner enthusiast. And the Elgar symphonies are "popular" with younger audiences. It's just that some people don't like them. A pity, but that's how it goes; there's lots of other stuff.

[teamsaint]

The problem is, that I have the only copy of this performance that exists.

I really would like others to hear this recording. How can I share it with you all? Suggestions please.

.

I think that an easy way to share this might be to send the file by dropbox. People could just send you their email address, and make sure they have a dropbox account, ( very easy to do) and you " Share" it with them.

I shared a rather hard to find Nurymov recording with some board members like this, ( IIRC) and it worked fine.

[ahinton]

Well - BeefO doesn't particularly like them, and he's a Celibidache Bruckner/Goodall Wagner enthusiast. And the Elgar symphonies are "popular" with younger audiences. It's just that some people don't like them. A pity, but that's how it goes; there's lots of other stuff.

You've made some very pertinent points in this thread but, so far, in what remains the absence of concrete evidence of the presence of these "Edwardian sensibilities" (whaver they might be) in Elgar's symphonies or explanation as to why said presence is less obvious or overt in his other orchestral works and, more importantly still, of what these sensibilities are suppose to be and why those symphonies are supposed largely to fail to resonate with contemporary audiences; clearly, those symphonies still do resonate with audiences today and, I imagine, mostly with people who would likely question assertions about such sensibilities as a fundamental thrust behind their creation.

While we wait (doubtless in vain) for such explanation, I have to say that I no more get this idea than you do and would like to add that, if such sensibilities were indeed a palpable factor in Elgar's symphonic expression and accordingly registered with his audiences as redolent of some kind of English national spirit of the day, why are his symphonies so different to the works of his compatriot contemporaries which one might suppose would at least make an attempt at doing something similar?

As you observe, Mahler, Strauss, Suk and Schönberg seem closer to Elgar's symphonic thoughts than anything coming out of England in the early years of the last century - Schmidt and Zemlinsky too, I would suggest, to say nothing of the eariler examples of Schumann, Brahms and Wagner; this is why I find it hard to forge any kind of indelible and inevitable association between Elgar's symphonic output and some perceived sense of "Englishness", let alone these "Edwardian sensibilties".

[cloughie]

I think that an easy way to share this might be to send the file by dropbox. People could just send you their email address, and make sure they have a dropbox account, ( very easy to do) and you " Share" it with them.

I shared a rather hard to find Nurymov recording with some board members like this, ( IIRC) and it worked fine.

or get the BBC Legends CD #73

[teamsaint]

or get the BBC Legends CD #73

well thats messed up my chance of a freebie.

Cheers indeed

[EdgeleyRob]

I did put a question mark after my 'stately' suggestion!

That said, and notwithstanding all the erudite comments above (below if you reorder the thread!), for which many thanks, it's still how I think of the beginning of this wonderful work.

Michael Steinberg, in his book The Symphony, describes the opening as 'stable and consistent' (compared to the subsequent Allegro, which he describes as ’restless, changeable, nervous’).

Oh sorry Pulcinella,re reading my post it sounds like I'm having a go which wasn't intended.
As you say,it's open to differences of interpretation.
Many thanks also to all contributors for making this such an interesting thread.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_cd_review.php?id=3696

[Pulcinella]

Oh sorry Pulcinella,re reading my post it sounds like I'm having a go which wasn't intended.
As you say,it's open to differences of interpretation.
Many thanks also to all contributors for making this such an interesting thread.

Oh, don't worry!
I didn't take it as 'having a go' at all.

[Hornspieler]

HS

It is a 2cd set BBCL41822
The Elgar 1 was recorded in the Winter Gardens 25/07/1968

Disc 1 also has Cockaigne from 6/12/1966 and Arnold: Beckus the Dandipratt from 23/02/1963.
Disc 2 Tchaikovsky:Sym 2 12/11/1966, Debussy:Jeux 10/11/1965, Britten:Sea Interludes 26/11/1966 and Enescu:Rumanian Rhapsody 22/11/1966. All except the Enescu were recorded in the Winter Gardens.
Hope this helps.
I see it is available on Amazon for best part of around £15.
Cheers
Cloughie

Thank you so much, Cloughie and others for that comprehensive information.
Now that I know the recording is available elsewhere, I shall await the assessment of others not as closely committed to Silvestri and the BSO.

Regarding the E flat symphony (Nº 2) I don't believe that Silvestri ever showed any interest in the work.

My only involvement with the work was to take part in a performance with the BBCSO in the RFH under the baton of probably the best man to interpret the work - Sir Malcolm Sargent! It left no fond memories and, having already played (and studied) the A flat symphony, I would not have recognised it as being by the same composer - except that the title page assured me that it was. All that I remember of it after all these years is that it was damned difficult to play
So please let's all have your opinions/reactions of both works.

HS

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

So please let's all have your opinions/reactions of both works.

Well, I wouldn't wish to upset the originator of the Thread with Off Topic comments, but seeing that you ask ...

I think the Second Symphony is an even better achievement than the First - the composer's finest achievement, and (with RVW #5) the greatest Symphony by a British composer that I know. The outer movements of the First I find more "episodic", requiring much help from the conductor to steer successfully through the sections without losing the momentum (mind you, when Barbirolli did it it showed that this reservation doesn't necessarily apply) - the Second is a perfect Symphonic structure, the thematic ideas merging into and out of each other with a great "sweep" and such passion and intensity. (Mind you, when certain conductors do it, it shows that this enthusiasm doesn't apply!)

All of which is just "longhand" for saying that I find the Second affects me more deeply than does the First - rejoice, though I do, that that work exists.

[Pulcinella]

Is number 2 easier to 'understand' (perhaps if only in an analytical sense)?
Interestingly (?) it features as one of Bernard Shore's Sixteen symphonies and also in Tovey's Essays in musical analysis, whereas the first does not.
(Now you can see where I was hunting for comments on the nobilmente aspect of the first theme in number 1!)

[cloughie]

Well, I wouldn't wish to upset the originator of the Thread with Off Topic comments, but seeing that you ask ...

I think the Second Symphony is an even better achievement than the First - the composer's finest achievement, and (with RVW #5) the greatest Symphony by a British composer that I know. The outer movements of the First I find more "episodic", requiring much help from the conductor to steer successfully through the sections without losing the momentum (mind you, when Barbirolli did it it showed that this reservation doesn't necessarily apply) - the Second is a perfect Symphonic structure, the thematic ideas merging into and out of each other with a great "sweep" and such passion and intensity. (Mind you, when certain conductors do it, it shows that this enthusiasm doesn't apply!)

All of which is just "longhand" for saying that I find the Second affects me more deeply than does the First - rejoice, though I do, that that work exists.

I love 'em both - my preference is narrowly for No1 if only for the beautiful bridge passage between the 2nd and 3rd movements and the sublime 3rd movement. But both symphonies - let them breathe - Barbirolli or Thomson, or perhaps Elder! I should however have a listen again to Silvestri 1 and report back.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Is number 2 easier to 'understand' (perhaps if only in an analytical sense)?

I don't know - certainly the AQA Exam Board thought the opposite; the First Symphony was an "A"-level "set text".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... let them breathe - Barbirolli or Thomson, or perhaps Elder!

Oh, definitely NOT Elder's asthmatic, zimmerframed trudge through the Second as heard at last year's Proms. They're Symphonies: they need fire in the belly, and Symphonic athleticism and muscle. Petrenko in 2014: THAT's the way to do it! (And Solti, the Composer, Boult in 1944 et al.)