Elgar Violin Concerto: Graffin/Handley

Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 17 November 2007

Herewith is a review I posted on Amazon earlier:

A friend has loaned me this new performance of the Elgar Concerto for Violin and Orchestra. I have over the years enjoyed the famous Menuhin set with the composer conducting the LSO in 1932, the later Menuhin recording with Boult, the Nigel Kennedy recording with Handley, and most recently the best of all in my view till now Albert Sammons and with the New Queen's Hall Orchestra under Henry Wood recorded by Columbia in 1929.

This new recording has the considerable advantage of having Handley leading the orchestra in a most attentive accompaniment. It is as fleet as Elgar's own performance, and completely avoids the bombast that is possible if the tempi are too slow, and the playing loudly caught in the recording. Handley knows how to propel Elgar's music without ever rushing it. So the soloist has his chance! And does he take it! Emphatically this is the most sympathetic reading I have come across. The concerto is both demanding technically and yet gentle in its ways. It is no good being strained by the challenges or it can come across as a sort virtuoso stunt.

The floating of the initial solo entry [in the first movement] gives the clue. From a wonderfully animated orchestral tutti emerges an enthralling thread of violinistic purity! But when the fireworks start and also in the Finale, there is no doubt of the technical quality of the playing, but this must be accompanied by a flexibility of phrase and tone that is quick-silver. Graffin so utter penetrates the heart of this music that it is hard to find criticism of it.

The heart of this concert resides in the slow movement though the Cadenza in the Finale is magical in a different way. The slow movement seems to me to represent the kind of blissful state of finding one's self laying down on one's back in the warm summer sunshine, with eh sun's rays playing on closed eyelids. This performance manages this warmth and relaxation and seeming transitory stasis. The orchestra sways gently into life at what is actually a quite quick basic pulse, though the pulse is indeed gently stated. There is a multitude of detail that is perfectly brought out, which only adds to the feeling of relaxed exultation.

The Finale starts with an imperious flourish in the solo part, which always strikes me as being difficult to bring off. Here it provides a sort energetic call to arms with Graffin! Nothing skimped or rushed, but certainly the tempo never flags. The sadness of nostalgia hinting at the essentially lovelorn themes of the First Movement and hints of the rest are so naturally captured that the Cadenza become what it should be in the concept - a true summation and emotional climax - and this is wonderfully rounded out in the Coda where Handley judgement of architecture and emotional clinch has prepared the ground for the perfectly judged tempo increase at the transition to the fleet music of the Coda. It rounds out utterly compellingly.

In my view Graffin is at least the equal of my two favourite soloists of the past, Alfredo Campoli and Albert Sammons, and has a similar ability to smile musically the young Menuhin found in his recording with Elgar. I am so pleased to find a really grand modern recording of this.

Unquote.

I hope you will forgive this burst of enthusiasm. I will not gloss it here, but post a link to the place. It is the first ever review I have written.

Link.

Good night from George
Posted on: 04 December 2007 by Unstoppable
What a shame my favorite violinist, Joseph Szigeti, never recorded this piece. One of the great wonders of the violin repertoire.

Szigeti made numerous recordings of the far more boring Beethoven concerto, which to me is nothing but a endless stream of scales intertwined with very repetitive orchestral part. Beethoven, a little overrated, in my opinion. Wrote sublimely for the piano and orchestra only, the sole exceptions being the string quartets, which are probably more orchestral in conception anyway.


Anyway, getting back to Elgar. The Concerto is the equal of the Brahms or Mendelssohn. Elgars sun didn't really shine until the 1980's and the great romantic revival. By then a lot of the greats of the violin had passed on.

Nice piece, George, on the recording, which I will keep an eye out for.


US
Posted on: 04 December 2007 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Unstoppable:
back to Elgar. The Concerto is the equal of the Brahms

Touching enthusiasm for what is undoubtedly a great, and long underrated and underplayed concerto, but, like most concerti, it falls quite a long way short of the scope, depth, originality, economy of expression, and musical/emotional integrity of the Brahms Violin Concerto. Such efforts are usually futile beyond a certain level of quality, but you could make a strong case for the Brahms D major as the finest concerto ever written.

The Elgar is a beautifully written and often very touching late romantic work, with an honesty and "lived-in" feel that stir a particular feeling of "the love that's lost" - in my case, that being all of them! It comes dangerously close to mawkishness at times (e.g. the 1st movement "Windflower" theme) and the fantasia and pomp of the opening of the finale are a matter of taste; I imagine it doesn't travel well, although I've always rather liked it. The jewels in the crown are the sublime 2nd movement and the accompanied cadenza at the end of the finale - a masterstroke.

So a good, even great concerto, but not quite in the premier league with the Brahms, Beethoven, and Bartok No 2.

EW
Posted on: 05 December 2007 by Oldnslow
Yeah, that Beethoven cat is really overrated when compared to Elgar.....at least in East Anglia
Posted on: 05 December 2007 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Oldnslow:
that Beethoven cat is really overrated when compared to Elgar

Meeaw!
Posted on: 05 December 2007 by Unstoppable
quote:
Originally posted by Oldnslow:
Yeah, that Beethoven cat is really overrated when compared to Elgar.....at least in East Anglia



You didn't read my post now did you, old salt.

(edit)
Anyways, I stand by my statement, that the Beethoven concerto is a dull piece. I don't care what the critics say or if it's a cornerstone of the repertoire, or if the mathematicians say it's 'brilliantly' constructed. From this listeners point of view, if something is rubbish then I don't concern myself with consensus, in music or any other topic.



Your Humble Servant

US
Posted on: 05 December 2007 by Unstoppable
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:

The Elgar is a beautifully written and often very touching late romantic work, with an honesty and "lived-in" feel that stir a particular feeling of "the love that's lost" - in my case, that being all of them! It comes dangerously close to mawkishness at times (e.g. the 1st movement "Windflower" theme) and the fantasia and pomp of the opening of the finale are a matter of taste; I imagine it doesn't travel well, although I've always rather liked it. The jewels in the crown are the sublime 2nd movement and the accompanied cadenza at the end of the finale - a masterstroke.

So a good, even great concerto, but not quite in the premier league with the Brahms and Bartok No 2.

EW



Yeah.. I guess I'd agree with you. One of the reasons maybe I like the Elgar piece is in some ways that despite it's many flaws, it is ambitious, it aims for greatness while not always achieving it. Despite some dull patches, I think it's sum is greater than its parts.

By the way, in reference to the Brahms, I'd like to see his Double Concerto become a cornerstone of the concert hall but for practical reasons I guess that this is not very likely.



US
Posted on: 05 December 2007 by Earwicker
I don't think the Elgar is necessarily flawed, it's in most respects a very accomplished composition. I think its slight anachronism doesn't help, and being highly personal whilst at the same time remaining universal in appeal and expression is a hard trick to pull off. Beethoven was the master at that! (And most other things besides.)

I don't know why the Brahms Double isn't played more often, unless people just don't want to shell out the money for two soloists. Mind you, with the fees some people demand these days I'm not surprised! A nice one to programme if the concert master and principal cellist know the piece.

EW
Posted on: 05 December 2007 by Unstoppable
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
I think its slight anachronism doesn't help, and being highly personal whilst at the same time remaining universal in appeal and expression is a hard trick to pull off. Beethoven was the master at that! (And most other things besides.)


Frankly, I'm a little surprised at this. The notion that Elgar doesn't 'travel well' is, I think, in itself an anachronism. He used to be viewed as this old, stuffy, Victorian character, too English for his own good. I can assure you the music has its followers here, at least.


I can remember a concert in Seattle by a young American conductor who gave a searing performance of the second symphony, the audience response was extremely enthusiastic, more so than I would have thought. Anyways, the conductor held the score aloft amid the din to pay tribute, I assume. I think this whole notion of 'universality' of music is highly subjective, if the music connects with me I have no concern about its reaction among concert goers in general.

Probably what did it as far Elgars popularity in the US, as far as the concerto is concerned, was Nigel Kennedy's ground breaking recording for EMI in the 80's. Since then, I think Elgar has been viewed as more or less a heavy hitter though obviously not on a level of Beethoven or Brahms.

As far as the Elgar piece being flawed, I'm not a musician but wouldn't the mawkishness and sentimentality you describe be flaws ? Or are you thinking compositionally ? Again, I ain't mathematical so I wouldn't know.


Regards


US
Posted on: 05 December 2007 by u5227470736789439
The antidote to the undoubted risk of mawkishness in Elgar's mauic is a performance that avoids it! The Graffin recording [topic of thread] avoids it entirely!

ATB from George

As did the recordings of Sammomns [1929 on Englaish Columbia currently and totally reasonably out on Pearl and Naxos] and Compoli's 1954 recording on Decca [currently on Beulah], both of which are a powerful correctives to many many modern performances, which are too laboured and slow, falling into both mawkishness and bombast. Simply a question of reading into the music what was intended by the composer ...

PS: It is possible to be too dry in Bach performance as well!