Elgar: the 2nd Symphony

[ahinton]

He did write to Jaeger about Cockaigne that it's "cheerful and Londony - 'stout & steaky'".

Ah - now I know why that piece doesn't really appeal to me! I'm all for a wonderful, properly reared and hung organic sirloin steak of which there's no particular shortage around here in Herefordistan, but the very prospect of stout of any kind, without it or (stll worse) with it, is more than enough to induce stomach churning!

[Pabmusic]

I think that they both did well, actually! (let's not forget the ampount of material in Elgar's hand with which Tony could work). It's not so much a matter of how we think of the work as what we call it - and that cumbersome title cited earlier is hardly the kind of thing that one would want to use to call anything, really; "Elgar 3" might sound as though Elgar's Third Symphony is being mentioned, but in truth it's just shorthand for that long title and, after all, whatever anyone might think of it, it is a symphony, it has far more Elgar than Payne in it and the fact that a number of Elgar scholars were initially unable to detect which was Elgar and which Payne in various places in the score surely speaks for itself rather eloquently, wouldn't you say?

I don't disagree very much at all. It is nevertheless a reconstruction. Elgar was never one to produce a short score and then orchestrate it - his sketches are usually all over the place. He left a reasonably full sketch of the first movement up to the development, but there's nothing else that's really well worked-out (on paper - it was so in his head of course). That's why I say that Tony Paine did so well, and made good, informed decisions. But there's still much that's speculative (particularly the entire ending, which is wholly Payne). I am really glad the work is performable; I just doubt that it's really as near to EE's intentions as we think.

[Roehre]

I think that they both did well, actually! (let's not forget the amount of material in Elgar's hand with which Tony could work). It's not so much a matter of how we think of the work as what we call it - and that cumbersome title cited earlier is hardly the kind of thing that one would want to use to call anything, really; whilst "Elgar 3" might sound as though Elgar's Third Symphony is being mentioned (as if it existed as such), it is in reality mere shorthand for that long title and, after all, whatever anyone might think of the work, it is a symphony, it has vastly more Elgar than Payne in it and the fact that a number of Elgar scholars were initially unable to detect which was Elgar and which Payne in various places in the score surely speaks for itself rather eloquently, wouldn't you say?

[Pabmusic]

Is that the pint I sent you in post 72?

[ahinton]

I don't disagree very much at all. It is nevertheless a reconstruction.

Well, in truth, it's rather more of a construction than a reconstruction, methinks.

Elgar was never one to produce a short score and then orchestrate it - his sketches are usually all over the place. He left a reasonably full sketch of the first movement up to the development, but there's nothing else that's really well worked-out (on paper - it was so in his head of course). That's why I say that Tony Paine did so well, and made good, informed decisions. But there's still much that's speculative (particularly the entire ending, which is wholly Payne).

Indeed - and Elgar's "jigsaw puzzle" way of working, to say nothing of his recycling of sketchbook material (sometimes from many years earlier), would hardly have made the task any easier, as Tony would have first had to get into that way of working and familiarise himself with it as though that was the way that he himself worked on his own music - and, let's also remember, Tony has never written a symphony of his own (and isn't likely to do so).

I am really glad the work is performable; I just doubt that it's really as near to EE's intentions as we think.

It's impossible to tell, of course!

[ahinton]

Is that the pint I sent you in post 72?

Are you pint-scoring, by chance?

[Pabmusic]

Well, in truth, it's rather more of a construction than a reconstruction, methinks.

Indeed - and Elgar's "jigsaw puzzle" way of working, to say nothing of his recycling of sketchbook material (sometimes from many years earlier), would hardly have made the task any easier, as Tony would have first had to get into that way of working and familiarise himself with it as though that was the way that he himself worked on his own music - and, let's also remember, Tony has never written a symphony of his own (and isn't likely to do so).

It's impossible to tell, of course!

Now I can agree fully!

[Pabmusic]

Are you pint-scoring, by chance?

It's a shameful habit, isn't it?

[ahinton]

It's a shameful habit, isn't it?

For those who indulge in it, I daresay it is; as you may have suspected from my earlier observations on stout, however, you'd not catch me anywhere near a pint of the kind portrayed!

[3rd Viennese School]

Surley Vaughan Williams symphony no.4 and 6 are up there in the top 2!

Except they dont sound that English!

I think we may be writng our better symphonies now, in this day and age. Maxwell Davies and stuff.

3VS

[Roehre]

Surley Vaughan Williams symphony no.4 and 6 are up there in the top 2!

Except they dont sound that English!

They do. Ask Haitink or Bakels, or music lovers from the continent.

[Nick Armstrong]

Surley Vaughan Williams symphony no.4 and 6 are up there in the top 2!

Except they dont sound that English!

They do. Ask Haitink or Bakels, or music lovers from the continent.

... including Wales?

[Roehre]

... including Wales?

....and that includes Wales

[Nick Armstrong]

....and that includes Wales

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Encouraged by this debate, I've just ordered the Solti recordings of the Elgar symphonies. Some people (myself included) think that Solti 'gets' Elgar in a way a lot of native British conductors don't. Don't care much for his Enigma Variations, though - but I think the CSO are more to blame, there. Any other opinions on the Solti recordings?

IMO, Solti's recordings of the (two extant) Elgar Symphonies are the best since Elgar's own (or Boult's Second from 1944: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6JTn1pSIPI): real fire in these performances, especially the opening of the Second. I don't think he did anything better in the recording studio.

Others find him too aggressive and brusque, and prefer the Music to be given more time to breathe: Boult in the 70s, Haitink, Thompson and even Sinopoli are perhaps more to their taste. The best recording in this tradition IMO is Loughran with the Hallé.

Handley seems to get the best of both "schools" - but I still prefer Solti.