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

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You're quite right - there are several "completions" of sketches/unfinished works by Mozart (completed by Philip Wilby) and Schubert (completed by Brian Newbould) - but these haven't reached the regular repertoire to the extent that Payne's Elgar has - quite simply because they are neither successful evocations of the original composers' individual soundworlds, nor particularly interesting as individual pieces of Music. (And there's Berio's re-working of Schubert, which does something different again; with no attempt to present what Schubert might have written had he completed the work.)

Payne's work is a successful Symphony that has captured the imaginations and affections of many listeners, all of whom are aware that they're not hearing a work "by" Elgar, but rather one "based on" Elgar's sketches and his "style" and working methods - the provenance is very clear; Payne's name appears in large print on the Score cover, record sleeves, and concert posters & programmes; and his working methods are made analytically clear, bar-by-bar in the book he wrote that Pet linked to.

And that is the answer (or my response, at any rate) to your "Basic Question: Why?" - Because a valuable work of Art has resulted.

[Serial_Apologist]

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?

Because restoration has always played an important part in preserving great works - the analogy being churches undergoing alteration according to the different religious and/or political perspectives being brought to bear at any point in the building's, painting's or symphony's history. Even in the case of Strawberry Hill House, which I visited for the first time last Sunday, which they are trying to restore to its original appearance, is subject to modern-day interpretation and use of modern materials unavailable to the original builders; yet some of the Victorian fireplaces are regarded as such good examples of the genre that they are not going to replace those. In some ways Payne's "completion" of Elgar 3 complies more with the Prince of Wales's prescriptions for the National Gallery extension in preference to the modern "carbuncle" he and doubtless countless would-be objectors would have complained as being out of character with the Regency original. I would see Payne's work as one of restoration, rather than counterfeit.

[jayne lee wilson]

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?

Because it can change your view of a composer's development, musically and emotionally.

As with Mahler's 10th, George Enescu left his 4th and 5th Symphonies complete in sketch form but only partly orchestrated, with many indications of dynamics, phrasing and articulation. We might never have heard them, or even heard of them, if it weren't for composer and dedicated Enescu-scholar Pascal Bentoiu's orchestration and fleshing-out of those sketches. Enescu's 2nd and 3rd (1915/18), beautiful as they are, can seem almost too over-elaborated: a symphonic cul-de-sac. The 4th and 5th (1934/1941) show Enescu in his late mode, familiar from the chamber music and the 3rd Suite, more elliptical, pared-back, enigmatic yet still intensely expressive. The late symphonies are among the finest expressions of this very original late style and wonderfully rewarding works of art in themselves. No-one interested in the 20th Century Symphony, or who loves Enescu (let alone an obsessive like me) can afford NOT to know them. (Available on CPO https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/search?q...scu&i=boutique).

[Richard Barrett]

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 ?

But what would you say that difference consists in? Personally I feel no attraction to the music of either composer so for me the Elgar/Payne piece could easily be regarded as "just not very good".

[Alison]

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

Good observation Beef.

It’s as if I don’t have permission to enjoy any Haas edition performances of Bruckner 8!

[Alison]

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.

Fair enough Nethersage.

Good thread.

[ahinton]

But what would you say that difference consists in? Personally I feel no attraction to the music of either composer so for me the Elgar/Payne piece could easily be regarded as "just not very good".

So for you the state of being "just not very good" could be dependent on nothing more than the extent to which you aren't attracted to its composer/s; OK, well, at least that seems to be clear...

[BBMmk2]

I love the work. I think that Anthony Payne has done a very good job with this undertaking. I wouldn't want to do this mammoth task!

[PJPJ]

I love the work. I think that Anthony Payne has done a very good job with this undertaking. I wouldn't want to do this mammoth task!

So do I - I enjoy listening to it enormously.

[Hornspieler]

I think that Anthony Payne's tribute to Elgar's contribution to British musical development is well worth listening to.

I simply disagree with giving it a title which might give the wrong impression to somebody who encounters the work for the first time.

HS

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As I see it, we have Elgar's 1st movement exposition all by the composer, but with Payne doing most of the orchestration. The development section is good, though there are moments where, I think Elgar would have added or deleted a bar or two, and it would have felt better balanced.

The second movement is from a nearly complete sketch by the composer.

The third (slow movement) seems to me to be Payne's greatest achievement, pulling together fragmented sketched, with a strong influence of the slow movement of Elgar 2. I wouldn't change a note

The finale lifts large chunks of Elgar's King Arthur music, as well as other sketches, but does it convincingly. Not so sure about the tam-tam at the end.

[BBMmk2]

So do I - I enjoy listening to it enormously.

[Beef Oven!]

So do I - I enjoy listening to it enormously.

I listened to it for the first time last night in order to overcome my prejudice about this work and enjoyed it as much as regular Elgar (which on a Richter scale is about C+ at best). But I enjoy Regular Anthony Payne music more than this work and I can't help wondering if the time could have been better spent (Payne's, I mean).

[BBMmk2]

I listened to it for the first time last night in order to overcome my prejudice about this work and enjoyed it as much as regular Elgar (which on a Richter scale is about C+ at best). But I enjoy Regular Anthony Payne music more than this work and I can't help wondering if the time could have been better spent (Payne's, I mean).

As you most probably know Beefy, the Elgar Estate commissioned AP to make this a realisation happen before the copyright runs out. They wanted to make sure that the music was given good service, to which, imo, AP did a fantastic job. also he has done the P&C March No.6.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As you most probably know Beefy, the Elgar Estate commissioned AP to make this a realisation happen before the copyright runs out. They wanted to make sure that the music was given good service, to which, imo, AP did a fantastic job. also he has done the P&C March No.6.

It's older than that, IIRC, Bbm. Payne had been fascinated by the sketches since he first saw some of them in the W H Reed book, Elgar as I knew Him, when he was a teenager. He'd been "dabbling" with the sketches for many years, and approached the Elgar Estate several times request that he might do something more substantial with them. The Estate refused each request, until they realized that, with copyright coming to an end, they'd no longer have control over the sketches, and it was better for them to work with Payne than to have him or somebody else produce something over which they had no influence.


(I think I might have got some of the details about copyright wrong - does it extend to sketches? )