Prom 16 - 24.07.13: Elgar, Bantock, Walton & Tchaikovsky

[edashtav]

A One-Dimensional Falstaff

Spirited playing from all concerned. The programme didn't quite work for me.

Difficult to say why but I don't think Falstaff is a good opener.

I heard only Falstaff and, like you, found it fell a little flat. I'm old enough to remember affectionate performances by Sir John Barbirolli and Sir Adrian Boult and, whilst this performance caught the boisterous side of Falstaff's character, other aspects were less finely etched. Frankly, I found some of the phrasing was unidiomatic. Many non-British conductors have yielded marvellous insights into Elgar's world but van Steen didn't add much to the sum of my knowledge. I found the work's sequential episodes boring and its bitter-sweet sentimental stretches did not move me at all, let alone to tears.

I must catch up with the Bantock - an uneven composer who wrote too much, too quickly, but was capable of flashes of real genius, together with horrendous miscalculations, such as the endlessly repeated trumpet refrain in his Hebridean symphony. Like other correspondents, I regret that the distinguished soloist was not given another piece to complement it. Tchaikovsky's Rococo Variations might have afforded a neat foil.

[Arcades Project]

/

[Alison]

Yes, I was struck by the length of the piece tonight.

Nor is Falstaff ideal for an orchestra to 'settle into' a concert.

I'd have gone for one of the shorter Holst orchestral pieces !

[Serial_Apologist]

I gave it a go, it not being what I'd think of it as my sort of thing, but if I never hear Bantock's Sapphic Poem again I'll be very happy. What am I missing? 'Clichéd 'lush', 'exotic' orchestration, pitifully thin material & as erotic as a museum of false beards. Falstaff sounded a dreary piece, too - the sub-Strauss bits were the best, but the other 28 minutes dragged. I'd have liked to hear Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony which (IMV) is a fine work, but in that context I had a suspicion it might ruin it for me for life. So I listened to some Anthony Braxton on a CD instead.

I did try .

I've never managed to figure what it is that impresses many on this forum about Bantock either! Elgar seems almost avant-garde beside him, in restrospect.

[cloughie]

The happy clappers were there in force tonight to ruin the continuity of a good lively Tchaik 4 - Why? why? why?

[Barbirollians]

The happy clappers were there in force tonight to ruin the continuity of a good lively Tchaik 4 - Why? why? why?

Because they think their wish to clap between movements is more important than the annoyance it causes to the rest of the audience and the performers .

[edashtav]

Bantock with Raphael Wallfisch at the front and a Welsh Band well to his Rear

I've never managed to figure what it is that impresses many on this forum about Bantock either! Elgar seems almost avant-garde beside him, in restrospect.

Of course, you're correct, S-A, both about the relative importance of Bantock and Elgar and re the extreme conservatism of Bantock which he disguises through passion, wonderful orchestration and, often, piquant exotic superficial decorations.

Listening, this evening, I drew parallels between Bantock's wide knowledge and plundering of past masters, and similar processes in Thomas Ades's Totentanz played a week or so ago.

But, neither Ades nor Bantock is worthless.

At the start of the Sapphic Poem, I shut my eyes and heard, momentarily, the ghost of that rhetorical wizard of the cello, Paul Tortelier. That’s not to criticise Raphael Wallfisch but to praise his committed, forthright romanticism. His line was liquid passion in motion, every note sang, richly imbued with belief and fervour.

Frankly, second-rate music needs such urgent proselytism.Tonight we received that only in part.

I found the cello rather forward compared with the orchestra in terms of balance, but that was as much due to Raphael owning the score whilst the orchestra were still exploring it. Lovely solo lines just before the end, e.g. for oboe, were neatly despatched when they demanded plastic love, molto rubato, and a dying fall.

Wallfisch commented that there was a handful of similarly-sized concerted works by Bantock. Raphael should have been asked to play a contrasting example. An opportunity missed.
But… thank you BBC for your generous tribute to Bantock’s wayward and intermittent genius.

[Pabmusic]

Didn't listen to this one (due to work still catching up with last night's Walküre) but Falstaff is surely better placed at the end of the first half. It is just that bit too long to function as an overture and that could be the reason for your reaction, Alison.

Absolutely right. It's never an opener, the most cerebral of Elgar's works. As I've said before, it is (in all but name) Elgar's Third Symphony.

[rauschwerk]

I gave it a go, it not being what I'd think of it as my sort of thing, but if I never hear Bantock's Sapphic Poem again I'll be very happy. What am I missing? 'Clichéd 'lush', 'exotic' orchestration, pitifully thin material & as erotic as a museum of false beards.

I, too, am unable to raise any enthusiasm for Bantock's music. I bought a disc of it once - Handley conducting the Celtic Symphony and other things. I sold it after two hearings. It didn't help that the booklet notes were full of hype, describing one passage as having 'Bartokian ferocity'. What a load of cobblers.

[edashtav]

I turned to Stockhausen so as not to hear Falstaff

Absolutely right. It's never an opener, the most cerebral of Elgar's works. As I've said before, it is (in all but name) Elgar's Third Symphony.

I question whether you're correct, Pabmusic. Falstaff is neither fish nor fowl. It's too long to be an effective symphonic poem, but too imprisoned by its programme to make symphonic sense. Its themes are not top-drawer Elgar- they are not instantly memorable which is why the piece often fails to grip a "new" audience in concert. I believe it to be second-rate Elgar and music which needs a true believer as conductor. Without such sympathy, without a genius that can bring some of its complex, hidden (cerebral?) structure to its surface it can seem, as it dd to me last night, an interminable English meander.

Elgar thought differently - but composers often come out fighting for those pieces that fail to "wing it". My father thought it very fine, too, so I was regularly injected with doses from his LPs. With what result? I whore after Stockhausen.

[salymap]

I heard Sargent and Boult conduct AND REHEARSE Elgar's Falstaff and Ilove and admire the work.

Particularly those two 'dream interludes' which are vintage Elgar. IMHO of course

[amateur51]

I heard Sargent and Boult conduct AND REHEARSE Elgar's Falstaff and Ilove and admire the work.

Particularly those two 'dream interludes' which are vintage Elgar. IMHO of course

Great memories, salymap! Lucky you!

[Pabmusic]

I question whether you're correct, Pabmusic. Falstaff is neither fish nor fowl. It's too long to be an effective symphonic poem, but too imprisoned by its programme to make symphonic sense. Its themes are not top-drawer Elgar- they are not instantly memorable which is why the piece often fails to grip a "new" audience in concert. I believe it to be second-rate Elgar and music which needs a true believer as conductor. Without such sympathy, without a genius that can bring some of its complex, hidden (cerebral?) structure to its surface it can seem, as it dd to me last night, an interminable English meander...

It isn't a symphonic poem. Elgar called it a 'Symphonic Study in C minor". If you forget the programme (very difficult to do, of course) and perhaps ignore the two 'dream interludes' it is a well-wrought symphonic structure that could have been justifiably called a one-movement symphony. Whether the themes are strong, or whether it's top-drawer Elgar, is not relevant to deciding whether it's symphonic.

I agree that it needs a 'true believer' to conduct it.

[jonfan]

I heard only Falstaff and, like you, found it fell a little flat. I'm old enough to remember affectionate performances by Sir John Barbirolli and Sir Adrian Boult and, whilst this performance caught the boisterous side of Falstaff's character, other aspects were less finely etched. Frankly, I found some of the phrasing was unidiomatic. Many non-British conductors have yielded marvellous insights into Elgar's world but van Steen didn't add much to the sum of my knowledge. I found the work's sequential episodes boring and its bitter-sweet sentimental stretches did not move me at all, let alone to tears.

I must catch up with the Bantock - an uneven composer who wrote too much, too quickly, but was capable of flashes of real genius, together with horrendous miscalculations, such as the endlessly repeated trumpet refrain in his Hebridean symphony. Like other correspondents, I regret that the distinguished soloist was not given another piece to complement it. Tchaikovsky's Rococo Variations might have afforded a neat foil.

The trumpet refrain in the Hebridean Symphony is divided between 3 trumpets and is not IMO a miscalculation. It generates great tension; we enjoyed playing the piece a few years ago and went on to play the Pagan Symphony and the Sea Poems. Not a dud among them. Great to play and great to listen to.

[Hornspieler]

Spirited playing from all concerned. The programme didn't quite work for me.

Difficult to say why but I don't think Falstaff is a good opener.

I agree about Falstaff. I remember playing it and finding it a "stodgy" work. So many better Elgar works could have been there.

Alassio is a bit overdone these days, but Froissart would have made a good starter.

HS