Acheter d'occasion
EUR 9,99
+ EUR 2,49 (livraison)
D'occasion: Bon | Détails
Vendu par ZOverstocksFR
État: D'occasion: Bon
Commentaire: Entièrement garanti. Expédié à partir du Royaume-Uni, veuillez noter que les délais de livraison peuvent atteindre 18 jours.
Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez sur Amazon
Egalement disponible en MP3
Album MP3 à EUR 9,99

Symphonie N 3;Concerto Pour Violon N 2

2 neufs à partir de EUR 48,03 5 d'occasion à partir de EUR 9,99
Promotions et bons plans musique CD Vinyle Promotions et bons plans musique CD Vinyle

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Page Artiste Richard Hickox

Détails sur le produit

  • Interprète: Richard Hickox
  • Compositeur: Max Bruch
  • CD (1 septembre 2006)
  • Nombre de disques: 1
  • Label: Chandos Records
  • ASIN : B00000JINQ
  • Autres versions : Téléchargement MP3
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : Soyez la première personne à écrire un commentaire sur cet article
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: 810.841 en Musique (Voir les 100 premiers en Musique)
  •  Voulez-vous mettre à jour des informations sur le produit, faire un commentaire sur des images ou nous signaler un prix inférieur?

  • Ecouter les extraits - (Extrait)
11:58 Album uniquement
10:15 Album uniquement
Ecouter le titre Acheter : EUR 1,29
Ecouter le titre Acheter : EUR 1,29
15:01 Album uniquement
Ecouter le titre Acheter : EUR 1,29
9:43 Album uniquement

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoile

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) HASH(0x98f8c5f4) étoiles sur 5 2 commentaires
5 internautes sur 5 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x991e3be8) étoiles sur 5 Some interpretive flaws, but much pleasure is in store with these neglected masterpieces 16 février 2010
Par Discophage - Publié sur
Format: CD Achat vérifié
I had pinned some hopes on this recording of Bruch's third Symphony by Richard Hickox.

I realized only recently the many beauties of Bruch's Symphonies. Masur's complete recording, heard in the late 1980s (it was recorded between 1983 and 1988), had failed to leave a strong impression (Bruch: The 3 Symphonies, Swedish Dances (Schwedische Tanze)). The abiding feeling was that I had all heard it before, in Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner. A chance encounter with the symphonies of Fibich recently raised the question of what it is that makes it the music of a "minor" composer, as opposed to the "major" ones mentioned above (Fibich: Symphony No. 1 in F major, Op. 17; The Tempest, Op.46, Zdenek Fibich: Symphonies Nos. 2 & 3). And the tentative answer was that, as enjoyable as it may be, the music doesn't give you the impression that you haven't heard it before. I decided to test that "hypothesis" on Bruch.

I hadn't listened carefully enough twenty years ago. Sure, much in Bruch's Symphonies you have heard in those "major" composers; that makes them hardly forward-looking works in their days (1868, 1870 and 1883-revised in 1886). But then, heard today, such consideration doesn't count for much. One can listen to Bruch's Symphonies for what they offer, not for what they don't.

And rehearing them, I must now turn my formula around: they may not give you the impression that you haven't heard it before, but they are highly enjoyable nonetheless. I won't say that Bruch's output is on a same plane with Brahms' (nobody is) or Bruckner (because Bruckner is somewhere else entirely). But I hear in them nothing that makes them inferior to those of Mendelssohn or Schumann - on the contrary. Why do theirs enjoy such popularity, and not his? Maybe because they weren't trendy enough in their days, and fell in oblivion before they had a chance.

In fact I've enjoyed Bruch's Symphonies so much that I bought the study scores, recently reissued, after possibly a century of unavailability, by an enterprising German publisher, Musikproduktion Hoeflich, specialized in bringing back to circulation obscure and off-the-beaten track repertoire. Bless them!

I also acquired more recordings, including the competing cycle of James Conlon, recorded in 1992-93 (Bruch: Symphonies 1-3, Concerto for 2 Pianos). It turns out that Conlon's fortes are Masur's deficiencies, and the other way around. Conlon has the much better sonics - Masur's East-German recording sounds muffled, the edges are blunted and many details from brass and woodwind are simply lost: frustrating to see it on the page and not hear it (the 3rd fares best, though). On the other hand, interpretively, I find that Masur does much better justice to the scores. His tempos are always closer to Bruch's metronome marks (he wrote very detailed ones in Symphonies 2 & 3). It is not just a question of being faithful to score for the sake of it (although, in such rarely recording works, there is indeed a value to letting you hear it exactly as the composer intended it): Masur's more urgent approach highlights the symphonies' intense passion and romantic turbulence. Conlon has a tendency to play slower, solemnizing and brucknerizing the music so to speak. In the 3rd Symphony's first movement, he also slows down significantly the second, lyrical theme, presumably to "fully press the lyrical juices". But the result is only to check the forward momentum and unduly sentimentalize the music. Masur does exactly what Bruch prescribes: a slight easing of tempo that, with the subsiding dynamics, feels more like an easing of tension than an actual slow down. I refer you to my reviews of both sets for more details.

So my hopes with Hickox were to get the best of both worlds, Conlon's sonics at the service of Masur's approach.

Not entirely fulfilled.

Hickox's approach is similar to Conlon's, but without his excesses. His sonics are better even: everything comes out clearly, but the brass aren't as aggressively spotlighted, sounding more organic and natural. Interpretively, Hickox' finale is great: it has all the sweep and passion of Masur (Conlon is pretty good here as well) with better sound. His first movement introduction is far slower than Bruch indicates (and Masur executes), slower even than Conlon's (quarter note 48 to Conlon's 52 and Bruch's 72); but Hickox must be aware that such tempo is problematic, because he accelerates markedly in the course of the introduction, reaching 80 (as if his quarter note beat had become a half note beat). It is expertly done and sounds organic - but it is not what Bruch wrote! Like Conlon, he slows down significantly the second and lyrical theme at 3:45, sentimentalizing it and somewhat checking the forward motion. But there is plenty of uplifting sweep in the faster sections. Like Conlon, he brucknerizes the 2nd movement, giving it grandeur but making it more stately than it deserves and robbing it of some of its intense passion. The scherzo is fine but doesn't quite have the bubbling energy and zest of Masur at Bruch's tempo. There is nothing likely to chock anybody without a score, and much in Hickox' reading is very good, but having in mind what it might and should sound like, it leaves me a bit frustrated.

One originality of the Chandos Bruch Symphony cycle is that each Symphony is paired with one of Bruch's Violin Concertos, as on Bruch: Symphony 3/Violin Concerto 2. Sadly, Richard Hickox died before he could complete the cycle, with 2nd Symphony and first VC left unrecorded. Bruch is still in the mainstream almost exclusively for his 1st Violin Concerto, which has overshadowed all the rest of his output, including his two other VCs. No. 2 op. 44, written in 1877, a year before Brahms', doesn't deserve such neglect. It is full of gorgeous moments and should be standard repertoire. Mordkovitch plays with total involvement and big-boned lyricism, a big tone which can sometimes go gruff, and even strained in the finale, and not always pitch-accuracy in the higher reaches. Mordkovitch and Hickox's broad approach yields grandeur but also a measure of heavy-footedness.

Despite these interpretive flaws, this disc will offer many pleasures.
HASH(0x99bcedec) étoiles sur 5 Full measure of excellences - except passion! 5 octobre 2011
Par Jurgen Lawrenz - Publié sur
Format: CD
Discophage's review says much of what I would have written, but I am lagging behind! So my notice will be brief.
Hickox has obviously the superior sound to Masur, who was recorded on tape, not digitally. But this should not distress as much as D'ph claims. The overwhelming bulk of classical music on records is analog! Where would we be if we measured all of them by today's standards?
What I miss in Hickox is passion. Bruch's music revels in it. You will notice in the first and last movements that Masur has considerably more rhythmic vitality, which brings out this indispensable element of the music, where Hickox is content to paint a gloss of beauty over it. Especially so in the slow movement, where near the end Masur extracts an almost Wagnerian paroxysm of overt sensuality. Once you've imbibed this, it is very hard to do without. Hickox is here, as elsewhere, the perfect gentleman, hinting but not expressing.
I might add, for what it's worth, that D'ph is rather gentle on Conlon, despite the negatives. These recordings are not truly competitive. They are not Brucknerian, but plodding and dull, and without any feeling for Bruch's own voice.
The Violin Concerto gets a big-boned reading from Mordkovitch. For listeners wishing to have a rest from the eternal No. 1, this is a wonderful concerto, overflowing with melodies: rather more similar to the Scottish Fantasy than to No. 1. It was written, by the way, for Sarasate. Its neglect is a scandal. As a work of art it stand head and shoulders over such frequently recorded trifles as Saint-Saens or Wieniawski.
Fine as it is, the most commendable attribute of this performance is again the sound. It can hold up to comparison with Accardo, who is a shade reticent in this work. But there is an obvious first choice here, a marvellous, beautifully crafted recording by Perlman with Lopez-Corboz (much to be preferred to the Perlman/Mehta partnership).
I end by saying: you can't go wrong choosing this album. But it has limitations. As a performance I would rate Masur higher in the symphony, and Perlman in the concerto. (But that's 2 albums of course).
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous

Discussions entre clients


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?