Why, oh Why, oh why, oh why.......................do news programmes seek to indulge in futile discussions about cultural matters, such as whether Elgar was backward-looking or forward-looking? Two "experts" - Norman Lebrecht and Stephen Retallack - were being asked about whether Elgar was a great composer etc. The point for me is whether any composer (and they quoted J. S. Bach also as an example) writes worthwhile music which inspires, appeals to and pleases music-lovers. If so, does it matter if they are "backward-looking" or "forward-lookiong"? The emphasis in the programme was very much that only forward-looking composers are worthwhile. This is a western disease! Art does not subsist, in terms of the individual "value" of its creators, in developing the language and/or techniques of its practice, or even in creating new ones. J. S. Bach, perhaps the greatest composer of all, was regarded in his time as provincial and old-fashioned! Another foolish and ignorant point made was that Elgar never influenced his "successors" (as though there is some sort of dynasty or royal family of creators), although a slight allowance was made in a reference to Walton's "Crown Imperial" March as an influenced work. I would have thought that Sir Arthur Bliss's music was quite heavily influenced by Elgar, and none the worse for it. And another downside of this sort of thing is that by trying to place a huge emphasis on the "importance" of one particular "name" all the others by implication become downgraded. The contemporaries of Elgar - Havergal Brian, Delius, Holst, Vaughan Williams, and others - were just as valuable. By the way, I put this post here because it was Radio 4, not 3, but the subject matter is really applicable to Radio 3 as being classical music.

conversely, i've read reports of people being shocked at the opening chord of the 1st symphony!

Nice point Ros. I have to say I don't listen to the Today prog any more, but I remember the pitch of these arty
items as not well done. The questions are too broad brush and sound like sloppy aimless mid-market tabloid.
If Start the Week or Midweek were themed they could take this on at sufficient length but you can't do punchy
with matters artistic can you, they meander positively. In that Humphries plays the cello and Naughtie is doing this
15 min epic in a while you'd think they'd get this. One of the best things about Today as it once was imho was
the round table commentary by 3 parliamentary reprobates (Julian Critchley,  Austin Mitchell ...and Kennedy?)who had cultural interests broad enough to say something pithy and witty about something en passant-that's a different thing. They had 10 mins or so I think.

/////////////<<<<<<<<<< Wasn't the shock there simply that the chord is not in the right key? We would not even notice it nowadays, but then the diatonic key system was relatively new, and undiluted by chromaticism.

You could justify this formally rather than the immediate harmonic series, and this is the great leap forward here
I suggest.(Ian and Richard please butt in before I start droning on)
In a word its the talent of the subject v the inanity represented by posing the question in the first
place, as if diatonicism were some Daily Mail moralising stricture rather than an agent provocateur of a continuous innovation.