Customer Reviews

Elgar: The Sketches for Symphony No. 3

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As far as I can tell from reading the notes of the CD and other sources, Payne's "elaboration" of Elgar's legacy of 3rd symphony sketches involved such unimaginable difficulties as providing a development section for the first movement, composing most of the finale and much of the adagio, as well as a coda for the 2nd movement! For anyone else it might have been justly called arrogant presumption, but not for Payne. His self-confidence in plunging into Elgar's unfinished masterpiece is fully justified by the results. This is every inch an Elgarian work, and it should be and will be treasured for years to come by Elgar enthusiasts.

This recording, furthermore, does justice to the work, and makes a good case for its inclusion among the pantheon of Elgar masterpieces. Paul Daniel's reading is dramatic and convincing, with many subtleties to ponder over on repeated listenings. The Bournemouth orchestra provides a polished, faultless performance, which, nevertheless is never over-polished or routine.

The other reviewers on this page have covered most of the essentials. All I want to add is something sufficiently subjective to open up a different kind of objectivity. No, this isn't Elgar's Third Symphony (and doesn't claim to be); in some deep way it's a meditation on that non-existent work. To me it is a very strong piece, and strong in inimitably Elgarian ways. Regardless of what is Elgar and what is Payne, we are often taken aback by moments or connections that aren't Elgarian in their typicality but--far better--Elgarian in the kind of revelation they bring. And what Payne has done with them is create a finished work that is always gesturing towards its incompleteness, most of all in the strange yet hauntingly effective ending.

And all this is exactly as it should be. In the last two or three years of his life Elgar had felt his muse returning--in part, almost as with Janacek, through his attraction for a young performer. He surely knew how good the new material in the Symphony was. He was working again, and well, and for any artist there is no pleasure that is at all comparable. And then, of course, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Any hope that he had, delusory or not, that his strength would see the work to completion collapsed.

The terrible pathos of Elgar's last months was not that his best work was long behind him. It was that he had once more come to life as the great artist he was, only to watch that life slip away--and with it his Third Symphony. I don't think it's over-interpreting to hear that pathos in Payne's brilliant yet respectful "elaboration." Nor is such duplicity alien to Elgar's other works, which are so often emotionally ambivalent and which also simultaneously celebrate his self-made place in the Western classical tradition and lament that tradition's passing. The sad grandeur of Elgar's best work is woven from this, and the "Elgar Third" now closes his career in splendor, reflection and sadness at once.

It's been more than two years since we had the first recording of the Elgar/Payne Third Symphony, by Andrew Davis and the BBC Symphony on NMC, who premiered it. I will attempt to compare this new recording with that of Davis. This recording is every bit as valid as that one. Payne has made some revisions which may make the work a bit stronger. In this recording, Paul Daniel, a conductor whose renown is growing, conducts a strong, more trenchant performance. Davis's version seems a bit round, soft in comparison. The first movement is more muscular here, yet the second subject is noble, melting. In the second movement, Daniel's approach makes the music seem more symphonic than in Davis's rather light-music approach. The third movement is stark but with occasional heroic and assertive outbursts revealing emotional depths not felt in Davis. Some have complained that in the Davis recording the ending of this movement is anticlimactic, but here its resignation and sadness are poignant. The last movement is, for me, the weakest of the symphony, perhaps because there are borrowings from some of Elgar's earlier music, but Daniel makes a case for it, and in particular the ending is moving. The performance is outstanding, as are the sonics. And then, of course, there is the super-budget price. A worthy addition to Elgar recordings.

This splendid symphony may not be exactly what Elgar had in mind, but I'm certain he would have been proud of it. From the strikingly majestic opening (which Elgar had already orchestrated), there is no doubt that the great composer's creative juices were flowing to the brim once again, a year before his death. The symphony positively abounds with Elgar's unique melodic inventions, and we owe Anthony Payne an enormous debt of gratitude for enabling us to hear them in such a potent context.

Leslie Berber's editorial gives the impression that this is a minor work, but nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth. Repeated listenings have merely confirmed my admiration for Elgar's vision of this work, and Payne's painstaking "elaboration", as the latter has described it. For this is a symphony of considerable vitality with a very wide palette of colours and moods.

The splendidly dramatic opening that I referred to quickly dissolves into one of the most lilting, tender melodies that Elgar ever composed, infinitely touching in its wistfulness. Then there is the exquisite Scherzo, with its Spanish flavour - the perfect balance to the haunting Adagio which follows. The latter is Elgar at his most introspective, with the first theme displaying an inner restlessness and searching quality before finding its resolution in the memorable second theme. The Adagio ends on a stark note, however, and represents the final music that Elgar wrote. The sombre mood is quickly replaced by one of grandeur in the final movement Allegro, arguably the weakest part of the symphony but impressive nonetheless with its old-fashioned themes of chivalry and swagger. It only jars in the sense that it seems more conventional than the first and third movements. My own opinion is that Elgar would have improved the Allegro beyond the indication of the sketches, and it is significant that this was the movement in which Payne had to do the most guesswork. Under the circumstances, he has done extremely well. Faced without a clear indication of how the symphony was supposed to conclude, Payne's musical "question mark" provides the perfect ending to a great journey.

I was thoroughly familiar with the first recording of the symphony, conducted by Andrew Davis. Although a very fine performance, it lacks fire at times, a fault remedied in Paul Daniel's interpretation. The difference is immediately noticeable from the opening chords of the first movement, with Daniel's bold, intensely dramatic delivery. Other notable improvements are the much brisker tempi that Daniel employs in the Scherzo (surely what Elgar had intended, rather than the almost-salon music approach that Davis takes), and a much fierier interpretation of the concluding Allegro. Daniel makes a strong case for the latter, making it a much more cohesive movement than Davis had achieved. I will say, however, that I preferred Davis's interpretation of the Adagio. Slower, more "other-worldly" (to paraphrase Payne) than Daniel's version, I found myself more drawn into Elgar's mysterious inner world than under Daniel's straightforward approach. I would certainly recommend that Elgar aficionados immerse themselves in both versions for sheer contrast.

The sound is a mite warmer under Davis, with Daniel's version brassier and cleaner in its dynamics.

Far from being "Frankenstein musicology", this is a symphony that cries out to be heard, and music lovers everywhere should be grateful that it was Payne, and not a mere musical hack, who undertook the reconstruction of this work. While it is true that with the copyright on Elgar's sketches expiring in 2004, anyone will be free to tinker with this work, it is comforting to know that the Payne version has already established itself as the definitive elaboration.

To carp that this work isn't really Elgar's Third Symphony is completely to miss the point of what Anthony Payne was trying to achieve. He has insisted from the beginning that he was merely trying to provide a framework in which the listener might hear some of the last thoughts of (in my opinion) one of the greatest musical minds of the last 150 years, thoughts that give the lie to the oft-repeated maxim that Elgar was, by the time he had sketched the Third Symphony, "played out" as a composer. However, I believe Payne has achieved something much more than his rather humble protestations would indicate. I have returned to this piece time and again, and, as I do with those works that Elgar did complete, I marvel to discover something new in the music at every hearing. I, for one, am deeply grateful to Mr. Payne for what he has given us, and as far as I'm concerned, the Symphony No. 3 has entered the Elgar canon. As for this performance, it's very fine and a complement to what Andrew Davis achieved in his excellent premiere recording. I wouldn't do without either.

I was somewhat disappointed in this recording, having read the gushingly positive reviews in the press. In short, I disagree with little of what the other (positive) customer reviews here have to say, but I simply prefer the interpretative tone of the Davis disc. In general, I find his approach more subtle, more searching, and more attuned to the bitterseet undercurrent that for me, the best conductors are able to reveal in EE's music. In Davis I hear the language of the Cello Concerto--in Daniel, for me, what I hear (in interpretive tone) is more Crown of India (wonderful fun in its own way). In fairness, Davis might have done better with some more vigor in the outer movements. But Daniel strikes me as trying too hard by half when it comes to Elgarian ebbing and flowing. No complaints about the sonic impact or the coherence of the reading, though. Points to Naxos for getting it done. Maybe Leonard Slatkin will be inspired to put out a version for us now.

I suppose everyone who reads this is familiar with the story behind Elgar's third symphony as realized by Anthony Payne. Suffice to say, it is in no way on the level of the two previous ones, and my final verdict is that it should be listened to more as a curiosity - a fine, more than worthwhile curiosity, but nonetheless not be viewed as a "genuine" part of Elgar's oeuvre. I am not sure it that is entirely Payne's fault (Payne had to compile and compose the recapitulation of the first movement, more or less compose the second half of the adagio, expand and realize the scherzo and again collecting together and write the recapitulation for the fourth - indeed compose most of it).

The symphony opens with a bold, very Elgarian theme that launches the main march theme. It is all very fine and Elgarian for a while, but the development is predictable and in the end the movement is slightly overlong (despite some fine touches). It is still probably the strongest movement of the symphony overall, however. The scherzo starts out excitingly, but again attention flags after a while; the music is again simply not strong enough. The Adagio is more interesting and, for Elgar, rather forward-looking in terms of harmonic shadings and moods. The finale is the most viscerally exciting movement here, even though the swaggering opening theme is pilfered from the composer's own incidental music to King Arthur. Payne had to write the coda from scratch, but it comes across as a decent (but not masterly) culmination of a decently interesting final movement of a frankly second-rate symphony.

The performances are fine and full of character; idiomatic, colorful and dynamic. Daniel is clearly a conductor who understands the composer's idiom, and the Bournemouth orchestra a superb ensemble. Recorded sound is full and balanced as well - indeed, the misgivings I have about the release are in no way due to performances or recorded sound, but purely with the music itself. A worthwhile experience, and a must, I guess, for the Elgar fan or scholar.

This is, admittedly, a reconstruction of what Elgar may have done with the sketches he left for his proposed third symphony. Fortunately, he left some sketches fully orchestrated and quite a bit more in a piano score. When Anthony Payne reconstructed the symphony, he was able to utilize not only the sketches but some written comments by one of Elgar's closest friends. Payne worked long and hard on the score and it is probably as close to what Elgar would have done with the music as is humanly possible. The results are very impressive, quite powerful, and often very moving. The third movement is especially emotional, with a tragic, dramatic quality that suggests that Elgar knew the end of his life and work was drawing to a close. The performance of this wonderful music by Paul Daniels and the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra is outstanding and it is very well recorded by Naxos. One of the nicest things about this particular recording is that it's quite affordable. The third symphony is a welcome addition to the other very fine orchestral works that Elgar composed (and even recorded) during his very long life.

Having just reviewed the NMC disc which was the first recording of this "elaboration" of Elgar's sketches by Anthony Payne I wanted to hear this bargain Naxos version for purposes of comparison. I have to say that they are not so very different; timings are virtually identical (except in the Scherzo, where Daniel is considerably zippier) but differences there are which sway me slightly in favour of the first account.

First, it seems to me that in the first movement Paul Daniel does not quite secure the surging grandeur that Davis achieves. Daniel takes a nervier, more fluid tack and doesn't quite nail the big moments as Davis does. I prefer, too, Davis's more hesitant, mysterious approach to the fluttering Spanish-fan figure in the Scherzo, although it is true that this slightly repetitive movement could be said to outstay its welcome when taken more leisurely. Again, in the Adagio solenne, Davis brings greater weight and melancholy to the noble, opening theme and achieves a more poignant effect than Daniel, who is a bit perfunctory, in the gentle, pulsing passage beginning around four minutes in with its singing violas, sighing harps, and a plaintive solo clarinet. Both are tender in the concluding fade-out. In the final movement, Davis's restraint exposes its structural weaknesses more than Daniel's propulsion. It could be argued that Daniel has the more unified, symphonic overview and his brisker, tauter phrasing holds the music together better than Davis's more relaxed and affectionate manner.

I could imagine this music played with more luscious tone than either orchestra in question generates but it is noticeable that the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra is the more deficient in warmth in the strings, which are at times a little thin and edgy. However, like the greater prominence given to the tambourine by the Naxos engineers. Anyone who has this Naxos version need not rush to exchange it for any other and anyone who wants to hear how successfully Payne has rescued some wonderful music will not be disappointed. If you buy it on Amazon marketplace it can be had virtually for the cost of the postage. It is a coherent, worthy and very satisfying account.

Lame. Oh sure, the first movement is a most welcome addition to Elgar's catalogue, it's a strongly argued piece of music, with a great "hook". The rest unfortunately shows Mr. Elgar at his worst. Boring, overlong, discursive, without interesting melodies or rhythms. The recording by Naxos and Paul Daniels is fine, but outside of historical pursuance, and the admittedly wonderful first allegro, it's not a symphony to return to again and again (and I've tried!).