Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Elgar/archive1

Edward Elgar

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because having recently participated in a peer review of the first rate article on Gustav Mahler (now FA), I am spurred to get the article on Mahler's great contemporary Elgar up to something like the same level of excellence, and I have added a good deal of information and referencing to that end. In particular, I should like guidance on the structure of the article. I am reasonably happy with the biography section, but would especially welcome comment on the music section (right balance? enough technical detail?). Another point of concern is that other editors, notably User:P0mbal, have also worked independently on the article, and I am anxious not to intrude on their contributions – in particular the list of notable works towards the end. There are two large sections currently commented out (one because full of unreferenced original research and the other a full list of Elgar’s works, now superseded by a very good subsidiary article and a précis in this one) which I think should be removed, but will welcome guidance on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Some initial thoughts:-

I have read through the article. In general I found it highly informative, a very comprehensive composer biography which could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles. I have not had the time yet to carry out a detailed review, but here are a few initial points for consideration:-

• There are a couple of dablinks. Check the toolbox on the top right of this page.
  • Done. The second one was very odd – took one round in circles to the top of the Elgar article.
• Ref 90 is a puzzle. It consists of two apparently unrelated links, without publisher or access date information. The first link goes to a selection of You-tube clips, nothing to do with Elgar. The second ("The Master of the King's Musick") is a dead link.
  • Fixed. I blush to say that this was there before I got involved and I neglected to check it. (I take it we are allowed to link to You Tube clips? I don't know anything to the contrary.)
• The Michael Kennedy Daily Telegraph piece in External links is also a dead link.
  • Ditto. Blitzed
• I note that you have not included alt text. Although at present alt text is not a FA requirement, I am sure that it will come back eventually, and I am making a point of including it in all my articles, if only to save a large backlog of work when the requirement is reinstated.
  • Very good point. Have fixed. (In passing, my work colleague who runs my employer's website, tells me that the expert guidance he gets from accessibility specialists is that alt-text should be as concise as possible: the WP standard, by contrast, seems quite discursive. I have attempted a via media.)
• As may be expected at this stage, the article's prose is a little unpolished in places, and could probably do with some light copyediting throughout. For example, early in the lead I noted "From a modest background, and, as a Roman Catholic in Protestant Britain, Elgar was seen, by himself and others, as an outsider." Apart from the rather tortured grammar and the over-punctuation (five commas!), I found myself thinking "Why would coming from a modest background make Elgar, and others, think he was an outsider?" Don't about 95% of people come from "modest backgrounds"? I would give some thought to how this sentence might be reworded.
  • Whatever infelicities I may have inherited here and there, I can't blame anyone else for this prose, which was entirely mine (you are familiar, I'm sure, with the lack of leads in many articles one takes a hand in). Have redrawn, and expanded. Truth to tell Elgar had a lifelong chip on his shoulder about the class thing (and to some extent about the academic thing too, which I have now added), but it is hard to phrase that in a decently encyclopaedic style. He was regarded in some circles (conspicuously his in-laws) as a counter-jumper, a parvenu, a social climber – a damning sin circa 1900, and he worried even in his glory years and his G.O.M. days that people still thought so. Even as an old man he would take it into his head to refuse invitations to dine in grand houses on the grounds that his hosts wouldn't want "a piano tuner's son" to disgrace their table.
• I think the Early life section is a little too long - well over 20% of the entire biographical part of the article. Adoption of a stricter summary style would enable this section to be reduced by perhaps a third without loss of significant detail.
  • Point taken and have trimmed, though Elgar didn't make it to the big time till he was 42, so the early life section is bound to be longer than that of most eminent people's. (I have fallen back on the ancient ploy, "Try to smuggle a few hundred over-the-limit words past your examiner by slipping them into footnotes.")
• I found a slight conflict between the statement that the success of the Enigma Variations established Elgar as the leading British composer of his generation, and the later assertion by Maine that only after Sullivan's death did Elgar reach this pinnacle.
  • I think the logic is that having been well-known since the 1870s Sullivan was (and is?) regarded as of a different generation from Elgar's, though he was in fact only 15 years the senior. The Enigma established Elgar as the leading British composer of his own generation, but after Sullivan's death he was seen as the leading (living) British composer full stop.
• I am not sure I fully understand what is meant here: "The enigma is that, although there are fourteen variations on the "original theme", the "enigma" theme, which Elgar said "runs through and over the whole set" is never heard." Young, in his Elgar biography, says that the "first noteworthy melodic shape in the Enigma theme is in the interval of the minor third", which suggests something that is definitely heard. Indeed, how can something that is never heard, run "through and over" the work?
  • Good point. Not my drafting, but I think I can in conscience redraw it a bit, and have done so. There is a distinction between the opening theme (labelled in Jaeger's handwriting "Enigma") and the wider enigma of the whole piece, the bigger theme, which Elgar never identified. (It is not even certain that Elgar meant 'theme' to mean a melody or some vaguer philosophical concept.) I have put this in a footnote, for fear of overweighting the body of the para.
• A small point but I think, in the caption and in the text, that Newman should be identified as "Cardinal".
  • I wondered about this, but as he wasn't a cardinal until fifteen years after he wrote the poem I thought it more accurate to omit the title. (If I wait a bit, it looks as though he'll be Saint J. H. Newman!) Happy to give him the title (the former, I mean) if you recommend it despite the time-lag.
• I have to raise the question of the list of notable works, "works of acknowledged popularity and significance as well as major works." I can see the value of this, bearing in mind the very large number of works making up Elgar's total output. The obvious question, however, is whether there are any objective criteria for these selections? Otherwise, the list could be criticised for POV interpretations of "acknowledged popularity and significance".
  • I share your view, but the editor who compiled the list, (and the excellent complete list that sits behind it in a subsidiary article) does not, I have found, respond to enquiries, suggestions etc. As that editor has contributed even more edits to the article than I have (albeit mostly in the listing part), I feel particularly inhibited about presuming to interfere. It may be that this peer review will open the general question to wider comment and a consensus on whether the list of notable works should stay or go, or possibly have its criteria explained and referenced. However, if this issue cannot be resolved and remains an obstacle to progressing the article to GA/FAC, I fear that that's the way the cookie crumbles, and conscience doth make cowards of us all – or me at any rate. Depending on what comments this PR throws up, I may attempt to reopen the matter.
    • As it stands, the article extends to 109 kb, well above the maximum size recommended for single WP articles. Without the (in my view) dubious selected list of works, this reduces to a more reasonable, though still hefty, 86 kb. If the desire is to draw attention to Elgar's better-known works, the way to do that is some sort of highlighting in the main list of works, not to create a selective list here. If you have made reasonable efforts to resolve this issue with the editor who compiled the list and he/she has not responded, I think you are entitled to use your own judgement. In any event it looks to me that your edit count will soon be the largest on the article, so I wouldn't let that aspect bother you too much. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I will add further, more detailed comments over the next few days, and maybe others will join in, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of food for thought here - thank you very much. I'll go through carefully and return to the fray shortly. - Tim riley (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done. I look forward to any further comments you are minded to make, and to any thoughts on the foregoing. – Tim riley (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton again: Some detailed prose comments:-

• Lead
  • Could the first paragraph carry a liitle more zing? It seems very understated at present; a bald identifying statement followed by "He is known for..." I don't think this does Elgar justice. Could we add to the first sentence something like: "...many of whose works have achieved enduring popularity." And then "Among his best-known compositions are..." Just suggestions.
    • Good – done.
  • "He followed the variations..." Maybe this should be "the Variations..."
    • I dither over this. I incline to write "The First Symphony" but "the symphony", and the same applies to the Variations. I've changed to a capital V, but will review the whole article for consistency on this point when the review is concluded.
  • "repertory" and "repertoire" both appear in the lead. Best stick to one.
    • Done. Et passim.
  • "full-length" needs a hyphen
    • Done. (By some other kind contributor)
  • "Elgar was one of the first composers who recorded their works for the gramophone." Doesn't sound quite right. I would prefer "Elgar was one of the first composers to record their works for the gramophone."
    • I'm tempted to make this stronger. Robert Philip (a good critic, me judice) says in the article cited in the main text below, "Elgar was the first composer to take the gramophone seriously". What about recasting the para thus-ish:

Elgar has been described as "the first composer to take the gramophone seriously". In the early days of recording, he made a series of discs of his works between 1914 and 1925. After the microphone was invented, making realistic recording possible, he conducted recordings of most of his major orchestral works, and excerpts from The Dream of Gerontius. These recordings were reissued on LP record in the 1970s and on CD in the 1990s.

• Early years
  • "She also inspired him with a discerning taste for literature and a passionate love of the countryside." This sentence looks to need quotes, or at least a specific attribution.
    • The DNB cite was already there, but I have backed it up with one from Moore's Elgar: A Creative Life.
  • "Until he was fifteen, Elgar received a general education at Littleton House, near Worcester, but he had no formal musical training beyond piano and violin lessons from local teachers and, in 1877–78, more advanced violin studies with Adolf Pollitzer during brief visits to London." Another multi-fact sentence that is hard to absorb in a single bite. Suggestion: "Until he was fifteen, Elgar received a general education at Littleton House school, near Worcester. However, his only formal musical training beyond piano and violin lessons from local teachers was more advanced violin studies with Adolf Pollitzer, during brief visits to London in 1877-78."
    • Good. Done
  • "Around this time, he made his first public appearances as a violinist and organist." Needs a citation.
    • Done
  • In general, two "ands" in a sentence should be avoided. Thus the fourth paragraph could begin: "After a few months, Elgar left the solicitor to embark on a musical career, giving piano and violin lessons and working occasionally in his father's shop."
    • Better. Done
  • Fifth paragraph; this would read better if it opened with the last sentence: "Although somewhat solitary and introspective by nature, Elgar thrived in Worcester's musical circles.[2] He played in the violins at the Worcester and Birmingham Festivals..." etc
    • Done. What a difference another pair of eyes makes!

Will continue to offer suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to them! - Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

More prose suggestions

• Marriage
  • "At twenty-nine, through his teaching, he met Caroline Alice Roberts,..." As this is the first sentence of the sec tion, "he" must be "Elgar". Rather than the vague "through his teaching" I would mention that Alice was one of his pupils.
    • Yes. Done.
  • "...a wide range of composers from Berlioz to Wagner." Er, I would not call that a wide range, except alphabetically...Perhaps the range could be better defined?
    • This was loose drafting on my part, conflating two different things: first that he did indeed hear a wide range of music for the first time; secondly that the masters of orchestration such as Berlioz and Wagner influenced him greatly. I have redrawn to make this clear.
  • "Some tantalising opportunities seemed to be within reach but vanished unexpectedly." For continuity, the next sentence should begin: "For example..."
    • Better. Done.
• Growing reputation
  • "...both inspired by Longfellow..." would be better as a parenthetical note
    • Agreed. Done.
  • Sentence needing attention: "Elgar himself was catching the eyes of the prominent critics, although their reviews were still lukewarm, and he was in demand as a festival composer, but he was just getting by financially and not feeling appreciated as he sought to be." Too many facts for a single sentence, some unnecessary verbiage, and awkwardness towards the end. How about: "Elgar was catching the attention of prominent critics, but their reviews were lukewarm. Although he was in demand as a festival composer, he was only just getting by financially, and felt unappreciated."
    • This is one of many sentences I have inherited from previous contributors and have let pass. Emboldened by your views I have amended it as suggested.
• National and international fame
  • How, briefly, was Elgar's Catholicism expressed in Gerontius?
    • My woolly drafting this time, now amended. There is nothing in the music itself at which even the most evangelical Dean could take offence: it was Newman's poem that had them shaking their cassocks at Gerontius. The soul of Gerontius ends the piece (in Elgar's much pruned selection from Newman's original) staggering away from the Judgment Seat to spend vast amounts of time in Purgatory. No wonder the Dean of Gloucester boggled.
  • Just a thought: "Expurgations" is a very odd word to choose, unless it is quoted from somewhere.
    • "Expurgations" is indeed a quote from the Gramophone article cited, and I think it is the mot juste – some phrases in the poem judged to be intolerably papistical were censored and replaced with more anodyne words.
  • "Elgar is probably best known for the first of the five Pomp and Circumstance Marches, composed between 1901 and 1930." There is ambiguity here; the last phrase could be read as applying to the first of the marches, or to all five. Difficult to get round, but possibly: "Elgar is probably best known for the first of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, five of which he composed between 1901 and 1930."
    • Good point. I have had a shot at a shorter version than you suggest, which, I think, removes the ambiguity, inserting "which were" before "composed between…" I think the plural makes the point. Do you agree?
  • "Elgar was knighted at Buckingham Palace..."etc. This is another "two ands" sentence. The last part needs rephrasing: "...where they lived until 1911."
    • Done.
  • "Between 1902 and 1914 he was,..." - needs to be "Elgar was..."
    • Done.
  • I would query the need for such an extensive verbatim quote as that beginning "Vulgarity..."
    • I'll prune this if you insist after you have nobly ploughed through the rest of the article ("he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" – Mark 13:13). I say this because the bit about vulgarity comes up again later, and I think the pre-echo here is helpful.

More to come Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am conscious of, not to say conscience-stricken by, the sheer amount of help you have already given me in this article, and am so grateful for the time you are devoting to it. - Tim riley (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A few more points

• Last major works
  • The mention of Elgar's OM is a bit casual. Bearing in mind the exclusivity of the Order, it might be worth a few words to explain the significance of this honour
    • Yes indeed. Percy Young's Elgar book is titled simply Elgar, O.M. – which says much. Have edited.
  • "...three choral settings of a character "far removed from the romantic patriotism of his earlier years". Who was this character? And can a "character" be set to music? A character can certainly be represented musically, but "choral settings of a character"?
    • Hmm. Have changed to "of a nature".
  • Cello concerto: do we know who the premiere soloist was?
    • We do. It was Felix Salmond. Elgar though highly of him, and didn't blame him for the debacle. (If memory serves he was a Columbia artist so could not record the concerto with Elgar, but would otherwise have been invited to do so.) Have added details.

• Last years
  • portamento should definitely be linked, but even then I'm not sure that the sentence will be clearly undertood. I wonder if this degree of technicality is really necessary, in a biographical article?
    • I wondered, too, as I was writing it. I was trying to make the passing point that there isn't any one "authentic" sound for Elgar, but perhaps it is too much here. Have blitzed.
  • Link "LP" and "compact disc"?
    • Yes. I thought I had. Anno Domini!
  • Is it worth mentioning that one of the children of the Duke of York was the present queen?
    • Done. It wouldn't fit easily into the text and I have added it as a footnote.
  • "Young" conductors: Boult ws well into his forties - does that qualify as "young"?
    • It does from my perspective, but point taken. Shall make it "younger musicians". Boult always treated Elgar as a revered senior figure: Elgar called him "Adrian"; he called Elgar, "Sir Edward".
  • Give date of Elgar's death, rather than "in 1934". (23 February - Handel's birthday, in fact)
    • Done.
• Influences, antecedents and early works
  • "He regarded Henry Purcell as "our greatest" composer, and learned much of his own technique from studying Hubert Parry's writings" What is the connection between these two statements, that justifies the "and"?
    • Just that they were both English and admired by Elgar. Have expanded.
  • "Grove's Dictionary finds many embryonic Elgarian touches..." etc. Shouldn't this be attributed to the writer, rather than the dictionary? There are other, later attributions to "Grove".
    • At the first mention in the text of McVeagh's Grove article I mentioned her name, but have now repeated it in later mentions as you suggest.
• Peak creative years
  • Enigma Variations previously italicised
    • Done.
  • "...his comprehensive mastery of orchestration was still in contrast to his tendency to write in short phrases with an over-reliance on rigid musical sequences." Not clear what is meant here; will the general reader understand?
    • I have had problems getting this and other technical matters across without resort to technical terms. Have redrawn. In fact EE never got out of the habit of writing in short phrases, but such was his skill that in his mature works a string of short phrases sewn together sounds to the listener's ear like one long-breathed melody – though see Daniel Gregory Mason's comments on the Violin Concerto when you come to them.
  • "Gustav Mahler's Seventh Symphony, composed at the same time, runs for about a hundred minutes." That would be unbelievably slow for the Seventh. The first performance, in 1907, was timed at 76 minutes, and its Prague premiere at 74 minutes. I have three recordings, at 77, 79 and 82 minutes respectively, the last (Tennstedt's) being noticeably leisurely. 100 minutes is simply not credible; I suggest you paraphrase, avoiding the specific "100 minutes", if possible.
    • Much obliged for this: it's my incompetent mental arithmetic rather than any eccentricity of tempo on Gielen's part. (I remember a Klemperer recording of the Seventh coming out when I was a lad - I wonder how long that took!) Now amended as suggested. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best to finish commenting over the weekend. It is a pleasure to work on articles of real interest; I'm just sorry that my time is somewhat divided at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, warm thanks. There's no rush with this, so please don't let it distract you from other avocations. - Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Last words (not literally I hope)

• Peak creative years
  • Sentences such as "Elgar's Violin Concerto and Cello Concerto "rank not only among his finest works, but among the greatest of their kind" ought to be attributed, as well as cited.
    • Done
  • Personally, I wouldn't award Tovey his knighthood here - it's not particularly relevant.
    • Am not sure about this, but have de-knighted him.
  • We have two references to Elgar's "middle period", without any time boundaries to help define when this was. Does this cover the whole of the "peak creative years" suggested by the section title?
    • It does - clarified in text
• Final years
  • We need an attribution for "thrilling ... unforgettably gaunt"
    • Redrawn accordingly.
• Reputation
  • I wonder who the "unimpressed" English critic was. Newman? Scholes? It would be interesting to know.
    • It was the anonymous critic of The Observer - the only dissenting voice I have found in the 1908 press coverage of the premiere of the First Symphony.
  • I think this otherwise excellent section suffers from too many long/longish quotes which should be paraphrased. I would draw attention particularly to the the Howes quotation, at least 120 words, coming immediately after a long Record Guide blockquote. This is too much of a concentration of verbatim extracts.
    • First part of Howes quote paraphrased. Second part trimmed.
• Honours, awards etc
  • Not sure about the relevance of Adam Smith (banknotes)
  • Nor I: blitzed.
  • "named after him" repeated in close proximity
    • Rewritten
  • I have never seen the Ken Russell Elgar film. In the Mahler article I deliberately avoided mentioning Russell's Mahler film because of its OTT trivialising. Perhaps he did Elgar better service (he did a Delius film in the late 1960s which I have seen, and was excellent).
    • IMO the 1962 Elgar film and the Delius were equally fine, and made their subjects a good many friends, I believe. Worth mentioning this one in the present context. (Nothing like the self-indulgent Strauss or Mahler films.)

That is really all. A very thorough job which I look forward to seeing at FAC. FYO my next composer biography is likely to be Pietro Mascagni, but this won't be until the autumn as I have several projects to complete before then. Good luck with this one! Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am greatly in your debt for this comprehensive review, and will be at your service to reciprocate when Mascagni comes up to the starting gate. Somehow I suspect I shall have less to offer you on Mascagni than you have given me on Elgar: I am enormously grateful for the time you have spent on this, and for your sound advice. Zu FAC! - Tim riley (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnabypage comments: Some general points on content...

• The popular (mis-?)identification of Elgar as a "quintessentially English" composer probably deserves a mention in or close to the lead.
  • Yes – have added. It improves the structure, too.
• What is it that enables us to instantly identify a short passage of music as "Elgarian"? I don't have the technical language to describe it but surely this very distinctive idiom is something that sets Elgar apart from many other composers. It would be great if we could find an appropriate, and widely intelligible, description of this from a critic or biographer.
  • I wrestled mightily with this for weeks, on and off, and have put what I hope is of general use in the music section. The problem is that with Elgar, more than most composers, what makes him instantly recognisable is almost wholly his orchestration (rather than, e.g. his harmony, counterpoint, melody, rhythm etc – which, though all part of his greatness, are not what make him instantly recognisable) and describing this without getting technical is beyond me. String-based, judicious and varied doubling, not letting any one instrument dominate, bringing instruments in on the off-beat for colour – tons more one could add (in rather more precise language than that) and cite, but is this suitable for a WP article?
• On the Protestant/RC thing, it might be worth clarifying that this was not just about being a Catholic in a largely Protestant land - it was also the case that in Elgar's early years at least, so much of the English musical establishment was built around the Anglican cathedrals.
  • True, but I am stuck for a suitable place to add this. Any suggestion will be gratefully received.
• Several paragraphs are very long and could benefit from being split.
• There is a smattering of grammatical errors mostly caused by misused or absent commas (I'm happy to give the page a copy-edit when you've finished working on the content).
  • On both the above I should be most grateful if you would undertake a copy edit. One can never spot one's own blunders – we tend to see what we think we've written.

And some specific points on various bits of the article...

• In Early Years, clarify that Elgar is (presumably) referring specifically to Worcester Cathedral.
  • Done.
• "For fulfilment he turned not only to music but to literature" - literature in what sense? Reading? Writing?
  • Reading – have amended.
• First paragraph of the Marriage section - it's not clear whether the references to Alice acting as business manager and to Elgar's honours apply to the period immediately following their marriage or to a later time.
  • From then till her death. She was a remarkable woman. Have added
• When did they leave London?
  • 1891. Have added.
• "The Dean of Worcester insisted on expurgations in 1902" - presumably this means he allowed the work to be performed in Worcester Cathedral on condition of expurgations? As it stands it could imply to the reader that the Dean had some sort of general power over published music.
  • Indeed. Have redrawn.
• The architect is Richard Norman Shaw.
  • True, but always known as Norman Shaw (e.g. the old Scotland Yard building is known as the Norman Shaw Buildings.) The Times obit (19 Nov 1912 p. 11) is headed "Mr. Norman Shaw, R.A.")
    • Interesting, I always think of him as Richard! Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• He is "devastated by the loss of his wife" but a sentence or two later he is spending his time at football matches and horse races - I'm sure both statements are correct but they jar a bit; maybe the passage would benefit from some kind of formulation like "However, he soon threw himself into his hobbies".
  • There was a strong causal link – Elgar had always been prone to get diverted by inessentials, and without Alice to keep him on the straight and narrow this tendency became more marked. His sister wrote "W. H. E. [i.e Elgar's father] always found it impossible to settle down to work on hand but could cheerfully spend hours over some perfectly unnecessary and entirely unremunerative undertaking (a trait that was very noticeable in E[dward] especially in later life . . .)" Moore, Edward Elgar: A Creative Life, p. 17. I have tried to indicate this, but do please reword if you can improve it.
• The Abbey Road Studios pic also jars for me - it would be great if we could find a picture of the building when it opened rather than today.
  • I should dearly love to use the famous photo of Elgar and Menuhin on the steps of Abbey Road studios, but it is in copyright and there's no reasonable case for claiming fair use.
• What became of Carice?
  • She married a man called Samuel Blake in 1922, and as Carice Elgar-Blake was keeper of the flame between Elgar's death and her own in 1970. She set up the Elgar Birthplace Museum at Broadheath in 1936, and bequeathed all her Elgar papers and scores to the trustees of the museum. Worth a mention in the legacy section, do you think?
    • Definitely. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Honours and awards are rather tedious IMHO - I would pretty much confine them to their own section and only give the briefest of mentions to knighthood in the narrative parts of the article.
  • I so agree! A previous editor was, it seems, positively devoted to such matters. I had trimmed these a bit in the text, and will, as you suggest, remove all but the knighthood (and, I think the OM) from the narrative. The bit about his shameless lobbying for a peerage is worth keeping, I think.
    • Certainly, because it says something about the man's character. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Should probably mention the rather silly Ken Russell film. Barnabypage (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I have put this in the Legacy section. (I was just a lad when the film came out, but was much struck by it.) I think it made new friends for Elgar at a time when he needed all the friends he could get. It may have contributed a bit to the Elgar revival of the late 1960s onwards.

This is excellent stuff - thank you. Shall go through point by point and deal and respond shortly. - Tim riley (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now done. Greatly obliged for your points, and for any further comments, copy-edits etc. Tim riley (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)