接下来的更难，请不要用翻译软件来翻译，真正高手来帮帮我 谢谢
The three concertos have an exuberance in common, stemming quite as much from deep technical understanding of the instrument's problems as from a more general devotion to its beauties. The father's work is in a free, extended rondo form, with a strong march theme in C minor recurring at the pivotal points. Not a specially inspired theme but a memorable one. I wondered for a moment what it reminded me of, only to realize when it appeared momentarily in the major that its bluff dotted rhythms are like Rossini's exaggerated military march in 11 Barbiere di Siviglia when Almaviva, in his disguise as an officer, pretends to be drunk.
Not that Rossini is the real influence here; rather Franz Strauss's hero, Brahms, and the central slow section in a flowing compound time—virtually a movement on its own with a full close at the end--has a Brahmsian lusciousness of melody writing, and all through it is striking how quickly the composer moves away from pyrotechnics to warm, lyrical writing. There are pyrotechnics of course, particularly in the breathtaking, florid writing which ends each outer section, but plainly for Franz Strauss display was not the main point.
The two Richard Strauss concertos were written some 60 years apart (1882-3 against 1942) and have some obvious points in common. They are both in the key of E flat, they both use an identical, modest-sized orchestra, in each there is a linking of movements, and each ends with a brilliant rondo. They both reveal Strauss at his mellowest and most euphonious, the early work because he had yet to learn 'cacophonous' ways, the later work because he had forsaken them in favour of a milder style. Though they inevitably reflect different periods, and the later work has finesse in place of youthful eagerness, they are very much inspirations of the same mind.
In the First Concerto there are some of the same contrasts, for if Brain's tone in dramatic bravura passages had a sharpness of impact that is unique, it is Tuckwell, who with a slightly less dramatic range of tone-colour, is generally the more expressive in his phrasing in this work. In the final rondo his shading of individual phrases is more thoughtfully done, and the legato playing is more intensely beautiful. In the first movement too, Tuckwell's pp playing is breathtaking in the second episode.
I mention these contrasts to underline Tuckwell's achievement. In practical terms the rivalry will probably not be direct. Some will naturally stay faithful to the unique Brain artistry, but whatever the contrasts of interpretation, there is no denying the powerful benefits of outstanding modern stereo and of course the unexpected bonne-bouche of Father Strauss's concerto. Splendid orchestral playing from Tuckwell's LSO colleagues. E.G.
这并不是说罗西尼是真正的影响力，而是弗朗茨施特劳斯的英雄，勃拉姆斯，中央部分在缓慢流动的复合时间实际上是对自己的运动，一个在年底全部关闭 - 有一个甜美的旋律写作Brahmsian，所有通过它的速度是惊人的举动，作曲家远离烟火温暖，抒情文字。当然也有烟火，特别是在惊险，绚丽写作，而最后每个外层部分，但显然弗兰兹斯特劳斯展出并非主要问题。
两个理查德施特劳斯协奏曲写一些60岁外（1882-3针对1942年），并有一些共同的明显的论点。他们是两个单位的E键，它们都使用相同的，中等大小的乐团，每个有一个连接动作，每一个辉煌回旋曲结束。它们都揭示斯特劳斯在他mellowest，最悦耳，早期的工作，因为他还没有学会'吵闹'的方法，后来的工作，因为他抛弃在一个温和的方式对他们有利。虽然他们不可避免地反映了不同的时期，以及后来的工作积极性的地方在手腕的青春，他们是相同的想法很灵感。
在第一协奏曲有相同的一些对比，因为如果大脑在戏剧性的大胆通道的语调，清晰度的影响是独特的，它是塔克韦尔，谁的调子，颜色略少戏剧性的范围，一般是更多的表现在他的措辞在这项工作中。在最后的回旋曲他的个人短语底纹更周到做，打的连奏更强烈美丽。在第一乐章也塔克韦尔的页是在玩第二集激动人心。
我提到这些对比，强调塔克韦尔的成就。在实践方面的竞争可能不会是直接的。有些人会留忠实于自然的独特脑艺术性，但无论对比的解释，也没有否认杰出的现代音响，当然还有意想不到的保姆，父亲斯特劳斯的协奏曲河口，三角强大的好处。灿烂的管弦乐演奏从塔克韦尔的莱索托同事。例如
