-
-
Forget the Guinness superlatives, Elgar 2 is a great work just leave it at that.Comment
-
I can't understand how you've not even thought ofOriginally posted by Northender View Post
Tchaik 4
Rachmaninov 2
Wot no Beethoven
Mahler 2
Bruckner 7
I guess you used to be undecided but now you're not so sure!Comment
-
-
I know this is a personal idiosyncrasy but while they are both undoubtedly English I always regard Elgar & RVW as being influenced by Wales too
Walton does not strike me like that - he Anglo-Italian
What a loss to musicology I am
Comment
-
What do you expect from a Lancastrian?Originally posted by amateur51 View PostI know this is a personal idiosyncrasy but while they are both undoubtedly English I always regard Elgar & RVW as being influenced by Wales too
Walton does not strike me like that - he Anglo-Italian
What a loss to musicology I amComment
-
-
-
That's exactly the difference.Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
But that doen't mean it isn't a work of genius.
No: compared to these Elgar 2 is a work of the pastNeither Elgar symphony can really be seen as belonging to a school, or beginning or continuing a movement ...; by your criterion of looking to the future, they are therefore of the past.
Why negative? These things happen - and that is negative nor positive.'End-of-an-era' even, since we know what came later. But what is the relevance of that? Is it a negative quality
Exactly - I couldn't say it better myself..... Elgar's great works belong comfortably in a similar sound-world with Strauss, Mahler, Suk, early Schoenberg, early Bartok and others, but they are no more like them than they are like each other. Elgar was a one-off, who doesn't easily fit in anywhere - which has rather contributed to his being musical Marmite.
But within this generation of composers there are more and less forward looking works - that's not a negative epithet.
Who would "condemn" Strauss 4 Letzte Lieder for being nostalgic and backwards looking music? But compared to Boulez' exactly contemporary 2nd piano sonata or Le soleil des eaux it is most certainly a work of the past.Comment
-
-
I am afraid I disagreeOriginally posted by cloughie View PostIt's certainly easier to whistle along to!
Comment
-
Originally posted by amateur51 View PostI know this is a personal idiosyncrasy but while they are both undoubtedly English I always regard Elgar & RVW as being influenced by Wales too
Walton does not strike me like that - he Anglo-Italian
What a loss to musicology I am
Comment
-
Glad we can agree. Good post.Originally posted by Roehre View Post
Except, of course, that 'conservative' pieces such as 4 Letzte Lieder are of the present when they are written - no-one suggests they are deliberate pastiche.
Comment
-
I can't help feeling that Elgar Nº 2 was written for commercial (bread and butter) reasons, whereas Symphony Nº 1 is an expression of Elgar himself, (I feel the same about Walton's two symphonies, but there, it is more evident) but I still enjoy Nº 2 for its craftsmanship and its exuberance.Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostGlad we can agree. Good post.
As far as Elgar's "3rd symphony" is concerned, he didn't write one - and I'm content to leave it at that.
HSComment
-
Originally posted by cloughie View Post
Did I mention the Sibelius 5th and the Roy Harris 3rd, by the way?
To be serious: the Elgar 2nd was the first symphony I discovered for myself (as against being introduced to it). I was blown away, as they say, especially by the 2nd movement, and have loved it ever since. I have recordings conducted by Hanley, Barbirolli, Haitink, Elgar and Previn. My other musical discovery at that time was the Sibelius 2nd, closely followed by his 5th.Comment
Comment