Skip to main content

Edward Elgar: Symphony #2

Anyone who made it to their high school graduation will instantly recognize Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March #1, which features possibly one of the most memorable classical music melodies of the 20th century.

But I wouldn't bother making today's recording, Elgar's Symphony #2, a building block of your classical music collection.

**********************
Sir Adrian Boult and the London Philharmonic Orchestra
Edward Elgar (1857-1934)
Symphony #2 (1911)
EMI Classics, 1991 (0riginal recording 1976)
**********************
The symphony seemed both shapeless and plotless to me, even after two close listens. That would be fine if the music were in any way arresting or beautiful (see Debussy or Vaughan Williams, both of whom composed shapeless, plotless beautiful music), but I found I had zero emotional involvement in this symphony throughout.

In fact, if anybody would like my copy of this CD, just shoot me a quick email with your snail-mail address (see my profile for my email) and I'll be happy to mail it to you. First caller wins.

One quick listener note: I'm not one to pick apart mistakes in a recording, but I can't help noticing them. If you listen very carefully at the 7:50 mark in track #3 (the second movement) of this recording you'll hear the oboe player badly miss a couple of notes. Ouch.

Labels:

Comments

Chip Michael said…
As a trombone player, I performed this piece (in one form or another) for 6 years - after having heard it at least a half dozen times before that. When it came time to graduate I cringed when the music began - which is unfortunately, because it really is a lovely piece.

Many years later I heard yet another version of it, but this time in a concert (when I didn't realise I was going to hear Pomp and Circumstance - but thought I was hearing something from Elgar - opps, same thing!). Anyway, the music was lovely and really changed my impression of it.

However, that said, would I purchase a recording of it - even a flawless one? No, not likely. Sorry, Mr Elgar, no disrespect. It's just a bit overdone in the US.
April 21, 2008 at 6:49 AM
Daniel said…
Chip:
I hear you... in fact if I recall correctly the trombone parts in Pomp and Circumstance pretty much suck. Just like the trumpet parts... :)

But the brass parts in Symphony #2 sound like they'd be even LESS fun to play--maybe with the exception of the ripping high B trumpet note in the final movement.

Thanks for reading!

DK
April 21, 2008 at 7:24 AM
Anonymous said…
Yeah, the trombone part for Pomp sucks. I mean, between the repetivity and the boring rhythm, it kills imagination.
June 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does Bach Suck?

It's not often that you see a classical music-related comment that makes you spit out your coffee : "Bach sucks because he was not a true composer. A true composer hears the music before he writes it. Bach composed using a mathematical system of numbers which he tought[sic] his students. After his death one of his students published a book “How to write a menuet[sic] with little or no musical knowledge”. Frankly, the result of his work is not musical, the opening bars always sound musical because he copied someone else’s melody, broke it down into numbers and wrote counterpoint from it. Handel did not even like Bach, because Handel wrote music. Anyone who does like Bach does so because they are told to. For a comparison, listen to music by Frescobaldi, Rameau, or Couperin, then listen to Bach. The difference? Something that is musical throughout the entire piece, and something that is musical for 10 seconds and quickly loses interest." Once I'd finished mopping the co
15 comments
Read more

Why Classical Music Writing is So Difficult to Read

Have you ever read the liner notes of a classical music CD and scratched your head wondering what the heck the writer was trying to say? Or attempted to read a classical music concert review in your newspaper and felt totally illiterate? One of the things that frustrates many people about classical music is its perceived elitism. It's unfortunate, but most of what gets written about classical music only worsens that perception. Most of the classical music writing I see out there--either in symphony concert program books, in concert reviews in major papers like the New York Times, or worst of all in the little essays in the booklets accompanying most classical music CDs--is quite simply terrible. Often, it is pretentiously written, it is full of industry jargon (yes, even the classical music industry has its own jargon), and it reads like an intellectually insecure liberal arts student's PhD thesis. There are a few reasons for this. First, there's the fundamental difficulty
8 comments
Read more

Schubert: Symphony #3

I have a confession to make. Today's CD is not only further proof of my need to start this blog, but it is perhaps the most embarrassing example of how mindless and uncontemplative my life had become over the past several years. This CD sat on my shelf with more than a hundred other CDs for years, unlistened to, unnoticed, and collecting dust. It was just like all the rest of my CDs, except, uh, in one key respect: It was still in its cellophane wrapper. I had been so out of touch with myself that I bought CDs that I forgot I bought. I must have wanted to listen to this CD at some point, but apparently in the time between buying the CD and putting it on the shelf, I got distracted. For ten years. That is a prime, and admittedly foolish-sounding, example of why I'm taking a break from my career, and why I started this blog. I guess I didn't want to wake up in another ten years and hear myself making excuses for myself like "I work too hard and make too much money to
4 comments
Read more