Which is your favorite symphony?
mtmailey
Definitely the Second Symphony. I fell in love with it upon first hearing (and the optional organ at the end is an added wonder).
I can't say I love any of the Elgar symphonies, but I do quite enjoy the second- third very close behind. First... really not a symphony for me, it bores me every time I listen.
I would pick neither. It pains me to say but the composer whose cello concerto and violin concerto I love, does not do a thing for me with his symphonies. In one ear, out the other. Pleasant, but no more than that. I much prefer the symphonies of Parry, Stanford and Vaughan Williams.
Radio music commentator ("The Record Shelf"), critic, and author Jim Svejda once confessed that his favorite symphony was Elgar's Second. In the Sixth Revised Edition of his book The Insider's Guide to Classical Recordings (1999), Svejda called Elgar's E-flat Major Symphony "one of the absolute summits of late-Romantic symphonic thought." He goes on to recommend Sir John Barbirolli's early 1960s recordings of both symphonies and the NAXOS recordings by George Hurst leading the BBC Philharmonic.
My own favorite symphony I tend to cite as Howard Hanson's Second, the "Romantic". I've never been as great a fan of the Elgar Symphonies, of which I've tended to favor Number 1, perhaps because of the opening theme, but a pair of discs from Daniel Barenboim leading the Staatskapelle Berlin convince me that these are indeed great symphonies.
![]()
![Image]()
Oddly enough, though for some years now I've had a BBC Music Magazine disc of Elgar's "Sketches from Symphony No. 3" (a symphony Elgar never finished) in my collection, I do not recall ever listening to it. The Radio 3 broadcast recorded on the disc features the BBC Philharmonic led by Yan Pascal Tortelier. I'm looking at that disc right now and thinking I should finally give it a listen.
My own favorite symphony I tend to cite as Howard Hanson's Second, the "Romantic". I've never been as great a fan of the Elgar Symphonies, of which I've tended to favor Number 1, perhaps because of the opening theme, but a pair of discs from Daniel Barenboim leading the Staatskapelle Berlin convince me that these are indeed great symphonies.
Oddly enough, though for some years now I've had a BBC Music Magazine disc of Elgar's "Sketches from Symphony No. 3" (a symphony Elgar never finished) in my collection, I do not recall ever listening to it. The Radio 3 broadcast recorded on the disc features the BBC Philharmonic led by Yan Pascal Tortelier. I'm looking at that disc right now and thinking I should finally give it a listen.
My favourite is No.1
Had the pleasure of hearing it conducted by Vernon Handley many years ago in Leeds, wonderful performance by a committed Elgarian
Had the pleasure of hearing it conducted by Vernon Handley many years ago in Leeds, wonderful performance by a committed Elgarian
At present, Symphony No.1 is the one which leaps to mind when I think of Elgar's Symphonies.
Elgar's Symphonies were growers for me, but I do enjoy them - the First most of all at present. That said I really ought to revisit the others. I relistened to the First as a result of this thread.
What strikes me with the First is that it has what I would say is the Elgar sound in spades. The piece is an excellent cohesive whole. The Adagio in particular stands out for my tastes.
The problem with the Elgar's Symphonies is that they are outshone by his Choral Works and other Orchestral works either by number of performances or because of performer-bolstered credibility (Du Pre reinvigorating the Cello Concerto with a remarkable interpretation for example). Barenboim seems to have drawn some positive reactions to the Symphonies with his recent recordings however. I need to hear these, presently I return to Adrian Boult or on occasion Andrew Davis.
I wouldn't comment on quality as that is a very subjective area based on your own preferences. They aren't my favourite Symphonies from a British Composer (stiff competition from Arnold, Bax, Rubbra, Parry, Stanford, Vaughan Williams, Cooke, Brian, Simpson et al.) but I do enjoy the First Symphony of I may repeat myself.
Elgar's Symphonies were growers for me, but I do enjoy them - the First most of all at present. That said I really ought to revisit the others. I relistened to the First as a result of this thread.
What strikes me with the First is that it has what I would say is the Elgar sound in spades. The piece is an excellent cohesive whole. The Adagio in particular stands out for my tastes.
The problem with the Elgar's Symphonies is that they are outshone by his Choral Works and other Orchestral works either by number of performances or because of performer-bolstered credibility (Du Pre reinvigorating the Cello Concerto with a remarkable interpretation for example). Barenboim seems to have drawn some positive reactions to the Symphonies with his recent recordings however. I need to hear these, presently I return to Adrian Boult or on occasion Andrew Davis.
I wouldn't comment on quality as that is a very subjective area based on your own preferences. They aren't my favourite Symphonies from a British Composer (stiff competition from Arnold, Bax, Rubbra, Parry, Stanford, Vaughan Williams, Cooke, Brian, Simpson et al.) but I do enjoy the First Symphony of I may repeat myself.
Elgar is a composer who took time to click in my brain, but once it did -- holy moly, what great stuff this is. The 2nd is by far my favorite. Intense, lyrical, magical, spooky, and at times quite touching, even sad. The ending of the last movement brings tears to the eyes. Elgar requires you to listen - this is not background music. The extraordinary orchestral writing dazzles the ear. Sadly, in the US, the symphonies rarely are played in concert, which is odd given the popularity of Mahler. As much as I love the two finished symphonies, I've never had the privilege of playing either, but I have played the 3rd. Wonderful piece, but it's not Elgar. Elgar has also been quite lucky as far as recordings go. I have some two dozen sets of his 2 symphonies and there's not a bad one out there. Some are more intense, some more lyrical. But they're all valid and good. Although if I had to choose one set, Jeffry Tate on EMI gets my vote.
I love both completed Elgar symphonies , and I can't choose between the two.I've only heard the completion of the 3rd once or twice , so I'm not sure about it . Definitely interesting, but it's impossible to know what it would had been like if Elgar had actually finished it . The same is true of the Mahler 10th, but I know it much better than the Elgar 3rd .
Not a massive Elgar fan but the 2nd is the best for me. Time for an Elgar re-appraisal, methinks.
The 1st is the favorite, but I've grown to appreciate the other two. I consider him a modern composer, not a post-romantic dinasuar like some of his critics do, in the psychological truths and depths that I find in his works.
To me there one word for Elgar - romantic! So what if he was out of kilter with the music of his time? We now have the music.
I've listened to the 3rd a lot recently. Anthony Payne did a great job bringing all those scraps together. The only part I'm not happy with is the ending which is too downbeat and flimsy. Elgar was good at endings and at the close of this long symphony I'm sure he would have found a firmer resolution.
I cannot make any distinction between my love of each of Elgar's completed symphonies - they are both masterpieces.
As for performances? I am fortunate. I have heard performances of Elgar's works by all of his four disciples - Malcolm Sargent, Adrian Boult, John Barbirolli and Yehudi Menuhin. Of the symphonies - live performances by Sargent, Boult and Barbirolli and recordings by Menuhin.
The performance that stands out - Sargent, of 2, on 1 September 1965, at a Prom. (The date is easy to remember - it was a celebration of Sargent's 70th birthday at which the Cello Concerto was played by Jacqueline Du Pre). I also heard 1 played at Barbirolli's last London concert.
As for 3? As others have said - the ending is not, well, quite Elgarian.
I wish people would not characterise Edward Elgar as a nationalist, writing tub-thumping, imperial glorification. This view is based on a single piece - which Elgar called Pomp and Circumstance March No 1. This was hijacked by others, and the words and sentiment they came to express did not reflect Elgar's own intention. He was later pressurised into composing the Coronation Ode.
World War 1 caused Elgar much pain - it was in Germany that he had received much recognition - and his closest friend, Jaeger (Nimrod) had been German.
What is most remarkable about Elgar was that he was entirely self-taught, He attended no college or conservatoire. He learned his craft by studying the scores from the great German/Austrian symphonic tradition and by playing in the violin sections of local orchestras.
As for performances? I am fortunate. I have heard performances of Elgar's works by all of his four disciples - Malcolm Sargent, Adrian Boult, John Barbirolli and Yehudi Menuhin. Of the symphonies - live performances by Sargent, Boult and Barbirolli and recordings by Menuhin.
The performance that stands out - Sargent, of 2, on 1 September 1965, at a Prom. (The date is easy to remember - it was a celebration of Sargent's 70th birthday at which the Cello Concerto was played by Jacqueline Du Pre). I also heard 1 played at Barbirolli's last London concert.
As for 3? As others have said - the ending is not, well, quite Elgarian.
I wish people would not characterise Edward Elgar as a nationalist, writing tub-thumping, imperial glorification. This view is based on a single piece - which Elgar called Pomp and Circumstance March No 1. This was hijacked by others, and the words and sentiment they came to express did not reflect Elgar's own intention. He was later pressurised into composing the Coronation Ode.
World War 1 caused Elgar much pain - it was in Germany that he had received much recognition - and his closest friend, Jaeger (Nimrod) had been German.
What is most remarkable about Elgar was that he was entirely self-taught, He attended no college or conservatoire. He learned his craft by studying the scores from the great German/Austrian symphonic tradition and by playing in the violin sections of local orchestras.
Malcolm Sargent, Adrian Boult, John Barbirolli and Yehudi Menuhin? Boy, you really know how to make me jealous!!!! Of course, I was just a kid when the first three died and lived clear across the world, but I did see Menuhin live doing Schubert and Beethoven. But Elgar with those first three! The Sargent I think was recorded and released on a BBC disk several years ago. When it comes to the 2nd symphony, Boult and Barbirolli are my favorite guides, along with seriously the underrated Handley and Tate versions.
I have this recording
![Image]()
Jeffrey Tate and the LSO. These symphonies I find rather boring. I want to like Elgar's symphonies as I like a lot of his other music, especially the two concerti. However, I just find the two symphonies rather uninspiring. I haven't listened to them in quite a long time, perhaps it's time for me to revisit them. Is it me or is it my recording? What recordings do you like? What other conductors and orchestras should I seek out? Any recommendations?
Jeffrey Tate and the LSO. These symphonies I find rather boring. I want to like Elgar's symphonies as I like a lot of his other music, especially the two concerti. However, I just find the two symphonies rather uninspiring. I haven't listened to them in quite a long time, perhaps it's time for me to revisit them. Is it me or is it my recording? What recordings do you like? What other conductors and orchestras should I seek out? Any recommendations?
I disagree, as there are scholars that have articulated definable differences (or characteristics) between early and late Romanticism (such as in their comparisons between Schumann & Brahms lieder, for example). Plus, the 'period' instruments used in the early Romantic era can differ in sound and performance expectations, by quite a bit, from those used in the late Romantic era (so composers heard their music somewhat differently, which had to have had some effect on how they composed it, due to their expectations for how it would sound in performance).
However, that's not really my issue with Elgar's Symphonies. I wouldn't go as far as to call his symphonies romantically charged Edwardian 'schmaltz' or infused with a sentimental naivete that is foreign to today's world (even though there is some of that within these works), but like senza sordino, I don't think the symphonies are among Elgar's most inspired works. At least not to the same degree as "The Dream of Gerontius":
, "Enigma Variations", "Sospiri", Cello Concerto, "The Music Makers", etc..; although, yes, I wouldn't disagree that there are some beautiful passages & movements within the symphonies (such as the 3rd movement of the 1st Symphony:
).
As for recordings, interestingly, when EMI first asked Bernard Haitink to record Elgar's two symphonies, he declined, saying he didn't see any point in recording them, with Sir Adrian Boult's London Philharmonic EMI recordings in the catalogue. He didn't think he could do better than Boult. While EMI eventually prevailed over Haitink, I think he made a good point.
Nevertheless, Haitink's Philharmonia recording of Symphony no. 2 has received strong praise from the critics:
However, for pre-WW2 British composers, Sir Adrian Boult is my conductor of choice, followed closely by Barbirolli, Beecham, Sargent, Groves, Del Mar, Marriner, and Elgar himself (when available)--on the 1st tier, and then on the (very good) 2nd tier, Handley, Thomson, Hickox, and Haitink (and maybe Davis & Previn).
My two cents.
However, that's not really my issue with Elgar's Symphonies. I wouldn't go as far as to call his symphonies romantically charged Edwardian 'schmaltz' or infused with a sentimental naivete that is foreign to today's world (even though there is some of that within these works), but like senza sordino, I don't think the symphonies are among Elgar's most inspired works. At least not to the same degree as "The Dream of Gerontius":
As for recordings, interestingly, when EMI first asked Bernard Haitink to record Elgar's two symphonies, he declined, saying he didn't see any point in recording them, with Sir Adrian Boult's London Philharmonic EMI recordings in the catalogue. He didn't think he could do better than Boult. While EMI eventually prevailed over Haitink, I think he made a good point.
Nevertheless, Haitink's Philharmonia recording of Symphony no. 2 has received strong praise from the critics:
However, for pre-WW2 British composers, Sir Adrian Boult is my conductor of choice, followed closely by Barbirolli, Beecham, Sargent, Groves, Del Mar, Marriner, and Elgar himself (when available)--on the 1st tier, and then on the (very good) 2nd tier, Handley, Thomson, Hickox, and Haitink (and maybe Davis & Previn).
My two cents.
This weekend I have finally heard the Elgar 2nd performed live. Took long enough: the symphonies just aren't that well-known or popular in the US. Hearing it live was just stupendous - no recording, however good, can convey the sheer power the music exerts. The percussion in the scherzo was terrifying. The closing page heartbreakingly beautiful. But to be sure, the orchestration is so complex and detailed that recordings can let you hear things lost in live performance. This was the Tucson Symphony by the way, and they played like they were possessed. James Judd the conductor. I've heard the 1st a couple of times, and I've played the so-called 3rd. But the 2nd is one of my absolute favorite symphonies ever written. I will never understand musical tastes of people. I'd like to think that what with Mahler being so popular that the Elgar symphonies, especially the 2nd, would be right up there alongside. It's a profound, dark, moving work. So many fine recordings: Boult, Barbirolli, Handley, Menuhin, Tate, Solti, Elder, Downes, Barenboim, Sargent...it seems that anyone willing to record it has comes to terms with it and turns in a solid performance. I even like the new Gardner recording, although some critics call it Elgar-lite.
I guess 2 is a more successful work than 1 - it goes further and it goes deeper - but if you don't really warm to Elgar's music it could seem like purgatory.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
