Jeff Dunn asked if there anyone else, other than himself, prefers
Elgar's first to his second symphony.  I'm not as familiar with the
second, although I've heard it a few times.  But I'm a little surprised
at Jeff's question: I suspect the first is considerably more popular
that the second, judged by how frequently it is performed and how many
recordings are sold.  Certainly the first is a simpler, more accessible
(and more dramatic) work of art.  For what it's worth, I think I prefer
the first, but possibly only because I am more familiar with it.  I
suspect the second takes more work to appreciate than I have yet applied.

Oddly, I think I hear more of a "blustery, imperial swagger" in Elgar's
first symphony, although I can understand Jeff's reaction if only the
first movement is considered.  Taken as a whole second is altogther
darker, more reflective.  I find an open, unabahsed quality in the
first that I do not see in the second.

The first may appear more integrated because a theme is quite evidently
referenced in multiple (all?) movements, but that's not all there is to
achieving a structural or artistic unity in music.  I'm not qualified
to discuss how the second achieves a unity among its movements, and
would be interested if others could address that issue.

In recent years, I've enjoyed getting better acquainted with British
music, and coming to see it as a worthy competitor to the German-Austrian
tradition.  Half hoping for a spirited put down, I'm going to go out on
rather uneducated limb here.  I'll express the opinion that the greatest
20th century British symphonists are, in order: Vaughn Williams, Simpson,
and Elgar.

My recommendation to Jeff is to skip the therapist: consult a musicologist.

Larry