Elgar in America

I recently came across blog comments about why we don’t hear more Elgar in the US. Yes, the music is difficult and the horn players especially become wide-eyed at the surprise of finding such great parts. But I think there is a cultural reason, too.

Here in Chicago, Mahler, Strauss and Bruckner rule. The CSO repeatedly performs these composers. Young players come to study with the Chicago Brass to learn the famous brass style, and the local performance schools churn out players able to play the excerpts perfectly. But why Don Juan and not In the South?

In the South was first performed here in Chicago in 1907 with Elgar conducting. Since then it has been played only a few times. One could argue that in the case of Chicago, the repertoire has been shaped by the conductors. The brass style was encouraged by conductors and an orchestral culture developed around it.

Elgar's music would fit the Chicago Brass style of technical and virtuoso playing, but their muscularity of sound would kill Elgar. His brass writing is difficult and challenging, aspects that could be learned, if desired. What is much harder to teach is the style of playing required for Elgar. Almost never does a brass line speak with brazen gestures and proclamations - the standard stock of Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Strauss, etc. Elgar’s brass parts often say sonore, adding strength of color and depth rather than raw power.

I love plunking this "stuffy old" composer down in front of players and seeing puzzlement come over them. First, the parts are harder than expected – yet well written. Even the bassoonist gets a bit excited. The notes present a bit of a challenge and require practice beforehand. The difficulty in Elgar becomes most apparent in rehearsal with the first run-through. Messy, chaotic, and nobody knows where or how the music is going. More precisely, nobody knows "Who’s on top?" Which line leads, which supports, which is harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, etc? Most players- and probably listeners, too – like to grasp a clear hierarchy in aural events. The simplest music to understand is clearly polarized melody and harmony. Two clear levels of status. The ear grasps quickly, "Oh, my part has the tune—time to play out louder." Or, "Oh, this is supportive harmony -stay in the background." Although there are melody lines and counter-melody lines, harmonic textures, etc., in Elgar’s music, a player rarely owns that position for very long. The roles are very fluid, shifting to create colors, weight, tension, contrast, tint, etc. Elgar relishes in creating a flow of distributed power. A musician may start out playing a melody for a bar and a half, and then gracefully flow into a supportive color for a few seconds, reappear within the melody, and then dive back under with rhythmic energy. This requires a different sort of playing and listening. It also requires a different type of conducting.

The violins like to have the tune and be on top. Wind players like a moment in the spotlight with a solo melody. The brass like to declare victory, war, and power. Well, in Elgar’s orchestra, the viola is sometimes “on top” of the violins. Sometimes the lower string divisi part is on top and the top divisi plays an accompaniment. The woodwinds might blend in and out of lines of melody, counter-melody, and harmonic support. The French horns often give depth of color, without shouting. In fact, two horn solos in In the South are marked Solo pp express., and Solo pp molto express. Trumpets sometimes add reflective commentary. Near the end of In the South with the whole orchestra building in strength, the trumpets alone are marked á 3 - fff cantabile. Near the beginning of In the South the Trombones have a sustained, long-note, non-melodic line marked f ma dolce e con gran express.

As a player, you don’t know how the hierarchy is arranged until you listen across and vertically and the conductor orientates the lines. Elgar’s music requires ensemble playing without a defined and ridged hierarchy. That, I think, is difficult for players.

Elgar’s music has an over all swagger and power, but rarely does any one instrument get to swagger. The flow of power is continually being redistributed. The roles and status of each instrument are stretched beyond the traditional roles. I believe this dynamic construct allows Elgar to create an evocative and dramatic flow from the orchestra. This is what I love about Elgar.

So why not In the South? Because the power is shared, rather than relished by victors. Because it’s egalitarian, and rebukes the status-quo. And this is an uncomfortable paradigm for Americans.