Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Elgar)

Old comment
Sir Charles Mackerras once told me that people tend to be either "First Symphony people" or "Second Symphony people." I have always preferred the Second; the First has always struck me as being too "even" in tone, too much the same in some fashion. I like and respond to the light-and-shadow quality of the Second, its somehow freer expression, its "unevenness," but I have always been in a minority since the Second has never been as well-known or -received as the First. Wspencer11 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting... I love them both but for different reasons, and the slow movement of the 2nd I think is one of the most beautiful and moving compositions of the early 20th century, and seems like a farewell to the entire Edwardian age. The 1st symphony seems more of a work about heroism, to me, and the 2nd about farewell.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved here
I moved this here as it's more appropriate for a talk page. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, in recognition of the 75th anniversary of Elgar's death, the Second Symphony was performed by the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra at the Royal Albert Hall in London on Thursday July 23, 2009 under the baton of Vassily Sinaisky. The piece was concurrently broadcast live by the BBC and could be heard worldwide via the BBC's website. It could also be listened to again via the same site for a period of seven days thereafter.Tony Orman (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Background and Lead
This article is looking better and better. However, it currently has "background" information in the Lead that does not appear elsewhere. There should be a new heading like "Background" or "genesis" that has this information, and then there should be an expanded lead that provides an overview of the whole article. See WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rondo: Scherzo
The description of the theme of the scherzo as a 'two-sixteenth-eighth note' rhythm might not have made much sense to Elgar himself ( who is quoted as using the now archaic form 'shewn' elsewhere in the article). Orwell might well have classified this use of two-sixteenth-eighth as 'downright barbarous'. It doesn't even make mathematical sense. It appears itself to be a durect quotation from another published article. The problem is that this way of describing rhythm is ambiguous especially to Elgar's countrymen because it might also be instinctively interprted as a means of describing MELODIC intervals. It takes a minute or two before you relate the description to any aural memory of the piece itself. Can this refernce be given more thought?¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delahays (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)