Elgar/Payne Symphony No 3 - is it to fade out of sight ?

[Hornspieler]

I noticed a recentish review that referred to Anthony Payne's realisation as having had a vogue and that this was fading.

Indeed a quick search on backtrack showed no future performaced planned. I for one should be sad if this were the case . I think that it is an outstandingly satisfying work demonstrating not only the richness if much of the source material as well as the talent of Mr Payne in making a coherent work from the sketches.

Why not call the work "Elgariana"?
Antony Payne has done a great job in compiling Elgar's jottings into a tribute to a man who is possibly regarded as "The Father of British Symphonic music"

Don't undermine Payne's achievement by calling this valuable contribution to Britain's musical heritage a symphony.

HS

[Petrushka]

Why not call the work "Elgariana"?
Antony Payne has done a great job in compiling Elgar's jottings into a tribute to a man who is possibly regarded as "The Father of British Symphonic music"

Don't undermine Payne's achievement by calling this valuable contribution to Britain's musical heritage a symphony.

HS

But it is a symphony and is symphonically constructed. Payne used Elgar's sketches for the symphony but was emphatic that we shouldn't think of it as 'Elgar's 3rd Symphony' though, in all honesty, I find that it's hard not to. It is as moving and satisfying as the two genuine EE symphonies and I have no doubt it will certainly not fade away.

[Richard Barrett]

Very often when a new work is performed, some of the comments on this forum and elsewhere tend in the direction of "I don't know why they bother with this stuff that will soon be left unperformed and forgotten". This may or may not turn out to be the case, but the case of the Elgar/Payne concoction falling into neglect is possibly a sign that whether this happens or not is independent of the style or competence of the music... maybe some Elgarians might consider that next time they encounter something they imagine (ie. hope) won't gain a place in the repertoire.

[Barbirollians]

Very often when a new work is performed, some of the comments on this forum and elsewhere tend in the direction of "I don't know why they bother with this stuff that will soon be left unperformed and forgotten". This may or may not turn out to be the case, but the case of the Elgar/Payne concoction falling into neglect is possibly a sign that whether this happens or not is independent of the style or competence of the music... maybe some Elgarians might consider that next time they encounter something they imagine (ie. hope) won't gain a place in the repertoire.

.

There is a difference surely between works that cease to be fashionable and works that just aren't very good or which all nobody wants to listen to ?

[visualnickmos]

I have never listened to, or intend to listen to, any of the suppositions of what Elgar may have written as the definitive (completed) version of his third symphony.
I am not doubting the expertise, or indeed, the quality of such "what ifs" but for me, I cannot really see the point of these exercises. If Elgar didn't compose it, it ain't Elgar - and I know full-well that none of the pieces claim such provenance. But again I ask - what is one trying to say by such an exercise?

I paint - mostly abstract work - I make little sketches, notes, diagrams as aide-memoires for future works; it would be the same as someone taking a few sketches and painting a finished work 'based on' these sketches - why bother? And to prove or say what?

[Bryn]

I have never listened to, or intend to listen to, any of the suppositions of what Elgar may have written as the definitive (completed) version of his third symphony.
I am not doubting the expertise, or indeed, the quality of such "what ifs" but for me, I cannot really see the point of these exercises. If Elgar didn't compose it, it ain't Elgar - and I know full-well that none of the pieces claim such provenance. But again I ask - what is one trying to say by such an exercise?

I paint - mostly abstract work - I make little sketches, notes, diagrams as aide-memoires for future works; it would be the same as someone taking a few sketches and painting a finished work 'based on' these sketches - why bother? And to prove or say what?

Sure, it's not entirely by Elgar, but so what. Just listen to it as a musical work and don't bother who its composition is ascribed to.

[Barbirollians]

I have never listened to, or intend to listen to, any of the suppositions of what Elgar may have written as the definitive (completed) version of his third symphony.
I am not doubting the expertise, or indeed, the quality of such "what ifs" but for me, I cannot really see the point of these exercises. If Elgar didn't compose it, it ain't Elgar - and I know full-well that none of the pieces claim such provenance. But again I ask - what is one trying to say by such an exercise?

I paint - mostly abstract work - I make little sketches, notes, diagrams as aide-memoires for future works; it would be the same as someone taking a few sketches and painting a finished work 'based on' these sketches - why bother? And to prove or say what?

Why not listen to it on its own terms ? I see no real difference between it and completions of Bruckner 9 and Mahler 10.

[Pabmusic]

I have never listened to, or intend to listen to, any of the suppositions of what Elgar may have written as the definitive (completed) version of his third symphony.
I am not doubting the expertise, or indeed, the quality of such "what ifs" but for me, I cannot really see the point of these exercises. If Elgar didn't compose it, it ain't Elgar - and I know full-well that none of the pieces claim such provenance. But again I ask - what is one trying to say by such an exercise?

I paint - mostly abstract work - I make little sketches, notes, diagrams as aide-memoires for future works; it would be the same as someone taking a few sketches and painting a finished work 'based on' these sketches - why bother? And to prove or say what?

I am witth Bryn and Barbs on this - listen to it on its own terms. It is a wonderful bit of work by Payne. My misgivings have always been about what it's called. Payne was at pains (sorry!) to avoid calling it Elgar's third, yet we do it all the time (what is this thread called?). It isn't, and it shouldn't be compared with 1 and 2 wiithout qualification. Elgar was one of the 'messiest' composers, and he left very little that was coherent.

[Beef Oven!]

Sure, it's not entirely by Elgar, but so what. Just listen to it as a musical work and don't bother who its composition is ascribed to.

C'mon Bryn! We only have to have the smallest improvement to Bruckner's 8th and you cry foul!

[Beef Oven!]

I have never listened to, or intend to listen to, any of the suppositions of what Elgar may have written as the definitive (completed) version of his third symphony.
I am not doubting the expertise, or indeed, the quality of such "what ifs" but for me, I cannot really see the point of these exercises. If Elgar didn't compose it, it ain't Elgar - and I know full-well that none of the pieces claim such provenance. But again I ask - what is one trying to say by such an exercise?

I paint - mostly abstract work - I make little sketches, notes, diagrams as aide-memoires for future works; it would be the same as someone taking a few sketches and painting a finished work 'based on' these sketches - why bother? And to prove or say what?

Totally with you on this Nick

It's not as if there's not enough great music out there to have to resort to a form of necrophilia.

Edit: I'm listening to it now, it's rather good. But I can't help think that a huge talent such as Payne couldn't put his time to better use.

[Bryn]

C'mon Bryn! We only have to have the smallest improvement to Bruckner's 8th and you cry foul!

A totally different case. Bruckner completed his 8th, at least three times. Haas's fiddling with it was an entirely different kettle of fish to what Payne did in elaborating Elgar's sketches for a third symphony.

[Beef Oven!]

A totally different case. Bruckner completed his 8th, at least three times. Haas's fiddling with it was an entirely different kettle of fish to what Payne did in elaborating Elgar's sketches for a third symphony.

But so what. Just listen to it as a musical work and don't bother with who tinkered with it.

[Bryn]

But so what. Just listen to it as a musical work and don't bother with who tinkered with it.

But that's where the Haas fails for me in comparison to the Nowak editions of the first and finale Bruckner versions, or indeed the Schaller edition of the second Bruckner version.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But again I ask - what is one trying to say by such an exercise?

I don't hear anything being "trying" to be "said" - I hear a very good piece of Music: that is the point.

[visualnickmos]

I don't hear anything being "trying" to be "said" - I hear a very good piece of Music: that is the point.

I hear and agree with you, but I'm also in agreement with Pabmusic's post (no. 23) - I suppose to be more specific about the whole exercise, one has to know exactly how much - in percentage terms of what Payne et al arrived at - of the whole work, what is Elgar and what isn't....
I would hazard a guess that most composers left sketches, and incomplete and 'nearly there' bits and pieces lying around at the time of their demise - surely there are potentially hundreds of works that could receive the same treatment... somehow it just doesn't feel right - regardless of how good a piece results from such workings.
I am not doubting the quality, standard or performance of the work; I am pretty sure it is indeed, a great piece of music, but surely its provenance has to be very clear, and I'm not sure it is... unless perhaps one reads the 'small print'

Basic question: Why?