Talk:Enigma Variations/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Enigma Variations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Anon 65.247.226.93 wrote "although Elgar's use of accented seventh notes would have been a decidedly nineteenth-century adaptation". Not sure what this means - presumably it's referring to the descending minor seventh intervals, but they don't seem particularly accented to me. Can the anon, or someone else, clarify? There aren't any "seventh notes" (there aren't even any septuplets). David Brooks 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm betting you're right -- that Anon was referring to the descending sevenths. Elgar himself said these sevenths were important, if memory serves. But they have no accent marks in my Dover facsimile of the Novello orchestral score.Herbivore 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Elgar himself told the story of the tiring day of teaching, of how he played the theme "aided by a cigar" (though his word order was a little ambiguous...I have always wondered if the cigar aided his teaching or his playing of the theme [!]), and then improvising sketches of his friends and associates using the theme. If someone can confirm that then I think the current vague non-attribution should be eliminated in favor of a stronger stateement to this effect. Yea/nay? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have this citation somewhere & will post it here, assuming I can dig it up.... Herbivore 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The very brief lines in the main article miss a great deal, I think. The whole Dan-the-bulldog bit only really occurs in the first five measures...what does one say about the rest of the variation? To me, it clearly depicts an organist. Listen to the bass-line statement of the theme: sure, it could be Dan paddling in the river but it also sure sounds like an organist playing the pedals. Then when the brass come in a moment later with the theme again, it sure sounds to me like an organist using the full organ with solo reeds. GRS was also a rather forceful, exuberant personality as I recall. Wspencer11 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always had the same reaction. But I've never seen it mentioned in print, so it probably counts as original research :-( David Brooks 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Ian Parrott book on Elgar mentions this; I wrote a large research paper ages ago on the Variations and the puzzles therein and feel pretty confident I didn't think this up all by myself. Wspencer11 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, now I've run the variation in my head, I only thought of the last few measures (the brass chorus) as the explicit organ reference. But now I see your point about the pedals. Of course, Elgar was capable of referring to two things at once. David Brooks 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan is marked in EE's hand in the MSS, where he barks on emerging from his dip in the Wye, but Sinclair and his energy are certainly there too - some including me hear the Bach organ pedal exercise echoed. --Straw Cat 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A well-intentioned person recently changed the variation numbering to Arabic, numerals 1 to 14. The full score, by direction of the composer, numbers the variations in Roman, i.e. I to XIV. It should remain that way. P0mbal (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Done. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article had never used Roman numerals before. I checked back two years. What had happened was that an anon had changed 1 to I and 2 to II in separate edits with no reason stated but had left 3 through 14 arabic. A weird mix of roman and arabic remained so I reverted it figuring an anon was just testing the editor. I'm OK with it it being roman as long as all fourteen are that way. Sorry for the confusion.DavidRF (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am getting less and less happy about all this. The balance of the article has shifted a great deal, so that the music itself has taken a bit of a back seat to presentations of various and sundry attempts to explain the "enigma" of it all. Puzzles are certainly fascinating...but I wonder if it might not be time to consider creating a new article that deals only with that stuff and leaves the music to its own page? "Proof" will never, never, never happen until someone unearths Elgar, his wife, or Jaeger, and applies bamboo splinters under their fingernails until they cough it up. They were the only three who knew the answer. As I understand it, Elgar fully expected people to figure the thing out at first, especially Dora Penny, but when that didn't happen, he gradually let it go and let people turn themselves inside out with explanations, plausible and goofy.

Not only that, but to have one explanation (Bach/Art of Fugue) take up about one-third the total space devoted to all explanations looks so grossly out of balance as to suggest that WP endorses this attempt over all the others. I believe it should be cut way back to bring it in line with the rest of the section. Anyone else feel this way? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point there. There are a lot of things that could and should be discussed about the piece itself, for instance, the Ysobel variation has a musical joke for viola players, where they have to skip over string to play the melody, which is a bit of a difficulty for a beginning violist, hint: Isabel (I just can't find the source to cite for that, or even a score for that matter). That's just one example among many, so I would agree that there needs to be more about the music, other than the enigma.

Splitting off the proposed answers to the enigma into another article sounds like a good idea, if it keeps things at a more manageable size. Although Portnoy in his article makes the Art of Fugue the "definitive" answer, it is not written here in the WP as if it is the "only" solution --- people should be allowed to read and make their own conclusions, and why should the WP offer a definitive judgment of which solution is better when it is not really the purpose of the WP. If the enigmas are split into a different article, the other suggested answers should probably be given a bit more detail as to why people think so.

Nevertheless, a lot of the ink spilled over the Enigma variations includes the various "answers", so in that case, it is not surprising, since a lot of people will want the answer, or at least some answer. Hence, it isn't surprising that there is a lot of text on the possible answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ll1324 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy about the statement in the second objection to the Art of Fugue that 'both B natural and B flat can be used in G minor'. The only key apart from D minor that contains B flat, A, C and B natural is C (melodic) minor. As soon as G minor has a B natural, it becomes G major. Although the theme is in G minor, its last note is a B natural - Elgar is using a Picardy third to close the phrase, a device much used by Bach. --Bach&Byte (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I came on this talk page to make that exact point and found that you'd got there first. :) 91.105.7.213 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As he tried to do at the Dutch version of Wikipedia, the person called 82.173.128.227 tried (Revisions 9 January 2010) to "prove" the superiority of his own theory above Westgeest's solution published in 2007

- by deleting useful and concise information in the article about Westgeest's theory

- by adding to it value judgements as 'far-fetched' and words of that kind

- by adding qualifications as 'most plausible' to his own theory

- by trying to add a counter-argument

- by removing the reference to Westgeest's book, which was published in 2007.

I restored those passages.--Esgroot (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again this person, now called 82.118.116.119, tries to start a dispute in this article (Revisions 9 February 2010) in order to "prove" that his own theory is right by adding a (wrong) argument in the passage about Westgeest's theory which has been published in 2007. I restored the passage.81.205.147.164 (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As at the above number 10 and 11, someone is trying to start a discussion (22 March) by adding a (wrong!) argument in the passage about Westgeest's theory which has been published in 2007. I restored the passage. Please reread the book and send an email to the author: I'm sure Westgeest will be glad to discuss it with you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.147.164 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As he tried to do at the Dutch version (Revisions 11 January 2010) and several times in the English version of Wikipedia (Revisions 9 January 2010, 9 January 2010, 9 February 2010 and 22 March) the person called 82.173.128.227 now tries again (Revisions 24 March 2010) to "prove" the superiority of his own theory above Westgeest's solution published in 2007

- by deleting and changing useful and concise information in the article about Westgeest's theory

- by adding to it (wrong!) remarks

- by removing the reference to Westgeest's book, which was published in 2007.

I restored the passage. Again I say this: please reread Westgeest's book and send an email to the author: I'm sure Westgeest will be glad to discuss it with you!81.205.147.164 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As he tried to do at the Dutch version (Revisions 11 January 2010) and several times in the English version of Wikipedia (Revisions 9 January 2010, 9 February 2010, 22 March 2010 and 24 March 2010) the person called 82.173.128.227 now tries again (Revisions 31 March 2010) to "prove" the superiority of his own theory above Westgeest's solution published in 2007

- by deleting and changing useful and concise information in the article about Westgeest's theory

- by adding to it (wrong!) remarks

- by removing the reference to Westgeest's book, which was published in 2007.

I restored the passage and added again the reference to Westgeest's book. Again I say this: please reread Westgeest's book and send an email to the author: I'm sure Westgeest will be glad to discuss it with you!81.205.147.164 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

17:23, 1 April 2010 you removed from the article the passage about the Westgeest's Pathetique-theory and wrote: 'removing the "Pathétique" Reference as WP:OR from a WP:SPA with WP:COI - self published works do not satisfy the standard of WP:RS. DO NOT RESTORE until better sourcing is found'.

Eusebeus, I am sorry to say, but you are wrong in this. The Pathetique-theory is not 'original resource'. It was published in 2007. See the reference in the article:

• Westgeest, Hans (2007). Elgar's Enigma Variations. The Solution. Leidschendam-Voorburg: Corbulo Press. ISBN 978-90-79291-01-4 (hardcover), ISBN 978-90-79291-03-8 (paperback).

'Single purpose account'? The only thing I did, and what I was forced to do, was restoring a passage which one particular person, called 82.173.128.227, apparently doesn't like to be there and which he deleted several times in order to defend Van Houten's Rule Brittannia-theory from 1976. He even removed the reference to Westgeest's book! Is that providing neutral information??? And fair play?

'Conflict of interest'? As you know, a Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. I only tried to keep the passage about Westgeest's Pathetique-theory in the article, where it belongs. It is a concise and neutral account of an important theory which was published in a book in 2007.

Please look at what the person called 82.173.128.227 did to the Pathetique-theory (and to his own theory) in: Revisions 9 January 2010, 9 February 2010, 22 March 2010 and 24 March 2010 And in the Dutch Wikipedia art. 'Enigma Variaties': Revisions 11 January 2010 Now that's what I call a COI !

Please restore the passage.81.205.147.164 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Solving Elgar's Enigma", co-written by C R Santa and Matthew Santa, is now printed in Current Musicology, a journal published by Columbia University.

I think the following would be an appropriate addition to the Enigma section of Elgar. Does anyone object?

The Pi Solution as confirmed by Elgar's 1929 notes

In 2007, a retired engineer observed that the first four notes were scale degree 3-1-4-2, decimal Pi. Pi is a constant in all circles (circumference divided by diameter.) It is usually approximated by 3.142 as a decimal or 22/7 as a fraction. Further research uncovered that fractional Pi can be found within the first four bars by observing that two “drops of a seventh” follow exactly after the first eleven notes, giving us 11 x 2/7 = 22/7. Elgar included a “dark saying” into his first six bars by using “Four and twenty blackbirds (dark) baked in a pie (Pi).” The first four and twenty black notes each have “wings” (ties or slurs,) and Elgar indicated that the enigma was contained only in the first six bars bar using a double bar after the sixth bar. The double bar usually indicates the end of a piece but Elgar inserted it before the end of the first phrase.

Pi fits all the clues given by Elgar in 1899. Viewing “theme” as the central idea/concept explains how Pi can be the “larger theme which 'goes', but is not played.” Pi “is never on the stage.” The 'dark saying' which must be left unguessed, turns out to be a pun from a familiar nursery rhyme.

As if to confirm Pi, Elgar wrote three sentences in 1929, each containing a Pi hint. Elgar was 72 old and no one had guessed the enigma after 30 years. In his first sentence he referred to two quavers and two crotchets (hint at 22) and then in the third, he referred to bar 7 (hint at /7.) Putting them together yields another 22/7. In his second sentence he wrote, “The drop of a seventh in the Theme (bars 3 and 4) should be observed,” which leads us to find fractional Pi, 22/7, in the first four bars. Elgar said the solution was “well known.” Pi is taught to school children as part of a basic education.

Elgar wrote his Enigma Variations in the year following the very foolish Indiana Pi Bill of 1897 which attempted to legislate the value of Pi. Years later in 1910, Elgar wrote “the work was begun in a spirit of humour.” Elgar enjoyed such japes, as well as codes, puzzles and nursery rhymes. No other proposed “solution” has offered any relevance to Elgar’s 1929 hints including his “drop of a seventh in the 3rd and 4th bar.”

Dnlsanta (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I was considering adding that information myself, but was having trouble finding suitable sources. The paragraph you have provided may need some rewriting to account for the dissidents of this theory, but I do believe the pi solution merits a section. Thanks for bringing this up. Cheers. sonia♫ 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Very impressive work! We can copyedit it for wiki style and as Sonia suggests. Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Santa's research is insightful and worth mentioning. - Sir Padgett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.214.159 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Added, in brief to avoid undue weight. Open to tweaking :) sonia♫ 03:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions to this article appear to be largely a copy of an article on this web page. Further, the editor adding the material, Sir Padgett (talk · contribs), appears also to be the author of that article. Not being familiar with the topic, I do know know if this is appropriate. Perhaps someone else can take a look? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research, not to mention a copyright violation. Can't do that. He'd have to publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed publication. I'm taking it all out. Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ein' feste Burg ... goes with Nimrod? Interesting, fascinating, amazing, etc., and a lot of work done there, but I agree with Antandrus. It unbalances the article too. Consider, is it within scope to have a link to the page instead? I advise user Sir Padgett not to keep putting the article back for reasons stated by Antandrus, and not to be upset by this. Good work Sir P! P0mbal (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's great stuff, Sir Padgett. You need to publish this in a peer-reviewed source. I wouldn't object to an external link. But please look at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. For now I have fully protected the page for a brief time, since I'd rather do that than issue a block. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sir Padgett appreciates feedback regarding his discovery at Wikipedia. In response he duly invited numerous peer-reviewed sources to publish his discovery. However, all indicated a standard policy preventing them from publishing an article already featured online. For this reason, Sir Padgett desires in a historic first to share his discovery directly with the digital world at Wikipedia. His paper is featured at http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/. He would welcome mention of this historic find by Wikipedia under "Enigma Variations," and Antandrus is invited to provide a brief reference to it under the "Enigma" section. The sound files featured at youtube may also be cited as references at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean they would not publish it because it is currently available on your blog? I did read it, and found it fascinating (please do note, I have a skeptical streak, as a former academic). Did any of the publishers indicate they would consider publishing it if your took it down?

For Wikipedia purposes, we can't use blogs per our reliable source policy; sorry, I can't do anything about that, as community consensus determines policy here; the few exceptions don't apply in this case (e.g. you can use a blog as a source on the article on that blog for claims it makes about itself). I have no objection to putting "unmasked" in as an external link, and submit that idea to others reading this thread. Good work -- really. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm skeptical. Mr. Padgett has already been in contact with Prof. Julian Rushton and if he didn't buy the idea, then why should we? I found the blog post to be too much of a sales pitch rather than an academic paper... which tend to be more level-headed. The sound samples all contained an extremely piercing instrument (flute/trumpet) playing Mighty Fortress over barely recognizable Elgar on a background organ. I feel the author is clearly trying to "sell" his idea here. If its a good idea, it will make it into print eventually... but that shouldn't be our call. My two cents.DavidRF (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On reading it, my feeling was that the blog is very well argued, and Sir Padgett's three rules make a lot of sense. But for me the argument falls down within five seconds of starting to listen to it. I am hugely sceptical - playing Ein feste Burg in a sort of desultory mixed minor mode over the Enigma theme just doesn't convince me at all. To me it sounds unmusical, which Elgar never was, and - worse - unElgarian and unEdwardian. In fact, it makes the work sound "very 21st century". After having heard it, and reading the blog again, the whole argument seemed egregiously Procrustean. Personally, I felt patronised by statements such as "For those with eyes that see and ears that hear, there can no longer be any doubt about the solution to Elgar's 110 year old enigma." If the research garners support among professional musicologists then it certainly should be reported in the Wikipedia article, but until then it's just original research. I don't think there should even be a link to it until it has at least been discussed in mainstream musicology articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Julian Rushton staunchly rejects the notion there could be any melodic solution to Elgar’s Enigma Theme, so obviously any proposed melody will meet with a fatal skepticism on his part regardless of its merits. He not only stubbornly maintains this position, but does so in direct contraction with the composer's own published comments on this subject. If that is the measure of a respected “musicologist,” then I consider myself fortunate not be counted among such an obtuse coterie. Rushton’s rush to judgment on this matter will most assuredly be relegated to the ash heap of history where time and more sober minds will surely jettison it. After all, musicologists are not infallible—I’ve met enough in my time to know better.

The purpose for contrasting instrumentation in the sound files is to aid the listener in distinguishing between Ein’ feste Burg, the Enigma Theme and Variation IX. Of course anyone familiar with the history of Ein’ feste Burg would appreciate the choice of flute for the hidden melody. As computer sound systems vary widely in quality, sheet music is provided for each sound sample to permit listeners the opportunity to study the solution in greater depth. These sound files were generated on Finale 2009 using Garriton sounds, recognized as being among of the best in the industry. I wonder if DavidRF even studied the sheet music, or did this material elude him because he does not know how to read music?

As for RobertG’s comments regarding Elgar’s deliberate cycling between the minor and major modes, I encourage him to listen to the sound file of Ein’ feste Burg played through and over Nimrod (Variation IX) where the composer does not engage in this device. After hearing it, the answer should be abundantly clear, one that only a bumbling musicologist could overlook completely. There’s a reason why the solution has gone unfound for 110 years, and “authorities” like Rushton are to blame. By the way, the solution is already in print...online. (206.174.239.59 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Complete Variation Nimrod featured on organ with Ein' feste Burg played "through and over" it on trumpet as a counterpoint.

Elgar’s Enigma Theme Unmasked This is the formal paper documenting Robert W. Padgett’s novel solution “Ein’ feste Burg” as the missing theme to Elgar’s Enigma Variations.

Wow. Mr. Padgett is a sweet-talker. Luckily for him, my opinion doesn't matter. That's the whole point here. We are not a primary source. Publish this somewhere else. Also, please try to remember that anyone takes the time to read your blog and give you feedback is doing you a favor. I think it would also help to do some homework and cite previous work that's been in this area. By previous work, I mean articles in the type of journals you hope to publish in, not just books and blogs. Also, try to include more than one theme in your analysis. You run "Ein' feste Burg" through all sorts of analyses, but we have no "control group" for those comparisons. Finally, in my opinion you should cut down on the arrogant tone. It implies that you are covering up weaknesses in your arguments and you don't want to make that implication. If your arguments are sound, you won't need to do that. Best of luck. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DavidRF is correct in stating his opinion is irrelevant. As for competing themes, many have been proposed and studied elsewhere, but none satisfy. The purpose of my article is not to show why those themes are incorrect, but rather why "Ein' feste Burg" is the proper solution. DavidRF’s suggestion to include a “control group” of competing themes is akin to instructing a mathematician to run through a list of incorrect answers to a problem to show why the solution is correct. Such an approach may sound scientific, but it’s wholly unmathematical and unmusical. In suggesting Mr. Padgett sounds like a "sweet-talker," DavidRF strongly implies weaknesses in his own arguments, not to mention a decidedly arrogant tone. "Ein' feste Burg" is the missing melody, and Wikipedia may choose to post the truth or not. Eventually it will--mark my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.66.10 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought my response was fairly restrained considering you baselessly accused me of not being able to read music in your previous post. I even made some good-natured suggestions. You certainly are correct in that my opinion does not matter!!! I'm just a volunteer hiding behind a pseudonym sifting through information from reliable sources. Your theories are not published in a reliable source, they are original research. Whether or not you are correct is not the point here. Best of luck to you.DavidRF (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be greatly surprised if an English Catholic composer at the turn of the 20th century would "hide" the most famous hymn of German Lutheranism in one of his most lyrical works. That the British Royal Family, with its German roots, might be fond of the hymn is one thing, but I doubt if it would have had pleasant associations for Elgar himself. Janko (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be very shocking indeed if Elgar, an English Catholic, based his Enigma Variations on the most famous Lutheran hymn in history. Yet just before he composed the Enigma Variations, Elgar was sketching a symphony in honor of General Gordon, the British commander slaughtered at the Siege of Khartoum. General Gordon was Anglican. -- Sir Padgett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.171.190 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An Internet search of Elgar enigma solution ranks my blog (enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com) as the number one search result on Google and Bing, beating out Wikipedia, Answers.com and other sites. This condition has been the case for months, and shows no signs of abating despite recent changes to Google's search algorithm. My blog has received over 55,000 page views in the past 13 months, a figure that dramatically understates actual page views since one page may be the equivalent of up to 40 pages in a book. The editors of Wikipedia should reconsider their blanket refusal to mention my groundbreaking research on Elgar’s Enigma Variations that demonstrates the covert Principal Theme is Martin Luther’s Ein feste Burg (A Mighty Fortress), and the hidden friend for Variation XIII is Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.14.123 (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is the third time you've posted nearly the same paragraph on this talk page in the past two weeks. What we haven't heard is any word of this work being published or accepted by the academic community. We're not at liberty to make those decisions here in their place. We just report information from reliable sources. Page ranks from various search engines is not a reliable source.DavidRF (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A Google search of McClelland enigma theory yields as the top search result my post refuting that atrocious specimen of post-modern academic ‘scholarship’: http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2010/11/mcclelllands-enigma-theory-debunked.html The academic community’s insistence on the infallibility of the peer review process is deeply ironic since that very process failed spectacularly by permitting McClelland's research to be published in no less than the pages of The Musical Times. The number of flaws in McClelland's article are eclipsed perhaps only by those found in Wikipedia's article concerning the Enigma Variations. DavidRF would be wise to recognize that the academic community is far more interested in proffering a plethora of falsehoods than acknowledging a simply truth that escaped their miniscule minds for over a century. That the solution to Elgar's 'Enigma' Variations was not made by one of their own ilk only compounds their reluctance to alter the status quo of their self-imposed ignorance. In the final analysis, Wikipedia’s help is not necessary for sharing my original research with the world. All that I need is Google, YouTube, Blogger, and above all, open minds–the one thing glaringly absent from Wikipedia’s editorial staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to make this about me or other editors and its not. Wikipedia is not intended to be a primary source. It simply does not publish original research. See Wikipedia:No_original_research.DavidRF (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. It doesn't matter how brilliant your original research may be, or how right, or how incisively you demolish all previous research on the topic; it's still original research which we do not publish; and ad hominem, attempting to make this about us, is still a logical fallacy. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the feedback of DavidRF and Antandrus, Wikipedia must content itself with publishing outdated, inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Julian Rushton’s criterion that Dora Penny should have been ‘of all people’ the one to solve the Enigma is the product of careless research, confusing the word ‘guess’ with ‘solve’. Elgar never told Dora she would solve the Enigma, but rather, “I thought you, of all people would guess it.” In the original 1899 program note he warned, “The Enigma I shall not explain – its ‘dark saying’ must be left unguessed.” Since the solution cannot be guessed, Elgar was obviously teasing Dora rather than offering any hope of uncovering the answer. He further alluded to the existence of a cipher (i.e., ‘dark saying’) that, when broken, furnishes the answer. The decryption of a cipher is the antithesis of guessing, hence Elgar’s odd use of the terms ‘dark saying’ and ‘unguessed’. There is one rational explanation why he suggested Dora would be the one to guess the answer: She was the daughter of a Protestant Rector and missionary whose hymnals feature ‘Ein feste Burg’ (A Mighty Fortress). No matter how often she guessed the answer, Elgar would never openly confirm it. That could only be done by cracking his ingenius musical checkerboard cipher. http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2010/09/elgars-dark-saying-musical-checkerboard.html

A Google and Bing search of Elgar enigma solution ranks my blog enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com as the number one search result, beating out Wikipedia, Answers.com, Leeds University, and other prominent sites. This fortunate condition has been the case for over a year, showing no signs of abating despite recent changes to Google's search algorithm. My blog has received over 99,500 page views, a figure that dramatically understates actual page views since one page may be the equivalent of 40 from a book. More recently, a Bing search of Elgar Enigma Theme ranks my YouTube video documenting the melodic solution as the number one video result. Employing the same search criteria, Google ranks my videos as 4th, 8th and 9th - three in the top ten search results. The editors of Wikipedia are encouraged to reconsider their blanket refusals to mention my groundbreaking research on Elgar’s Enigma Variations demonstrating with multiple proofs that the covert Principal Theme is Martin Luther’s Ein feste Burg (A Mighty Fortress).--99.9.14.123 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote:

A competing story, propounded by conductor Sir Andrew Davis, is that this movement is about Helen Weaver, to whom Elgar was engaged for fourteen months. Weaver left for New Zealand (also by boat) in 1885, "breaking his heart."

Makes a charming story, but only competing with Dora Penny's account if it is not just speculative. Davis is quoting his own or someone else's speculation unless there is a reliable source - can anyone help? I am not doubting that she went to NZ by boat at about the time, but whether she was the ***. P0mbal (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The friend of Variation XIII identified by three asterisks has remained a secret for over a century, yet that secret friend’s initials are openly concealed by the Roman numerals. X is the number 10, and the tenth letter in the alphabet is J. III is the number 3, and the third letter is C. The identity of Elgar's hidden friend is not a lady, but a lord – the Lord whose initials are J.C. To learn more, visit http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2010/11/variation-xiii-and-elgars-hidden-friend.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My comment is only indirectly concerned with who was the dedicatee of Var XIII: it questions whether an interesting comment by a modern conductor should be taken as a reliable source. You see what I am after is the source of Andrew Davis' information so, while I appreciate the interest in Var XIII, I have to ignore the ingenious speculation since it attempts to answer a different question. P0mbal (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did Davis get the Weaver story from? That is what we need here. Davis is only the messenger and it's likely that others have told the Weaver story too. Someone have a look around the literature and find an original source - it should be easy. P0mbal (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

While it is important, the amount of space given to the solution of the Enigma seems disproportionate, seemingly taking up about half the space. I'd be surprised if this hasn't been suggested before - maybe it has. I suggest splitting off the material into a new wikipedia article, though I haven't thought yet of the best title for this. P0mbal (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support this suggestion. The title for the sub-article isn't obvious, but how about "Elgar Enigma Variations: suggested solutions" or some such? (No, it isn't very good, is it? But something along those lines.) I have quite a lot of material squirreled away on this if wanted, but will follow P0mbal's lead. Tim riley (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A separate article about proposed solutions to Elgar's 'Enigma' Variations would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia. Given the speculative nature of this subject, it would be far more helpful and informative to cite all known theories and sources without narrowly restricting them to only peer reviewed material. Various theories regarding the hidden friend and inspiration for Variation XIII may also be included. Theoretical solutions may be listed according to the following categories: Melodic, Mathematical, Symbolic, and Literary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing changes if the article were to be split in two. This is still wikipedia and not a personal blog. The "no original research policy" still applies. See Wikipedia:No original research.DavidRF (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The title for splitoff page needs to be chosen with care. Suggestions? And this is wikipedia and not a forum for the display of original research with proposed ingenious solutions. It's about Elgar's recorded hints to the solution to the Enigma, not *** *******'s solution. P0mbal (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's to be just what Elgar said/wrote/hinted about the matter, that wouldn't take very much space and could safely belong with the main article.

But there's been a VAST amount of commentary, speculation, educated guesses, uneducated guesses, what have you, since then, by others. Some of this, sure, is on personal blogs, Wikipedia talk pages, internet forums and the like, and it would be out of the question. But then there's a whole lot of other discussion, such as the long correspondence published in The Musical Times many years ago, and such as the various scholarly dissertations and the like, that very reputable publishers have been more than happy to put their name to. Do we just exclude ALL of that material, merely because it didn't come from the horse's mouth, so to speak? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A Bing search on 06/22/12 of Elgar enigma solution produced 88,600 results with my Enigma Variations blog holding the number one and two spots, wiki.answers.com third, and Wikipedia fourth. A Bing search of Elgar Enigma Theme placed my blog first, and Wikipedia second. A Google search of Elgar enigma solution yielded 58,300 results and placed my blog first and Wikipedia second. A Google search of Elgar Enigma Theme yielded 360,000 results and produced the same ratings. The upshot is in the global marketplace of ideas, my humble blog is beating out everything...including Wikipedia. More importantly, my blog has retained the number one spot with Google using these search criteria for over a year. I must be onto to something...enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Prominent Elgar scholars contend the answer to the Enigma Variations is unknowable because the composer allegedly took his secret to the grave. Michael Kennedy writes, “People have ingeniously been trying to guess the tune ever since, a harmless but pointless recreation since the secret, if there was one, died with him.” J.P.E. Harper-Scott echoes this sentiment, “Although human nature guarantees that attempts to solve it will never end until the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are on permanent display in the British Museum, they all somehow fail to convince. It is easy to carp, since the riddle cannot be answered now its perpetrator is dead, but the evidence supporting all of the ‘solutions’ is weak.” On May 21, 2012, Deb Amlen with the New York Times summarized both the puzzle and the inherent dilemma, “Sir Edward Elgar wrote ‘The Enigma Variations’ between 1898-1899 as a musical cryptogram, affectionately portraying one of his close friends in each of the 14 Variations. The wonderful thing about this piece is not the identities of the friends portrayed, because Elgar himself named them, except for the 13th Variation; the real enigma is a separate melody that Elgar said was the counterpoint of the original theme, but which he playfully refused to identify. Speculation on which tune Elgar had in mind included ‘Auld Lang Syne,’ but he took his secret, if it indeed existed, to the grave.” According to these parties, all purported solutions to the ‘Enigma’ Variations are by definition speculative. Julian Rushton confesses, “The only solutions which it may be safe to rule out are those based on false chonology; yet even here we cannot be perfectly certain…” Therefore, the only objective and impartial approach for a separate article regarding purported solutions to the Enigma Variations would be to list and briefly explain all known theories without regard to peerage, for in this realm there are no Lords or Ladies – only commoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The subject of this section to be discussed the question whether the solution of the Enigma itself should be a new page. If you are one of the commentators above please could you give your opinion on this. It does not seem to be the place here or helpful to drift off-subject a length with other discussions such as the solution and its scope. With consensus on this and a name for a new page, we can split off a page from the main article, and lessen the disproportionate space there to the solution. Any talk on the solution e.g. as above by SirPadgett, could be talk on the new page. My answer is yes, there should be a new page. P0mbal (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Eleven of the most prevalent enigma solutions are analyzed and refuted here. The overwhelming case for Ein feste Burg (A Mighty Fortress) is made here. The number of page views on my Enigma Variations blog now exceeds 141,000. A Google search of Elgar Enigma Theme on June 24, 2013, ranked my blog number one out of 913,000 results in the world, relegating Wikipedia to second place. A Bing search of the same search criteria on the same date also ranked my blog first and Wikipedia second.§

21 July Theodore James added some remarks criticizing Westgeest's Pathétique-theory. I think we'd better start the discussion here on this talk page.

- “The connection between Variation IX [and Beethoven] was out in the open during Elgar’s lifetime”. Indeed it was. Elgar himself disclosed it (see Westgeest 2007, p. 47-48) and related to Dora Penny (p. 46-47) that the beginning of Nimrod refers to Beethoven. He called it “only a hint, not a quotation”. What that hint is and how it works, wasn’t totally clear untill Westgeest’s theory was published in 2007.

- “In any case the connection concerns a variation, not the original theme headed 'Enigma'.” Right! As Westgeest writes, ‘the original theme’, the one which is “ a counterpoint on some well-known melody which is never heard”, is not the melody at the beginning of the work headed ‘Enigma’. (That is only the minor version). It consists of the first nine notes of Nimrod, which is, as Westgeest assumes, the first piece of the Variations Elgar composed. Elgar composed it as a countermelody to the - larger, wellknown - theme of the 2nd movement of Beethoven’s Pathétique. What Elgar meant by all this you can read in Westgeest’s book p. 49-58. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.147.164 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The covert principal theme to 'Nimrod' is 'Ein feste Burg' by Martin Luther: http://draft.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1391257402954398272#editor/target=post;postID=8386326074175511376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. Please read Westgeest's book first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.147.164 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Nimrod is a oompelling counterpoint to Ein feste Burg as the following sound file makes clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcznJyjs2FU. A more detailed explanation of this counterpoint is available at http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2010/09/variation-ix-nimrod-with-ein-feste-burg.html. My Enigma Variations blog outlines in great detail a vast array of evidence in favor of Ein feste Burg as the unstated Principal Theme to the Enigma Variations. My blog has over 87,000 page views, and is the number one search result on Google and Bing for the criteria Elgar Enigma Solution and Elgar enigma theme, eclipsing other sites including Wikipedia. Why did Elgar use the biblical name Nimrod for Variation IX? Because it hints at the title of the unstated Principal Theme: http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2011/01/nimrod-elgar-and-wordplay.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A brief refutation of the Pathétique-theory is now available at http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2012/07/hans-westgeests-enigma-theory-refuted.html. That popular theme could not possibly be the hidden melody to the Enigma Variations because it a) Fails to complete even one cycle 'through and over' the Enigma Theme; b) Produces far too many dissonant intervals with the Enigma Theme to be a counterpoint; c) Was revealed by Elgar in the notes to the pianola rolls, thereby ruling it out since he took his secret to the grave without disclosing the identity of the hidden melody. Westgeest's paradox is to simultaneously claim Elgar never revealed the secretive melody, yet names it in the notes for the pianola rolls. It is unsurprising Wikipedia would cite such an absurd theory since it has become a clearinghouse of flawed 'enigma' theories. Perhaps it should be renamed Insipidia. - Mr Padgett

Since you clearly haven't even read my book before trying to refute my theory, you appear to be unwilling to understand my argument. I therefore think that it is pointless to discuss your critique. The audio file you posted on You Tube is totally absurd and has nothing to do with my Pathétique theory. Of course you are aware of this. The only thing you are trying to do repeatedly is to make the case for your own theory, which is, not just in my opinion, one large series of baseless assumptions. Hans Westgeest 132.229.188.223 (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hans Westgeest's theory invokes two mutually exclusive positions. The first requires that Elgar took his secret melody to the grave without revealing it. The second is Elgar revealed the title of his secret melody in his notes to the pianola rolls in 1929. For Westgeest, the principle of contradiction has conveniently been repealed. The alleged counterpoint between the Pathétique and Nimrod is contrived by cherry picking nine notes...and ignoring all the rest. Finally, Westgeest extrapolates this contrapuntal mirage to the remainder of the work without actually demonstrating in detail how the unstated Principal Theme plays 'through and over' each movement - a specific requirement mentioned by Elgar in the original 1899 program note. It is a simple matter to suggest a contrapuntal link between a given melody and the Variations, but quite another to prove it. Of all the alleged solutions cited in Wikipedia's article, none have ever been shown to play 'through and over' each of the movements. When it comes to actual proof, all of Wikipedia's candidates fail the test. If Westgeest were to actually attempt such a contrapuntal mapping, he would soon be forced to abandon his theory as untenable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am reduced to suggesting an obvious support for the Pathetique theory, which no doubt Westgeest has already deployed somewhere. The slow movement was popular in Elgar's time in arrangements for violin and piano. (There are also 78 rpm recordings of it in this form) Could Elgar and his future wife have played it together during her lessons with him? Another series of supports might be constructed from references in the other variations to the other movements of the Pathetique - for example, it's clearly the first movement that one of the subjects is trying to play on the piano, and the finale appears in the three asterisk movement. Delahays (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. If someone has failed to even read our most basic policies after having been provided links again and again over three years, it may be time for them to reconsider their involvement here. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On 4 October 2012, a Bing search of the criteria Elgar enigma solution yielded 71,600 results, ranking my blog first (http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/) and Wikipedia fifth. A comparable Google search produced 77,500 results with my blog holding the top position and Wikipedia trailing second. Even when expanding the search to Elgar Enigma Variations solution, my blog still holds the number one ranking. What do the major search engines recognize that Wikipedia’s editors fail to grasp? The answers to Elgar’s enigmas! Wikipedia's persistence in promulgating fabrications hatched by a systemically flawed ‘peer review’ process ensures it will never recapture the number one ranking. Wallow in your ignorance if you must, but please do not push it on the rest of the planet under the guise of scholarship. My blog is on the verge of 100,000 page views and shows no signs of stopping. The truth will reach the world in spite of Wikipedia’s spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I've lost count of how often you've come here to plead your case. At least 5 times. And now we're being accused of spitefulness towards you. Seems to me you are WAY too involved in the issue to be objective. You are entitled to publish whatever theories you like about the Enigma. Good luck to you. You may well be right. Your blog has had lots of hits, but is your solution generally or widely acknowledged, in independent publications with which you've had no association, as being on the money? Or even as worthy of consideration? It is not Wikipedia's role to either prove or disprove this theory or that theory. It's to report what mainstream sources have had to say on the matter. Until some such source comments favourably on your blog and recommends readers to it, it remains simply your theory and not part of the mainstream discourse. It does seem highly detailed and I'm sure you've put a great deal of yourself into it. As I say, you may well be right, but Wikipedia works on secondary sources, not primary sources. Otherwise, I could create a blog in which I claim that Queen Elizabeth is the illegitimate daughter of Winston Churchill, it gets into her article, and hey presto it becomes, for many unenlightened people, the Truth. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC) As long as Wikipedia slavishly cites secondary sources, it must content itself with remaining second in the search rankings. In time my research will be recognized, even if Wikipedia is among the last to acknowledge it. Then I will serve you with a fresh platter of crow for your dining pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC) In that case, you fundamentally fail to understand what Wikipedia's purpose, function and role is. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. We're not remotely interested in the "I'm right, you're wrong" game. In a case such as Elgar's Enigma Variations, there will never be a right/wrong in any event, because the horse's mouth didn't clear the matter up unambiguously, and he's long dead. Now that he's gone, there can only ever be opinions. In that context, the mystery will endure. Some people will find a certain theory resonates with them, and for them the mystery is solved. I myself have my own pet theory. But we're not writing for one person here, or trying to promote any particular theory over any other. If we did a search, we'd probably find literally hundreds of different theories that have been expressed somewhere, some time, in some form. Do we list all of these? Of course not. We list the ones that reputable sources have seen fit to give some attention to. Not saying you are not reputable, but nobody's own writings are a reputable source for our purposes merely because the writer says so. At the moment, that's where you're at. Zillions of google hits do not make something reputable. You need some recognised third parties to give your blog some attention and publish their views on it in recognised publications. I sincerely welcome the time when your research is recognised as among the leading commentaries on the Enigma. Really, I do, because the work you've put into it deserves no less, even if some people choose not to be persuaded by your arguments. Get it peer reviewed, become a recognised commentator, and that will provide a basis for mention in the article. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC) I completely support Jacks's comments above. Sir Padgett, you always have the option of making the case on Wikipedia's policy pages themselves -- the talk pages, I mean -- that research such as yours ought to be included on Wikipedia. It will be an uphill slog, I'll warn you, because the system we've devised here to achieve NPOV, by avoiding original research, and insisting on third-party, published, reputable sources, works. It works quite well indeed. Imagine for a moment what this encyclopedia would look like if everyone could publish their own original ideas on every thing! You have a special point of view here. You're inside of the Enigma Variations, having studied them for so long, and convinced that you have found the answer to the ancient enigma. Thousands of people are convinced they have found the answers for such questions, in all fields of endeavor, and many of them come to Wikipedia -- and not surprisingly, the same thing happens: they are rebuffed, they insult us, they accuse us of whatever bad thing they imagine drives us to suppress the Truth, and then eventually they leave. You must accept this for the reality it is. We only accept research that has been published as Jack has described above. Go get yours published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. That's the way forward for you, not trying to insult us into accepting a policy violation on this page. Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia’s editors shamelessly hide behind the fig leaf of the peer review process, yet en flagrante delicto run with the opinions of those who skirted just that procedure. Hans Westgeest’s theory is just one example as his book is strictly speaking not peer reviewed. If it were, it would be shocking that such a process would permit him to advance the mutually exclusive positions that Elgar refused to disclose the hidden theme during his lifetime, yet mentions it by name it in his notes to the pianola rolls. While Westgeest’s theory is indefensible, those subjected to peer review fare no better. The top ten ‘solutions’ are rife with glaring errors, mistaken assumptions, and omissions (see http://enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com/2012/07/top-ten-enigma-solutions-refuted.html). For instance, Dr. McClelland’s theory is predicated on the assumption that Elgar assiduously avoided dissonant intervals in his harmonization of the unstated Principal Theme with the Enigma Theme. On the contrary, Elgar’s contrapuntal treatment of Mendelssohn’s Wedding March in the lover’s theme from his overture Cockaigne proves just the opposite, that his counterpoint relies heavily on dissonant intervals. Adding insult to injury, Wikipedia’s editors insist on citing multiple theories openly repudiated by Elgar, specifically Auld Lang Syne and God Save The King. By lending credence to these discredited theories, Wikipedia’s editors elevate the meandering musings of academic minions who prostrate themselves before the idol of ‘peer review’ above the documented views of the composer. To exercise such poor judgment under the guise of scholarship is not only a charade, but an unpardonable sin. Elevating a traditional process above the frank recognition of truth is Pharisaical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC) If Wikipedia is such a denizen of the academic gutter, why do you care a tinker's cuss about anything it says? You seem to want to have it both ways: your opinion of Wikipedia is extremely low, yet you still crave recognition here. That's the real enigma here. We've gone to the trouble of explaining how the system works, and you repay that with insults. I, for one, will not be spending any more of my time conducting business with you, unless you can demonstrate your civility can match, nay surpass, your childish self-righteousness and academic arrogance. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Your ruffled feelings on the subject are irrelevant. I deal in facts, not fictions floated by Wikipedia's editorial incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 7 October 2012 Oh dear, another insult. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC) The truth is only insulting to those prone to printing terminological inexactitudes. Since my original research does not satisfy Wikipedia's exacting standards, it is only reasonably that Wikipedia agree never to cite my research without my express authorization. Agreed? Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, thank you. We're done here. Antandrus (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Do you agree not to cite my original research about Elgar's Enigma Variations anywhere on Wikipedia without first securing my express authorization? It's a simple yes or no answer. Which will it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.5.54 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC) The way you carry on, I personally would be glad to never see or hear your name mentioned ever again, in any context whatsoever. But I don't speak for Wikipedia and I will not limit its rights to cite published material. You may be able to procure copyright as a means of protecting your writings from inappropriate quotation. You should investigate such avenues yourself. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC) One can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink...or think. In other words, one cannot talk horse sense (or make sense) with the senseless, particularly those who blindly elevate the peer review process above everything else. Although I have patiently demonstrated time and again how the peer review process has flagrantly failed regarding a number of alleged enigma solutions featured on Wikipedia, its editors continue to embrace and elevate that process above all else, most notably logic and common sense. To invoke the infallibility of peer review is just as myopic as asserting the infallibility of the pope. The people can and will think for themselves, for the freedom of the Internet makes that dream a reality. The world will not be confined by the narrow dictates of the high priests of academia...or Wikipedia. You are wasting your time. Our job is to uphold the principles on which Wikipedia is based, which include a total ban on original research, which is precisely what your self-published writings constitute. You are effectively asking the police to change the law (they can't) or turn a blind eye in your case. In the real world, that is known as incitement to corruption. I'm sure you wouldn't want corruption to underpin the dissemination of your message. I know Elgar would never have approved. If you want to argue against the fundamental working principle of No original research, take the matter up there. NOT here. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 03:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC) It is undoubtedly a waste of time striving to convince Wikipedia to cite any original research regarding Elgar's Enigma Variations. Facts should never be permitted to trump official policy. Here are some intriguing facts to contemplate. In the Enigma Theme Elgar repeatedly modulates between the minor and major modes of G. The key signatures of these modes use the accidentals B-flat, E-flat and F-sharp. Notice the letters for those accidentals (EFB) form the initials for Ein feste Burg. Yet another clue is the title Enigma which conveniently furnishes the first letter (E) of the first word in the hidden theme's title as well as all three letters contiguously for ein (Enigma). There's more. When Elgar received an honorary Doctor of Music degree from Yale University in 1905, the hymn performed immediately afterwards was none other than Luther's Ein feste Burg. On March 8th, 2013, a Google search of Elgar enigma solution ranked my blog as the number one and two results in the world. The second is the link to the Table of Contents of my e-book, Elgar's Enigma Theme Unmasked. Wikipedia ranked a distant third. A Bing search on the same date of the identical criteria ranked my blog number one in the world, my YouTube channel number two, Wikianswers third, and trailing in fourth place was Wikipedia. Despite these extraordinary search results, my blog still goes unmentioned in Wikipedia's article on Elgar's Enigma Variations. The unwavering commitment of Wikipedia's editors to excluding my research openly published on my blog is costing Wikipedia its traditional top ranking and the accompanying web traffic such a position affords. I simply wish to draw your attention to these issues in the hopes you will continue to exclude my research and assure my blog remains number one (and now two) in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 15:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC) On 5 April 2013, a Google search of Elgar enigma solution ranked my blog first, second and third out of 652,000 results with Wikipedia trailing a distant fourth. A Bing search ranked my blog first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh, wiki.answers.com eighth, and Wikipedia ninth. Wikipedia's position continues to slide in the rankings while my blog absorbs more and more of the top rankings. The search algorithms reveal I must be onto to something...big — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Sir Padgett (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC) (Yawns) P0mbal (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Then it can surely be only a question of time until someone unconnected to you publishes a commentary on your work in a recognised publication. That would be the key to Wikipedia including it. I wonder why they haven't done so yet. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC) There is little chance my original research will ever crop up in the pages of any recognized publication due to the overwhelmingly secular bent of academia. My findings are simply far too Christian to excite the slightest sympathy of post-modern scholars steeped in a secular humanistic worldview. Ultimately it does not matter. The power and reach of the Internet makes any monopoly on academic research a relic of a lost era, a thing of the past that no longer dominates or defines the debate. My blog just exceeded 133,000 page views and continues to attract a global audience. A Google search of Elgar enigma solution ranks my blog first, second, and third in the world with Wikipedia languishing in fourth place. A Bing search of the same criteria ranks my blog first and second, multiple videos from my YouTube Channel third, Wikianswers fourth (which features my melodic solution), and Wikipedia trailing in fifth place. Usually the search algorithms rank Wikipedia first, not fourth or fifth. These uncharacteristic search results serve as a clarion call that Wikipedia's article on the Enigma Variations is compromised by outdated analysis and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC) On May 10th, 2013, a Google search of Elgar enigma solution ranked my blog first, second, third, fourth, and my objective test of a competing enigma theory fifth out of 543,000 sites in the world. Wikipedia fell another notch to sixth place. Remember when Wikipedia used to be ranked number one? By excluding the latest research and analysis on this intriguing subject, Wikipedia's editors assure a progressive slide in its web ranking...and a growing number of my own clustering at the top. I am particularly grateful for Wikipedia's strict policy of excluding original research, for that has undoubtedly contributed to the growing success of my blog. Never was it more truly said that silence is golden.Sir Padgett (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC) We're utterly delighted to have been of service to you. What a beautiful ENDING to a truly special correspondence. Go well in all your future endeavours. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 18:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I boldly rebalanced the discussion of the enigma - I believe the last edit came across too much as a campaign in favor of one particular theory (the never never theory), dominating the section and unbalancing the entire article. For my own part ISTR Neville Cardus was told the secret before Elgar died, and his reaction made me think it isn't as simple as another "tune". David Brooks 05:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm a firm believer in the "never, never, never" theory, but that doesn't mean it necessarily was what Elgar had in mind (even if the evidence, to me, seems overwhelming). I guess what goes for an article in a music journal, where the author is pushing a particular point of view, does not necessarily go for Wikipedia. What was Cardus's reaction, by the way? (ISTR = I seem to remember?) JackofOz 05:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to put a reference to any online discussion of the Van Houten article in the References section (I guess the article itself is not online). The "coincidence" about the drumroll and pennies is just wrong; the idea to use coins came first from Henderson at the first performance, and I think he used sovereigns. On Cardus - I confused him with Newman. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A805303: Elgar said something on his deathbed that the Newman swore he would never repeat, but that it was an unexpected illumination of the Enigma. David Brooks 16:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you illuminate me about the "drumroll and pennies" matter. I've never heard of it. The only "penny" connection I knew about was the one I mentioned in an earlier edit (now deleted), about Dora Penny who, Elgar said, "of all people" should have guessed the enigma. Then the connection was made with the British penny (coin) that had an effigy of Britannia (cf. "Rule, Britannia") on it. JackofOz 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked... The commonly told story is that the original timpanist, Charles Henderson, pointed out that it is impossible to switch from side drum sticks to naturale without a break, as called for in the score. Henderson had the bright idea of holding a penny in each hand, between two fingers (these are the big pre-decimal pennies, of course). And that this tradition continued ever since. So, even with this version of the story, it wasn't Elgar's idea. Van Houten just put together the words "Penny - Britannia" in an vague, misdirected attempt to justify his theory, but thereby damaged it in my mind.

Anyway there are several problems with that story. First, according to a first-person account passed on by Jimmy Blades, Henderson used sovereigns, not pennies, because Elgar decided he didn't like the sound of side drum sticks after all, and not specifically because of the performer's problem. This confirms that, at best, Elgar was making a post-hoc connection with Dora's name; coins were not in his initial intention. Also, as it happens, it is playable as written. I can play it perfectly well with a creative grip on two sticks and a mallet, which I find much more manageable than those damned coins! Not all timpanists today use coins (despite this story of Elgar's preferring them); for example the Boston Symphony Orchestra uses a second player with side drum sticks on a spare drum. I've heard that another conductor has asked for a chain to be put on the drum to make it rattle, and MTT (possibly confusing the story) asked an acquaintance of mine to put the coin on the drumhead. David Brooks 00:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It all sounds pretty improbable and post-hoc to me too. Unlike the "Rule Brittannia/Never, never/Dora Penny/Britannia" theory which has always resonated strongly with me. Cheers JackofOz 01:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a civilian and I know nothing about classical music, but I find this discussion interesting. What effect does "holding a penny in each hand, between two fingers" have? How does it make it easier to play the piece? Lupine Proletariat 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Elgar asked for a timpani roll played with wooden sticks (invoking the sound of a ship's engines), followed immediately by notes played with normal felt sticks, which many players deem impossible (I disagree). The solution was to hold coins between your fingers and rattle them on the heads, while holding the felt sticks at the ready (I can't) and produce much the same sound (it doesn't). Oh dear, was that a POV? :-) Some claim that Elgar came to prefer the coins anyway. David Brooks 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently took part in a performance of this piece. Our timpanist's solution was to place coins on the heads while hitting the heads with felt sticks, so that the coins rattled on their own.Kazuo Ishiguro (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A Google and Bing search of Elgar enigma solution ranks my blog enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com as the number one search result, beating out Wikipedia, Answers.com, Leeds University, and other prominent sites. This fortunate condition has been the case for over ten months, showing no signs of abating despite recent changes to Google's search algorithm. My blog has received over 61,000 page views in the past 13 months, a figure that dramatically understates actual page views since one page view may be the equivalent of 40 pages from a book. More recently, a Bing search of Elgar Enigma Theme ranks my YouTube video documenting the melodic solution as the number one video result. Using the same search criteria, Google ranks my videos as 4th, 8th and 9th - three in the top ten search results. The editors of Wikipedia are encouraged to reconsider their blanket refusal to mention my groundbreaking research on Elgar’s Enigma Variations that demonstrates with multiple proofs the covert Principal Theme is Martin Luther’s Ein feste Burg (A Mighty Fortress). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.67.118 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello User: Sir Padgett. Don't forget to sign in to your account before you post and to add a signature after you post. This is pretty much the same post you made here five weeks ago (and you've double posted the same text on this page just now, up here and down at the bottom). Do you expect a different answer than five weeks ago? I'm curious as to what your strategy is here. It appears that you're just spamming the internet and then using the pagerank stats from various search engines to justify more spamming (which would further increase the pagerank stats). How is that supposed to add credibility to your ideas?DavidRF (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My research does not require the imprimatur of Wikipedia to add credibility, and in time you will feature my ideas. I am pleased to report my 'Enigma' blog has now reached a new milestone: 66,000 page views! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A Bing search of Elgar enigma solution on June 12, 2012 produced 86,400 results with my blog ranked number one in the world - enigmathemeunmasked.blogspot.com. Wikipedia is ranked number 2, and my blog post about Elgar's Music Box Cipher is number 3. To date my blog has received over 84,500 page views. On May 5, 2012 I shared my research at the North American Conference of the Elgar Society in a 90 minute presentation. As long as Wikipedia continues to exclude my research, I am confident my blog will remain number one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Padgett (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In his letter to Jaeger dated 3 January, 1902, Elgar refers to hymn tunes as being 'ghastly inarticulate' in the context of his work on the sacred oratorio The Apostles which was first performed in October 1903. Elgar felt it was critical to write new melodies for this work rather than reintroduce traditional hymn tunes. If Elgar truly disdained hymn tunes, why would his personal library contain multiple hymnals? Indeed, why would he compose O Mightiest of the Mighty, a hymn for chorus and organ?RobertPadgett (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect to a researcher, though the above may be true and interesting, it seems to be rather remote from helping to improve the page. P0mbal (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The assertion "Elgar didn't like hymn tunes and considered them being 'ghastly inartistic'" is a material misrepresentation because it quotes Elgar out of context, and ignores the fact his personal library included multiple hymnals including a translation of Hymns of the Early Church by J. Brownlie, and that Elgar composed multiple hymns. The letter dated 3 January, 1902, from which the quotation originates was written regarding his work on the sacred oratorio The Apostles - not the Enigma Variations. Adina Spire acknowledges she learned of the melodic solution Ein feste Burg from the blog Elgar's Enigma Theme Exposed. This solution was discovered by Robert Padgett on 3 February 3, 2009 - the bicentennial of Felix Mendelssohn's birth. Please correct the attribution of this melodic solution in your article. This melodic solution has been personlly presented by Mr. Padgett to three different annual conferences of the North American Branch of the Elgar Society. His most recent presentation - Elgar's Unknown Friend Unmasked - was given in Vancouver in June 2014. RobertPadgett (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)