Like the first light of dawn, this music opens your eyes to new promises and to all the wonders of nature. Evocative of powers beyond observation, these pieces pull the strings of the heart, attract nostalgia and awaken the loves, the skinned lives and torpor of tormented watchmen 🤠💫
je ne connaissais Magnard que de" manières fragmentées", un disquaire me l'avait fait "couté il y a une quinzaine d'années et j'avais oublié ! redécouverte donc : c'est magnifique !!!!
I have been addicted to his 4th so I have not been listening to the others until recently. I have not been able to grasp the 3rd yet, but I am becoming very attached to this one. A very lovely symphony with gorgeous melodies, often more subtle than extravagant. I hear Atterberg in some sections.
Alberic Magnard died heroically burnt in his house in 1914 by the invaders. Many manuscripts burned with him. But he leaves us some piano music, highly valuable chamber music, one opera, and above all the series of four symphonies, all excellent. This art is not innovative in the sense of Debussy, but he also avoided a too large influence of César Franck. He built i fact a classical tonal language of his own, fierce and firmly elaborated. This second symphony is a good example.
Ok. I admit : didn't know this man. But what a wonderful discovery. I really enjoyed his symphonies ...and en plus the beautiful artworks. Does anybody know who painted them?
The fourth suymphonies of Albéric Magnard are four masterpiexes. The fourth dominates the whole, but all of them deservee considraton. Such is this second, in which fantasy is controlled by a severe overarching plan.
There is Nielsen influence and I hear Strauss here too. Magnard is lovely. His style and signature are highly individual however. Thank you again for posting this.
Nielsen influence? This piece was written in 1893 (and revised in 1896), exactly at the same moment when Nielsen wrote his First Symphony. By the way, Nielsen remained almost unkwown in France until the 1980s or 1990s.
@@MrBohuslav Ol' Maggers(Magnard)had cunningly disguised himself as a house cleaner at the time Nielsen was composing his 1st Symphony, and managed to get a position cleaning at Nielsen's house. While Nielsen was immersed in trying to avoid making his 1st Symphony too boring, Magnard would often peek over his shoulder while he was composing and jot things down.
This "French Bruckner" thing sticks in my craw. From what I can find, there's no evidence that Magnard knew anything about Bruckner's music. Apparently nobody performed a Bruckner symphony in France until 1901, by which time Magnard had already written 3 of his 4 symphonies. I don't think they sound anything alike and, frankly, Magnard's symphonies are more satisfying to me than Brucker's. Bruckner is just so awkward and repetitious compared to Magnard. I think it's just that Bruckner was Austrian and his reputation has been inflated within the more cultic world of German high culture.
Yes, Bruckner is much easier to listen to because there is very little variation in his phrase lengths. To some that makes him sound 'epic', to others boring. Magnard uses counterpoint to concentrate his action rather than extend it, thus a symphony by M lasts 35-40 minutes as opposed to 120. Yes, the result is that Magnard's texture feels much more dense. Diffuse, he certainly is not; that would be Bruckner. Magnard's aims were much more ambitious, and personally I am not sure that he acheived them before his 4th symphony. That being said, I think Magnard's 4th towers over anything Bruckner ever managed.
Like the first light of dawn, this music opens your eyes to new promises and to all the wonders of nature. Evocative of powers beyond observation, these pieces pull the strings of the heart, attract nostalgia and awaken the loves, the skinned lives and torpor of tormented watchmen 🤠💫
Magnifique et magique...
je ne connaissais Magnard que de" manières fragmentées", un disquaire me l'avait fait "couté il y a une quinzaine d'années et j'avais oublié ! redécouverte donc : c'est magnifique !!!!
I have been addicted to his 4th so I have not been listening to the others until recently. I have not been able to grasp the 3rd yet, but I am becoming very attached to this one. A very lovely symphony with gorgeous melodies, often more subtle than extravagant. I hear Atterberg in some sections.
Alberic Magnard died heroically burnt in his house in 1914 by the invaders. Many manuscripts burned with him. But he leaves us some piano music, highly valuable chamber music, one opera, and above all the series of four symphonies, all excellent. This art is not innovative in the sense of Debussy, but he also avoided a too large influence of César Franck. He built i fact a classical tonal language of his own, fierce and firmly elaborated. This second symphony is a good example.
Came across his piano trio and was encouraged to keep going. Fascinating artwork too
Magnard est magnifique!
Mangnardifique!
Ok. I admit : didn't know this man. But what a wonderful discovery. I really enjoyed his symphonies ...and en plus the beautiful artworks. Does anybody know who painted them?
Don't look at ME!
The fourth suymphonies of Albéric Magnard are four masterpiexes. The fourth dominates the whole, but all of them deservee considraton. Such is this second, in which fantasy is controlled by a severe overarching plan.
24:27 so mysterious and strange
There is Nielsen influence and I hear Strauss here too. Magnard is lovely. His style and signature are highly individual however. Thank you again for posting this.
Nielsen influence? This piece was written in 1893 (and revised in 1896), exactly at the same moment when Nielsen wrote his First Symphony. By the way, Nielsen remained almost unkwown in France until the 1980s or 1990s.
@@MrBohuslav Ol' Maggers(Magnard)had cunningly disguised himself as a house cleaner at the time Nielsen was composing his 1st Symphony, and managed to get a position cleaning at Nielsen's house. While Nielsen was immersed in trying to avoid making his 1st Symphony too boring, Magnard would often peek over his shoulder while he was composing and jot things down.
Musicology in progress!
@@MrBohuslav You've nailed it-a true connoisseur I see!?
HEREWITH I DICTATE UPON THOU SCHOOLMASTERS TO PLAY THIS TO ALL MUSIC STUDENTS! NOW!!!!
"like" on 25 Feb 2016
Bonjour , quelqu ' un pourrait il me dire de qui est l' illustration? Merci ....
This place is Nagrand, right ?
This "French Bruckner" thing sticks in my craw. From what I can find, there's no evidence that Magnard knew anything about Bruckner's music. Apparently nobody performed a Bruckner symphony in France until 1901, by which time Magnard had already written 3 of his 4 symphonies. I don't think they sound anything alike and, frankly, Magnard's symphonies are more satisfying to me than Brucker's. Bruckner is just so awkward and repetitious compared to Magnard. I think it's just that Bruckner was Austrian and his reputation has been inflated within the more cultic world of German high culture.
why not
Yes, Bruckner is much easier to listen to because there is very little variation in his phrase lengths. To some that makes him sound 'epic', to others boring. Magnard uses counterpoint to concentrate his action rather than extend it, thus a symphony by M lasts 35-40 minutes as opposed to 120. Yes, the result is that Magnard's texture feels much more dense. Diffuse, he certainly is not; that would be Bruckner. Magnard's aims were much more ambitious, and personally I am not sure that he acheived them before his 4th symphony. That being said, I think Magnard's 4th towers over anything Bruckner ever managed.