BaL 01.06.2024 - Elgar: Symphony 1

[Nimrod]

Somehow I doubt I am going to need to buy the winner . I find I have on CD Boult ( live ICA Classics) LPO EMI and the Lyrita recording, Barbirolli - King's Lynn live , Philharmonia and Halle 1956, Barenboim ( Decca), Davis (LSO Live and Dresden ) , Elder ( earlier recordings) , Elgar , Handley LPO Live and EMI, Loughran ASV, Mackerras, Menuhin, Sinopoli , Silvestri and Solti

I find the adoration of the Boult 28/07/1976 Proms performance quite baffling. I was there, that night, and I have subsequently bought the CD. I don't have much problem with movements 1, 2 & 4, but regarding the adagio, the sublime adagio, I find that Boult, on that night, skimmed through it, over it, and robbed it of any magic in a quick 9.04 minute flash. And before anyone puts pen to mouse (!) and says oh well, Elgar played it that fast, too, in live performance, let me please dispel that myth. I'm very fortunate to have a bound edition of both symphonies in miniature score that were present at Live performances of these works at the Three Choirs festival when Elgar conducted these works. Moreover, the owner of these scores wrote down movement timings whilst in the audience. For symphony no. 1 there are two performances times, Hereford in 1909 and Gloucster in 1925. The slow movement in 1909 took 14 minutes; in 1925 it took 12 minutes.
My favorite recordings are by someone who played Elgar symphonies under the baton of Elgar, Barbirolli, and when one looks at both live and recorded examples of his performances they are all around the 12 minute mark with one exception, 11.37 in 1958. Boult's movement times are nearer to Elgar in the other movements, but even his 4th movement time of 11.19 is left behind by EE taking just 9 minutes in 1909!! 10 minutes in 1925.
As for Solti taking his cue from 78 RPM recordings of Elgar, I thought that was a joke when first reviewed way back amd still think that's no way to understand these great symphonies.

[mikealdren]

I completely agree, Boult's '70s studio recording at 10'50" has a sense of stillness the is absent in the live recording.

[LMcD]

I find the adoration of the Boult 28/07/1976 Proms performance quite baffling. I was there, that night, and I have subsequently bought the CD. I don't have much problem with movements 1, 2 & 4, but regarding the adagio, the sublime adagio, I find that Boult, on that night, skimmed through it, over it, and robbed it of any magic in a quick 9.04 minute flash. And before anyone puts pen to mouse (!) and says oh well, Elgar played it that fast, too, in live performance, let me please dispel that myth. I'm very fortunate to have a bound edition of both symphonies in miniature score that were present at Live performances of these works at the Three Choirs festival when Elgar conducted these works. Moreover, the owner of these scores wrote down movement timings whilst in the audience. For symphony no. 1 there are two performances times, Hereford in 1909 and Gloucster in 1925. The slow movement in 1909 took 14 minutes; in 1925 it took 12 minutes.
My favorite recordings are by someone who played Elgar symphonies under the baton of Elgar, Barbirolli, and when one looks at both live and recorded examples of his performances they are all around the 12 minute mark with one exception, 11.37 in 1958. Boult's movement times are nearer to Elgar in the other movements, but even his 4th movement time of 11.19 is left behind by EE taking just 9 minutes in 1909!! 10 minutes in 1925.
As for Solti taking his cue from 78 RPM recordings of Elgar, I thought that was a joke when first reviewed way back amd still think that's no way to understand these great symphonies.

My favourite recording of Elgar's 1st Symphony is usually the one I happen to be listening to, but I do find the 1976 Boult Proms performance particularly moving. I'm nowhere near clever enough to work out why - I'm just glad that I do!

[smittims]

That's very interesting , Nimrod ,thanks. A Debt is due to these connoisseurs who kept a record of their concert-going. I have some scores from the collection of an indefatigable chronicler, who faithfully noted the date, venue, and timings of performances. I remember sitting enraptured listening to Boult or Barbirolli in a slow movement , but couldn't now say what the timing was, or whether the sense of tempo was due to the occasion, nor , indeed, if I'd feel the same if I heard a recording of it now. .

[Pulcinella]

A quick calculation (not allowing for rits):

124 bars with 4 quavers in each (time signature is 4/8) = 496 quavers.
Tempo indication at start of movement: quaver = 50.
So as near as damn it that's exactly 10 minutes.

In recordings I have other than the Boult, Barbirolli takes 12'15", Haitink 12'33", Handley 11'44", Hurst 12'50", and Thomson 13'03".

[ostuni]

Just browsing the Presto Classical streaming site: Solti 12”08”, Soddy 11’26”.

[Petrushka]

A quick calculation (not allowing for rits):

124 bars with 4 quavers in each (time signature is 4/8) = 496 quavers.
Tempo indication at start of movement: quaver = 50.
So as near as damn it that's exactly 10 minutes.

In recordings I have other than the Boult, Barbirolli takes 12'15", Haitink 12'33", Handley 11'44", Hurst 12'50", and Thomson 13'03".

Elgar himself in his 1930 recording takes 10'19". It's a thrilling performance which isn't being talked about here. Is there any reason for doubting his interpretation due to the 78rpm side length? I thought that the detailed correspondence between Elgar and EMI producer Fred Gaisberg had largely dispelled such myths.

Incidentally, I have the EMI Elgar edition issued in 1992 but wonder if it has since been reissued in fresh remasterings? The 1992 remastering are very fine but technology has substantially moved in the past 30 odd years and these valuable documents might benefit.

Edit: I've just found a 2011 Warner reissue in a cheap looking box but can't tell whether they are fresh remasters or those from 1992. I suspect the latter.

[gradus]

My favourite recording of Elgar's 1st Symphony is usually the one I happen to be listening to, but I do find the 1976 Boult Proms performance particularly moving. I'm nowhere near clever enough to work out why - I'm just glad that I do!

Its such a lovely piece, I tend to the same approach.

[Alison]

My bet for this edition is going on a version that hasn’t received a mention so far (I think)

Edward Gardner conducting the BBC Symphony Orchestra (Chandos).

[Lordgeous]

My favourite recording of Elgar's 1st Symphony is usually the one I happen to be listening to, but I do find the 1976 Boult Proms performance particularly moving.

Likewise! I still have my 3&3/4ips reel to reel recording of that prom performance, taken off-air at the broadcast. For some reason (that I can't explain) I find it even more moving than the commercial CD issues. The audience ovation at the end always gives a shiver down the spine and a tear to the eye.
Looking forward to saturday's BAL. I wonder if the just issued Halle disc of 1 & 2 with Elder will be included - praised in today' Guardian.

[Pulcinella]

Likewise! I still have my 3&3/4ips reel to reel recording of that prom performance, taken off-air at the broadcast. For some reason (that I can't explain) I find it even more moving than the commercial CD issues. The audience ovation at the end always gives a shiver down the spine and a tear to the eye.
Looking forward to saturday's BAL. I wonder if the just issued Halle disc of 1 & 2 with Elder will be included - praised in today' Guardian.

Link to review (I hope shareable) here:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/may/23/elgar-symphonies-nos-1-2-album-review

(Review dated 23 May 2024, in fact.)

[LMcD]

Likewise! I still have my 3&3/4ips reel to reel recording of that prom performance, taken off-air at the broadcast. For some reason (that I can't explain) I find it even more moving than the commercial CD issues. The audience ovation at the end always gives a shiver down the spine and a tear to the eye.
Looking forward to saturday's BAL. I wonder if the just issued Halle disc of 1 & 2 with Elder will be included - praised in today' Guardian.

That's the effect it has on me, too, although I had no idea, on first hearing this recording, of the particular circumstances under which the performance took place. I've never seen the point of trying to explain the inexplicable!

[smittims]

Hi, Petrushka, the 2011 EMI reisue ofthe Elgar Edition says the First symphony was 'transferred from 78s by Michael Dutton' but does not give a date.
Mark Obert Thorn's Naxos transfer is dated 2009. Also, as I said before, may I repeat my recommendationof Lani Spahr's 2016 SOMM remastering, which uses seven previously unpublished 'first takes' out of eleven sides.

The given timings for the adagio are
Naxos 10'16
Dutton (EMI) 10'17
Spahr 10'18.

I agree, and hope, that the oft-repeated notion of fast tempi being dictated by 78 side lengths has now been put to bed along with the claim that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare. Apart from a few well-documented exceptions (Side three (sonnet 6) of Britten's 1942 recording of the Michelangelo Sonnets) tempi and side lengths were planned in advance, and in most cases there was plenty of room on the disc for a slower tempo. Robert Philip deals with this in his book 'Early Recordings and Musical Style ' (Cambridge).

[Barbirollians]

I find the adoration of the Boult 28/07/1976 Proms performance quite baffling. I was there, that night, and I have subsequently bought the CD. I don't have much problem with movements 1, 2 & 4, but regarding the adagio, the sublime adagio, I find that Boult, on that night, skimmed through it, over it, and robbed it of any magic in a quick 9.04 minute flash. And before anyone puts pen to mouse (!) and says oh well, Elgar played it that fast, too, in live performance, let me please dispel that myth. I'm very fortunate to have a bound edition of both symphonies in miniature score that were present at Live performances of these works at the Three Choirs festival when Elgar conducted these works. Moreover, the owner of these scores wrote down movement timings whilst in the audience. For symphony no. 1 there are two performances times, Hereford in 1909 and Gloucster in 1925. The slow movement in 1909 took 14 minutes; in 1925 it took 12 minutes.
My favorite recordings are by someone who played Elgar symphonies under the baton of Elgar, Barbirolli, and when one looks at both live and recorded examples of his performances they are all around the 12 minute mark with one exception, 11.37 in 1958. Boult's movement times are nearer to Elgar in the other movements, but even his 4th movement time of 11.19 is left behind by EE taking just 9 minutes in 1909!! 10 minutes in 1925.
As for Solti taking his cue from 78 RPM recordings of Elgar, I thought that was a joke when first reviewed way back amd still think that's no way to understand these great symphonies.

I get the point and indeed the Adagio is rather more an Andante but in the context of that performance as a whole it doesn’t bother me . I suspect because the other three movements are so intense.

[Mandryka]

Didn't Elgar himself record this one? I think I vaguely remember it was very good, especially in the extraordinary Mahlerian second movement.