Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> replies to me:

>>Although Edward Elgar was Englands leading composer, and in fact, the
>>first English composer who seriously challenged the composers on the
>>continent
>
>Oh, I don't know.  Byrd? Weelkes? Taverner? Tallis? Costeley? Purcell?

As far as I am concerned all these composers weren't more wellknown on
the continent in their time then Anderson or Smith or Jones or Chickenhut
or Hope and Pope or Tom, Dick and Harry.  That Purcell was called "The
Nations Joy and the Wonder of the World" was pure English pride, and
nothing else.  I don't know actually, but I doubt that any major Purcells
work was played even once in Paris in his lifetime.

>>,... it might seem remarkable that he chose a subject like "Falstaff"
>>to constitute the program of a Symphonic Study
>
>Doesn't seem remarkable to me.  He was, after all, known in his day as a
>fine amateur (ie, non-academic) Shakespear scholar, with at least one
>journal article to his credit.

True, he was an amateur Shakespeare scholar, and as I understand a very
knowledgeable one, but I also didn't write that it was remarkable that he
chose a Shakespearian subject.  I would actually think that had felt vary
natural for him, at least tempting.  In fact I wrote that it was remarkable
that he chose "Falstaff" as subject.

>>Elgar had a natural aversion against strict counterpoint actually, but
>>that stemed from his idea of what kind of music he wanted to compose,
>>and not lack of manage of the craft.
>
>Really? He sure wrote enough of it.

Yes, again, I didn't write: "Elgar had a natural aversion against
counterpoint", what he also wrote enough of.  As you see in the quote
above, what I actually wrote was: "Elgar had a natural aversion against
strict counterpoint".

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]