Elgar: the 2nd Symphony

[Pabmusic]

He did indeed Norths and Elgar of course referred to the glorious melody in Introduction and Allegro for Strings as "the Welsh tune"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/mid/sites...es/elgar.shtml

Interesting link, Ams.

Elgar's friend Alfred Rodewald lived at Bettws-y-Coed (beautiful when it's not raining), and the Elgars spent much time there, sometimes with Augustus Jaeger as well. Elgar had his first driving lessons there, since the wealthy Rodewald owned a car (this is really early - Rodey died in 1905). They also had a memorable holiday* at Ynys Lochtyn in Cardiganshire in 1901, when Elgar made several Apostles sketches as well as noting the 'Welsh tune' (Intro & Allegro) after he'd heard snatches of a choir across the bay. And of course he was born quite near the border, and lived for many years in the Marches.

Rodewald played a part in the Second Symphony - see post 32. It has always amused me that both of Elgar's 'biggest hits' - Nimrod and Land of Hope - which have a definite nationalistic feel about them, were dedicated to Germans. Jaeger for Nimrod, and Rodewald for P & C #1.

*It's amazing just how often the Elgars went on long holidays. They took six in Bavaria in the 1890s before he was famous, hearing Wagner and taking part in Gilbert & Sullivan am-drams at Garmisch! Then there were several Italian holidays in the 1900s, during which much of the sketches for In The South, and the Second and First Symphonies emerged (in that order); a Mediterranean cruise and (after Alice's death) one up the Amazon.

[Op. XXXIX]

A conductor [Thomson] for whom I have great affection. His recording of Elgar 2 with the LPO for Chandos ran to more than an hour: a record?

Close, but Sinopoli runs to 65:23 compared with Thomson's 61:23.

I also have great affection for Thomson (his last movement is absolutely glorious), but I do find the first movement rather slow for my taste. Elgar 2 for me is on the level of the Mahler symphonies, though I certainly understand that few would endorse that opinion. But I have always found Elgar 2 an endlessly fascinating work, and who would have thought at one measure before rehearsal 168 in the last movement to suddenly recap the 'Spirit of Delight' theme from the opening. Truly a magisterial moment, unforgettable in its transformation.

[Roehre]

....Elgar's friend Alfred Rodewald lived at Bettws-y-Coed (beautiful when it's not raining), and the Elgars spent much time there, sometimes with Augustus Jaeger as well. Elgar had his first driving lessons there, since the wealthy Rodewald owned a car (this is really early - Rodey died in 1905). ....

It was in Betws-y-Coed that Elgar corrected the printing proofs of the 2nd symphony.

[Northender]

Elgar's 2nd Symphony would be with me on the 'desert island'. It is the only piece of music which has ever moved me to tears listening to it on the car radio. Whenever I hear it live (as I did recently with the Halle and Mark Elder) the tears always flow during the slow movement, After Bruckner 8, I think it is the finest symphony ever written.

I regularly hear Mark Elder's 'talkettes'. Dvorak's 'Scherzo Capriccioso', Elgar's 'Sospiri', Shostakovich's Symphony No.5, Bax's 'Spring Fire' and a number of other works made all the more enjoyable because of the things he has had to say about them before they were played. I hope he continues to do so.

I still use a walkman. Can't get my head round how to transfer to my MP3 and when I do, all the movements seem to be in the wrong order.

Two names spring to mind. The first is Peter Barker, who once announced that he'd played the movements of a Haydn symphony in the wrong order but 'it didn't really matter'. The other is, of course, Mr J E Bartholomew.

[Mandryka]

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?

Elder began his talkette by announcing that 'the following symphony is very long' - which did make me wonder: it's hardly Mahler-long, is it?

[Northender]

Do you not think that the audience's reaction to the 1st performance of the Elgar 2nd might simply be attributable to their puzzlement at the way in which the work ends? The 1st symphony ends on, if not a triumphant, than at least a confident, indeed (literally) brassy note (no pun intended) and also recapitulates earlier material in a fairly conventional way. The 2nd ends very differently; after the striving energy of the opening movement and the solemn grandeur of the slow movement, the fourth movement seems - to me - to be suffused with a wistful sense of loss, and must have come as a bit of a shock - or at least a surprise. The true nature of great symphonies - and I DO consider it to be A great symphony - is not always apparent to everybody on first hearing. Caliban's moving account of his Damascene moment suggests that it's one of those works that immediately overwhelms some people but keeps it secrets from others for a while. It's what people think and feel in the long term that counts.

[amateur51]

I can only offer my own experience as a possible explanation.

When I heard the 1st Symphony for the first time (April 1975, Solti recording) it blew my socks off. One of those incredibly thrilling first hearings. By contrast it took me a long, long time to 'get' the 2nd. One also remembers the description of the audience reaction to the first London performance of the 1st Symphony with people standing on chairs cheering. Perhaps EE expected a similar reception and was disappointed when the audience 'sat their like stuffed pigs'.

Same recording, same experience Petrushka!

[ahinton]

Whilst this thread is obviously about Elgar's Second Symphony, the various mentions of the other two here might prompt the following thoughts:

There is no doubt that Elgar's First
Is one of England's best, not worst
Or that the monumental Second
Is in some ways yet more fecund.

But I must put in a plea
For the composer's number three
Because I find it here maligned
Which, to my mind, is most unkind.

We know it's not quite "Elgar's Third" -
That, in a word, would be absurd -
But it's as close as it could be
To the real thing, at least for me.

So - hands off opus eighty-eight
And let the carping crits abate;
We really need no more of those.
"No Payne, no gain", the saying goes...

This symphony is real, not phoney,
So - let's raise three cheers for Tony!
(wisely anon., 2012)

It's surely just as well that the full original title as quoted earlier in this thread is not generally used when people refer to this symphony, since it's almost clumsy enough to be a conversation stopper in its own right. In the 14 years since its première, most people have indeed come to think of it as "Elgar 3" but I defy anyone to convince me that those who do speak of it like that aren't aware of its true origins and gestation.

The Elgar 3 detractors whom I've encountered seem as a rule to pour scorn on it or otherwise express reservations about it not only because it isn't all in the composer's hand but also because it's not much like the first two symphonies, although you'd be hard put to get any of them to admit that. It was always bound to be quite different in any case. Elgar's first two symphonies and an equally ambitious work that is a symphony in all but name - the violin concerto - were written within the space of around three years (and the greatness of all of them proves that it's even possible to write fine music while living in Hereford [note to self - "for some, maybe!"]). Elgar seems not to have wanted or tried to write another symphony for more than two decades after completing the second and, when he did finally embark on his third, he'd written very little of substance or significance for some 14 years, the cello concerto and final three chamber works belonging as they do to the closing months of WWI; given all that had occurred in the intervening years, is it any wonder, then, that a new symphony would mark some kind of departure from the Elgar that we knew? The opening of the third, all in Elgar's hand in full score, whilst retaining something of the characteristic compound-metre swagger that we know from the opening movement of the second, certainly suggests something quite new, its manner and its contrary motion perfect fourths and fifths seeming almost to suggest his friend Havergal Brian (who'd not long completed his own third symphony when Elgar began his).

That Tony Payne could do what he did with the material intended for this symphony still beggars belief and, for me, the result is as convincing as anything could possibly be that deserves to bear the label of "Elgar's Third Symphony". Quite how he achieved this is beyond me, but simply being a distinguished composer in his own right and a long-time Elgar scholar steeped in Elgar's extant works doesn't seem to me to suffice as an explanation for this remarkable feat.

OK, intermission over; back to Elgar 2!

[ahinton]

Do you not think that the audience's reaction to the 1st performance of the Elgar 2nd might simply be attributable to their puzzlement at the way in which the work ends? The 1st symphony ends on, if not a triumphant, than at least a confident, indeed (literally) brassy note (no pun intended) and also recapitulates earlier material in a fairly conventional way. The 2nd ends very differently; after the striving energy of the opening movement and the solemn grandeur of the slow movement, the fourth movement seems - to me - to be suffused with a wistful sense of loss, and must have come as a bit of a shock - or at least a surprise. The true nature of great symphonies - and I DO consider it to be A great symphony - is not always apparent to everybody on first hearing. Caliban's moving account of his Damascene moment suggests that it's one of those works that immediately overwhelms some people but keeps it secrets from others for a while. It's what people think and feel in the long term that counts.

All nails firmly hit on heads here!

[amateur51]

Interesting link, Ams.

Elgar's friend Alfred Rodewald lived at Bettws-y-Coed (beautiful when it's not raining), and the Elgars spent much time there, sometimes with Augustus Jaeger as well. Elgar had his first driving lessons there, since the wealthy Rodewald owned a car (this is really early - Rodey died in 1905). They also had a memorable holiday* at Ynys Lochtyn in Cardiganshire in 1901, when Elgar made several Apostles sketches as well as noting the 'Welsh tune' (Intro & Allegro) after he'd heard snatches of a choir across the bay. And of course he was born quite near the border, and lived for many years in the Marches.

Rodewald played a part in the Second Symphony - see post 32. It has always amused me that both of Elgar's 'biggest hits' - Nimrod and Land of Hope - which have a definite nationalistic feel about them, were dedicated to Germans. Jaeger for Nimrod, and Rodewald for P & C #1.

*It's amazing just how often the Elgars went on long holidays. They took six in Bavaria in the 1890s before he was famous, hearing Wagner and taking part in Gilbert & Sullivan am-drams at Garmisch! Then there were several Italian holidays in the 1900s, during which much of the sketches for In The South, and the Second and First Symphonies emerged (in that order); a Mediterranean cruise and (after Alice's death) one up the Amazon.

Great stuff Pabs - many thanks.

I seem to remember in a (fairly) recent BaL on In The South the reviewer mentioned that Elgar had written 'wine and spaghetti' over the top of a page in the score in reference to an Italian holiday that inspired the piece.

[ahinton]

I seem to remember in a (fairly) recent BaL on In The South the reviewer mentioned that Elgar had written 'wine and spaghetti' over the top of a page in the score in reference to an Italian holiday that inspired the piece.

I didn't know about that; I wonder if he'd ever intended to write "cider and steak" over the top of the page in the score of the second symphony?

As to Alassio, fine work that it is, I've always found it rather odd that a piece supposedly inspired by a visit to Italy sounds more like the work of his friend Richard Strauss than anything else he ever wrote; OK, it's hardly a match for Szymanowski's Concert Overture in that regard, but it was a good attempt...

[Pabmusic]

It was in Betws-y-Coed that Elgar corrected the printing proofs of the 2nd symphony.

[Pabmusic]

That Tony Payne could do what he did with the material intended for this symphony still beggars belief and, for me, the result is as convincing as anything could possibly be that deserves to bear the label of "Elgar's Third Symphony". Quite how he achieved this is beyond me, but simply being a distinguished composer in his own right and a long-time Elgar scholar steeped in Elgar's extant works doesn't seem to me to suffice as an explanation for this remarkable feat.

Remarkable feat it is; Elgar it is not. However, that doesn't matter as long as we don't think of it as Elgar's Third. (Because it's not.) It's a wonderful piece, though - didn't Tony do well!

[Pabmusic]

I didn't know about that; I wonder if he'd ever intended to write "cider and steak" over the top of the page in the score of the second symphony?

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

[ahinton]

Remarkable feat it is; Elgar it is not. However, that doesn't matter as long as we don't think of it as Elgar's Third. (Because it's not.) It's a wonderful piece, though - didn't Tony do well!

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?