Prom 19 - 31.07.14: RLPO, Dam-Jensen / V. Petrenko

[Mary Chambers]

I'm not sure how it works, but some seem to make a better job of it than others. I think it needs to be very defined conducting. It so happens that the one Groves concert I went to there ages ago (I think it was Tchaikovsky) was a mess. I was also in one - don't know what that sounded like! I can't even remember the piece, but I think it was a new work that was rarely if ever heard again.

The first ten rows in front of the orchestra or choir aren't too bad. Further back - hopeless.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The first ten rows in front of the orchestra or choir aren't too bad. Further back - hopeless.

It sounds as though I was in the worse spot, close to where the yet-to-be-completed part of the cathedral was.

[Nachtigall]

A disappointing evening for me. One would have to say that, judging by the tentative applause, the Albert Hall faithfull felt the same way. HS

I'm sorry you were disappointed, HS, but I was present for this performance and in my view you and Ferretfancy couldn't be more wrong. The applause after the Elgar certainly wasn't "tentative"; it was enthusiastic and richly deserved. I've heard Petrenko conduct Elgar 2 in concert before (with the LPO at the RFH) and I admire his interpretation. He seems to have taken the work to his heart. The boisterous onward drive was there, but also the quieter, more reflective passages were given a wonderfully slow-breathed elegiac phrasing which, for me, got to the heart of Elgar. I look forward to his recording of the work to be released on the Onyx label.

Broadly, I agree with David Gutman's estimate of the evening, here: http://www.classicalsource.com/db_co...w.php?id=12154 – and nor, incidentally, would I dispute his description of the Deutsche Motette as "aural murk" and "not worth the effort"

[Sir Velo]

Quite enjoyed the Elgar 2, though agree with the earlier post about rhythmic repetitiveness, which seems to afflict parts of this symphony more than No 1.

You clearly should have listened to Antony Hopkins' Proms Interval talk on Elgar and so-called "repetition".

[Ferretfancy]

I'm sorry you were disappointed, HS, but I was present for this performance and in my view you and Ferretfancy couldn't be more wrong. The applause after the Elgar certainly wasn't "tentative"; it was enthusiastic and richly deserved. I've heard Petrenko conduct Elgar 2 in concert before (with the LPO at the RFH) and I admire his interpretation. He seems to have taken the work to his heart. The boisterous onward drive was there, but also the quieter, more reflective passages were given a wonderfully slow-breathed elegiac phrasing which, for me, got to the heart of Elgar. I look forward to his recording of the work to be released on the Onyx label.

Broadly, I agree with David Gutman's estimate of the evening, here: http://www.classicalsource.com/db_co...w.php?id=12154 – and nor, incidentally, would I dispute his description of the Deutsche Motette as "aural murk" and "not worth the effort"

George Hall reviewed it enthusiastically in yesterday's Guardian. I'm sorry, but I'm sticking by my own assessment, did he ever hear Boult, or for that matter Charles Groves ?

[Mary Chambers]

Broadly, I agree with David Gutman's estimate of the evening, here: http://www.classicalsource.com/db_co...w.php?id=12154 – and nor, incidentally, would I dispute his description of the Deutsche Motette as "aural murk" and "not worth the effort"

"Grim and gritty wobble-fest"

[Lento]

"Grim and gritty wobble-fest"

Brilliant! I'm wobbling laughing.

[Nachtigall]

I thought that Petrenko really didn't understand the Elgar idiom at all.

I beg to differ. In any case, is there a fixed "Elgar idiom", some Platonic absolute handed down (presumably) by Boult and Barbirolli and from which conductors deviate at their peril? Petrenko's understanding of Elgar, at which he has clearly and characteristically worked hard, seems to me a perfectly valid one. And what's wrong with a fresh perspective? There were no distortions of interpretation as far as my ears could tell and on the contrary there were some significant insights. (I speak as a member of the Elgar Society of forty years with some fourteen interpretations of the Second Symphony in my CD collection.)

[Petrushka]

I beg to differ. In any case, is there a fixed "Elgar idiom", some Platonic absolute handed down (presumably) by Boult and Barbirolli and from which conductors deviate at their peril? Petrenko's understanding of Elgar, at which he has clearly and characteristically worked hard, seems to me a perfectly valid one. And what's wrong with a fresh perspective? There were no distortions of interpretation as far as my ears could tell and on the contrary there were some significant insights. (I speak as a member of the Elgar Society of forty years with some fourteen interpretations of the Second Symphony in my CD collection.)

There is a danger that some can try to impose their favourite recordings on to a live performance and any deviation renders the live interpretation invalid. I'm not saying that FF is doing this but the danger is there. Then again, perhaps FF just wasn't in the mood for Elgar 2. I can't share the enthusiasm for Mena's Mahler 5 given on the previous night but I was aware that I felt tired and harassed after a long day at work and so didn't make any comment.

[Sir Velo]

It's clear that Petrenko approaches Elgar from a heavily Russian based tradition. Tempi were stodgily reminsicent of an overdone medovik. Of course there were incidental pleasures: the RLPO's opulent sound for one. Essentially, Elgar's music is better than any heavy handed attempts to stifle it, and this as much as any insights of the playing were the reason why some in the hall enjoyed it more than I did.

Basically, Elgar for those who don't like Elgar.

[Alison]

I'm looking forward to returning to VP's performance this evening having only listened on an I pad In a hotel room Thursday.

As it is I am with nachtigall and not entirely certain I would have picked up the Russian slant had I not known who the conductor was.

[Mary Chambers]

I wonder if it was better or worse than the Chinese take on Elgar? I'm no fan of Elgar, so I probably can't really judge.

On the whole I respect and admire Petrenko, but I must admit his Britten centenary concert wasn't very good. It seemed to miss the essence. I presume this always happens to some extent when a country's tradition is taken on by someone from another country. I wonder what an English conductor's take on Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich sounds like to Petrenko?

[Ferretfancy]

There is a danger that some can try to impose their favourite recordings on to a live performance and any deviation renders the live interpretation invalid. I'm not saying that FF is doing this but the danger is there. Then again, perhaps FF just wasn't in the mood for Elgar 2. I can't share the enthusiasm for Mena's Mahler 5 given on the previous night but I was aware that I felt tired and harassed after a long day at work and so didn't make any comment.

I certainly don't think that there is a style of Elgar playing that is set in stone, but there should surely be a care for overall balance, and rhythmic control, not just an undifferentiated surge as we heard. Three trombones blasted away as if they simply weren't listening or perhaps couldn't hear the contributions of their colleagues.

A couple of nights later, with an Elgar sized orchestra including three trombones, we got a beautifully realised performance of Ivor Gurney's War Elegy, which showed that it can be done.

Oh, and I'm usually in the mood for Elgar 2,with about a dozen different performances in my collection including Elgar's own, plus many live performances to remember over the years, so it wasn't a pre-conditioned reaction.

Nice of you to consider that we may both have been tired, but I didn't have to arrive from work.

[Nick Armstrong]

Nota bene: this controversial concert is about to start on BBC4 TV.... Dodgy opening Strauss pieces (imho), a soprano with a dodgy vibrato (imho) in the 4LS... and then the Petrenko Elgar. I shall be absorbed by the latter and wonder with whom above I shall be inclined to agree

[Richard Tarleton]

Tuned in late to avoid La Derham. Shame about 4LS, which was my reason for listening the other day.