Woke up to find my name and Elgar's splashed all over the business section of today's Indy. Stephen King argues that poor old Edu should never have been on the £20 note at all and represents 'a peculiar celebration of mediocrity'. I got very excited for a second, thinking a world-famous thriller writer was reading my work; but no, this Stephen King is head of economics for HSBC. He says that Elgar would never have got onto a banknote at all if Mozart, Beethoven or Bach had been British. He accuses all British composers of being second-rate, with the exception of Lennon & McCartney.
He's right in that we've had a handful of worthwhile composers, but never anybody to touch the top-notch greats (I still think Elgar's concertos are top-notch, but I take his point). The question is: if Elgar's mediocre but the best we have (King doesn't appear to mention Britten, let alone Orlando Gibbons), why should that be? I've been thinking this over for the last three hours and have a number of ideas on the subject, but after drafting a lengthy post at least five times I reckon they require a book, not a blog, and would upset an awful lot of probably blameless people. Come on, folks: your ideas, please!
By the way, I wouldn't dream of trying to write about economics, though I deeply regret having missed director Adam Curtis's new series The Trap so far.
UPDATE, 5pm: Blimey, guv'nor, my Elgar story has made it to Italy - Operachic found it in Milan's Corriere della Sera... Mille grazie, amica! [sorry, my Italian is hopeless...]
14 comments:
I must say I'm rather confused about King's stance on Elgar. Firstly, his statement, "..his appearance represents a peculiar celebration of mediocrity", is far too harsh. How can he then go on to say, "...wrote a bit of decent chamber music..., Cello Concerto still tugs at the heartstrings. The Enigma Variations are played, but only remembered for Nimrod. Choirs... still belt out the occasional rendition of the Dream of Gerontius. ...Indulge in a bit of Pomp and Circumstance."
Surely all those statements mean a composer has been successful.
People are enjoying the music.
The fact that Elgar's music is recognised world wide surely makes it world class.
I feel there is a touch of the 'typically British' approach of not recognising home grown talent for what it is worth.
Why do we do that? We should be proud of the music that Elgar composed.
Maybe if it was made easier for composers to get their music performed, then we would be able to widen the net even further.
Rant over...except to say, I did agree with him on Lennon and McCartney.
Mr King's remarks are far too sweeping and flippant. Only Nimrod is still remembered of the Enigma Variations? He should take time off from putting up bank charges and look at the CD catalogue. "Belting out" Gerontius, that lovely, deeply moving work? Mr King can't know the Sargent
version with Heddle Nash - or can't appreciate it. He seems to consider that being modern and revolutionary are the criteria for greatness, which would make Boulez too greater than Elgar. I hold no brief for that sort of logic.
P.S. I brook no brief for Lennon and McCartney either: they produced a few very good songs and plenty of trash ('she loves yer, yeah! yeah! yeah!')and I have no wish to appear trendy, forty years after the fact, by claiming that two lads, who by their own confession, could neither read or write music, were "the greatest since Schubert".
King does have a point and it's something that has long intrigued me. It's certainly true that British music was equal to anywhere until the arrival of Handel (coincidence?). Since then it's sad and bewildering that our Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven is perhaps Crotch or our outstanding Romantics are Sullivan or Sterndale-Bennett.
A couple of hypotheses. Anything to do with the power the Anglican Church had in music and/or the slavish adherence to German models of composition?
Have to say that I agree with him on Lennon/McCartney versus Elgar. Regardless of any toe-to-toe comparison of their artistic merits, if you have to put your finger on the most notable musical minds to come out of England, is there any question that The Beatles are it?
I wonder if it has to do with the British habit of assimilation. Our language, for example, is a wonderful hodge-podge of different root languages. Maybe previous generations were perfectly content with importing the latest and greatest performers and composers from Europe and didn't see a problem with that.
I am an American music-lover, and I certainly have never believed Elgar to be a mediocrity.
Elgar's music possesses its own unique sound, it exhibits a wide range of expression, and it demonstrates great mastery of form.
Those are the three criteria of a master composer, and Elgar surmounts all three hurdles easily.
Whether Elgar or Adam Smith should be on Britain's currency is not a matter of great concern to foreigners like me.
However, to describe Elgar as a "mediocrity" is neither a fair nor an accurate statement. His music may not be to all tastes, but he was an extraordinary musician, and probably Britain's greatest native composer.
We have all succumbed to the fallacy of the straw man. Stephen King, to no purpose other than to show off before he makes a weak segue into Adam Smith, makes a half-hearted nod toward Enigma and the cello concerto, makes a couple of passing disparaging comments about the symphonies and Gerontius (all oblivious of the piano quintet, violin sonata, violin concerto, Froissart, Falstaff, Serenade, etc.), calls Elgar mediocre, and here we all are discussing just how mediocre he is compared with everyone else.
Aidan Thomson in the Cambridge Companion to Elgar makes it very clear that Elgar was regarded in Germany as a hugely important and progressive composer -- until the First World War, at which point Beethoven's popularity in England similarly declined. Hans Richter was his great champion. Monteux and Toscanini did not think him mediocre, now did they.
But here's the thing. In a ten-minute period of googling this morning I came across recent performances of Gerontius in Munich, the first symphony in Vienna, the second in Zurich, the Cello Concerto in New York. Mr. King, meanwhile, continues the British tradition of disparaging/dismissing/ignoring native musical progeny. I think it is quite meaningless. I don't organize my music collection by greatness of composer. I'm just very grateful Elgar is in there when I need him.
As an American who fell in love with Elgar's music as a kid years ago, I believe that Mr. King is trying to "push our buttons" in making these comments about a composer who is as well-loved (in both England and the rest of the world) as Elgar. There is something about his music that wraps around my heart, even in the lesser, flawed works, in a way that "greater" composers like Beethoven often fail to do, and I can say without a doubt that he is my favorite composer. By the way, the amateur orchestra in which I play clarinet (in Kentucky) will be performing Cockaigne tonight, a work previously unknown to most of my fellow players. They all love it!
Great comments, folks! Actually the whole silly fuss could have been avoided if only we had the Euro, as we ought to in the 21st century. On the 50th anniversary of the EU, here's a nice little list from The Indy which should make Eurosceptics hopping mad! : What has the EU ever done for us? Apart from...
Apart from the cello concerto (which only sounds great with JDP playing it) I agree absolutely with Stephen King; it seems to be all fairly slushy stuff. Most of our 20th century music is about 50 years behind continental European's music; that has certainly been the case up to the second World War. And even after that - did we have a Stockhausen, or a Boulez? But perhaps this reflects life at the time - where England was a relatively happy land, whereas things were far from good in Europe, and composers reflected that in their music? Take Stravinsky, take Kurt Weill (not necessarily the greatest) and other composers who challenged the way life was unravelling?
And don't forget Purcell--surely one of the most original composers from any country (and any era) and among the greatest!
And I have to add that I think Enigma Variations is a masterpiece. Love that music. No one who could produce that should ever be thought of as mediocre. It's not Elgar's fault that Hollywood only likes Nimrod.
I don't take his point at all. Elgar was a great composer: if Stephen King doesn't know that, he doesn't know it.
He is merely striking attitudes and quoting received opinions.
A couple of interesting points: last year, our provincial (Ontario, Canada) public television station had a show on "who is the best classical composer". They had four luminaries of the local music scene (orchestra conductors, choir directors, opera people, etc.) advocating for their favourites. The names represented were Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, and... Elgar. Interesting stuff, though the Elgar fan was roundly criticized by the others. I was fascinated to see Elgar even represented.
I also got into Elgar (via the Enigma Variations) as a teenager. As a Canadian, he has always sounded "quintessentially British" to me (by extension, somewhat Canadian too). Purcell and Handel may have been the last great British composers before Elgar but I think he wins in the "Britishness" category.
Post a Comment