# Shostakovich



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm listening to his piano trios 1 & 2 and heard his piano preludes yesterday evening. I find him quite intriguing and was looking for more direction in what to explore with him.

Also, feel free to share in the love of this fine composer! 

:tiphat:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

My favorite works by him in order:

Symphony No. 5
Symphony No. 15
Symphony No. 10
Piano Quintet (maybe try this or the Second Piano Concerto first for something more "conservative")
24 Preludes and Fugues (has a decent shot at being my favorite piano work of the 20th century)
Cello Concerto No. 1
Violin Concerto No. 1

One of this year's avowed "listening projects" is to hear his entire cycle of 15 symphonies chronologically. I'm saving that one for later after my upcoming project of listening to the complete works of Mahler, but I expect it to be fascinating.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I have a love/hate attitude towards DSCH. Some of his music I think is first-rate; he was one of the better symphonists of the 20th century, but not all of them are top-drawer. But I sure like nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 10. Some of the others I can't stand, like 2, 3, 7, 15. There's a thread here debating different recordings of the symphonies; between Ormandy and Bernstein on Sony you can have some first-class music on the cheap.

Some of his strongest, most personal and deeply felt music is in the string quartets. They seem to peer into his mind. They were one place he could write what he felt without fear of being hauled off to the gulag. Get 'em all. Very, very powerful stuff. The Borodin Quartet on EMI is fine.

His music for the theater and movies is really good too. The ballets (The Bolt, The Golden Age) are great fun. Ricardo Chailly made a couple of disks of his lighter music for Decca that are really excellent. The Capriccio label made a large number of disks of the film music. I don't know if they're still available, but I enjoyed them all very much.

Lady Macbeth is a great opera and you should give it a listen. The historical importance of the opera, with Stalin's involvement makes it essential for understanding the horrors of communism. The Nose is good, too. 

His concertos (2 each for violin and piano) are fine. So are the cello concertos. I regret that I've never explored his solo piano music much, other than the 24 Preludes and Fugues.

I have to say that I envy you: I remember my introduction to Shostakovich over 50 years ago and the incredible excitement of discovering his music. I wish I could recapture those heady days...it was quite thrilling time.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DSCH non-orchestral music:

Piano Trio #2 is excellent and quite popular, #1 is seldom heard.
The Piano Quintet is one of his best.
Everybody needs a full set of his quartets.
Ditto the Op. 87 set of 24 Preludes and Fugues.
His one Cello Sonata, often recorded along with Prokofiev's for a great pairing.
He has two Piano Sonatas; #2 is sometimes heard, #1 less so.

In addition, _all _of his six concertos are excellent, as are most of his symphonies.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

KenOC said:


> DSCH non-orchestral music:
> 
> Piano Trio #2 is excellent and quite popular, #1 is seldom heard.
> The Piano Quintet is one of his best.
> ...


Just add the Op. 134 and Op. 147 sonatas and the list is perfect. .


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm taking a listen to Symphony 5.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> The Piano Quintet is one of his best.


I like this piece a lot. I heard it performed in a church a few years ago. And I have the Martha Argerich CD on EMI. It's a great Shostakovich disc. The Complete Trios & Sonatas set by Kalichstein Laredo Robinson Trio is another excellent set. Out of print but there are affordable copies available.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Everything the man ever wrote.  In particular the SQs, the symphonies and the concertos. But I wouldn’t be without his piano music and his theatre stuff either. As I said, everything he ever composed, and you won’t regret it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> Everything the man ever wrote.  In particular the SQs, the symphonies and the concertos. But I wouldn't be without his piano music and his theatre stuff either. As I said, everything he ever composed, and you won't regret it.


I'm finishing up Symphony 5, this has been great! He has such a unique intricacy and color that I've never heard before in Classical Music.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Shostakovich is awesome and I've been listening to his music a good bit the past month or so. Just a few recommendations from me, as I'm new to his music too...:

String Quartet No.2
Violin Concerto No.1
Cello Concerto No.1
Symphony No.9 
Piano Quintet
Piano Trio No.2

Damn fine works all. I just got a set of his complete symphonies recently, I have yet to really explore them all. He was a fascinating composer.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

And if you really want to get some insight into his life, the conditions he worked under, and the reasons he wrote the way he did, get this:


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There are other resources I found more helpful in understanding Shostakovich and his music:








The paperback version of this book, re-edited after Volkov's "Testimony," is most helpful in understanding the composer and his music. It describes in detail many of his subliminal messages in the symphonies and string quartets. The earlier hardcopy version of the book is not helpful, however.








This DVD has commentary by Shostakovich's friends and gives enormous insight into his "war" symphonies -- Nos. 4-9 -- with excerpts and other comments by conductor Valery Gergiev who produces the music.

These are the two most helpful products I know in understanding the composer, his life and time, his struggles with Stalin and the bureaucracy, the murders of his friends and cohorts, and his music.

Once you view these I'd recommend reading Volkov's book "Testimony" and perhaps seeing the film of the same name with Ben Kingsley portraying the composer.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> And if you really want to get some insight into his life, the conditions he worked under, and the reasons he wrote the way he did, get this:
> View attachment 129656


I love this book - when I first got it I read it within two days. Volkov's credibility has been brought into question elsewhere but I couldn't find anything to disbelieve here.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The fifteen string quartets. There's not a weak one in the bunch.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

larold said:


> There are other resources I found more helpful in understanding Shostakovich and his music:
> 
> View attachment 129676
> 
> ...


I find _The New Shostakovich_ to be some of the worst criticism in print. _Testimony_ is a fraud.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

I have to get in a different frame of mind to enjoy Shostakovich. I rarely enjoy his music on a first listen...unless I have already been listening to other of his music to put me in the right frame of mind. His compositions tend to reward after repeated listens. Lately, I have been revisiting his string quartets, and it's hard to disagree with EdwardBast.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

DBLee said:


> I have to get in a different frame of mind to enjoy Shostakovich. I rarely enjoy his music on a first listen...unless I have already been listening to other of his music to put me in the right frame of mind. His compositions tend to reward after repeated listens. Lately, I have been revisiting his string quartets, and it's hard to disagree with EdwardBast.


Very much in agreement myself.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> Very much in agreement myself.


I am kind of OCD and think I should be able to get into the mood for any work I enjoy at any given moment. It doesn't make sense, but my mind wants that to be true, so I kind of convince myself of it.

:lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Every time I open up the 27 disc box set titled _Shostakovich Edition _ in order to remove a disc to play, I find myself regretting there are only 27 discs there to choose from.









I have multiple copies of the complete symphonies, the complete string quartets, and a lot of discs of the other orchestral and chamber music, and I can't recall ever being dissatisfied with any piece by the Russian. He remains a favorite composer, even though his music hardly ever puts me into a good mood. Still, I wouldn't want to be without this collection.

Count me a DSCH fan.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I like some Shostakovich a lot. The symphonies are very mixed in quality but 1, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 14 seem great to me as do the concertos for violin and for cello, many of the quartets, the Preludes and Fugues, the sonatas (violin, viola), the second piano trio and the piano quintet. There is also quite a lot I don't greatly like.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I find The New Shostakovich to be some of the worst criticism in print. Testimony is a fraud. _

And you base this opinion on … what? The only "evidence" of Volkov's "fraud" is Shostakovich's wife said he didn't interview him enough to get all the information he printed. Yet everyone else that knew Shostakovich said the book represented him perfectly.

Galina Vishnevskaya, who said the finale of the 5th symphony was the sons and daughters of Russia being torn from the soil, said so. So did Maxim, the conductor's son. His friends, who said the 8th symphony was the composer's testament to totalitarianism and the noisy sections of the 4th represented him sitting in the hallway waiting for the police to take him away, said so. The pianist Vladimir Ashkenazy said so and repeated it in another book about the composer.

The only people doubting it are people that didn't know him. It is fashionable for academics to say this now, but even they grudgingly admit the book perfectly represented the composer's ideas, outlook and life.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

SONNET CLV said:


> Every time I open up the 27 disc box set titled _Shostakovich Edition _ in order to remove a disc to play, I find myself regretting there are only 27 discs there to choose from.
> 
> View attachment 129714
> 
> ...


Wow, I'm surprised that his complete works only fit onto 27 discs.

Re: Volkov's _Testimony_, fraud; I think the fraud that people refer to is that Volkov published the book under the guise that it was words straight from the composer's mouth. Even those who support the book's veracity, Maxim Shostakovich for example, have admitted that as true as it is, it is not a literal testimony from the composer but a compilation on behalf of the author. Anyway, I really want to read it myself. Appears to be worth a read in any case.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

larold said:


> _I find The New Shostakovich to be some of the worst criticism in print. Testimony is a fraud. _
> 
> And you base this opinion on … what? The only "evidence" of Volkov's "fraud" is Shostakovich's wife said he didn't interview him enough to get all the information he printed. Yet everyone else that knew Shostakovich said the book represented him perfectly.


Actually, the "evidence" (such as it is) is more that Volkov's stories don't fit very well with what we know about Shostakovich. But, yes, some who knew him say it reads as authentic. I find that troubling as I had always preferred to think of Shostakovich as bigger than the picture that Volkov paints.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Actually, the "evidence" (such as it is) is more that Volkov's stories don't fit very well with what we know about Shostakovich. But, yes, some who knew him say it reads as authentic. I find that troubling as I had always preferred to think of Shostakovich as bigger than the picture that Volkov paints.


Bigger how, I wonder. Does Volkov's Shostakovich dwell too much on the politics of it all?

I'm listening to Shostakovich's 4th symphony for the first time. Very fascinating music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I crave "back story" with my Shostakovich, and the Mravinsky recording with the 6th and 10th has plenty of that in the liner notes. Mravinsky is now my "go to" guy for Shostakovich. Sold! American.This one:

Mravinsky is now my "go to" guy for Shostakovich. Sold! American.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

larold said:


> _I find The New Shostakovich to be some of the worst criticism in print. Testimony is a fraud. _
> 
> And you base this opinion on … what? The only "evidence" of Volkov's "fraud" is Shostakovich's wife said he didn't interview him enough to get all the information he printed. Yet everyone else that knew Shostakovich said the book represented him perfectly.
> 
> The only people doubting it are people that didn't know him. It is fashionable for academics to say this now, but even they grudgingly admit the book perfectly represented the composer's ideas, outlook and life.


Laurel Fay challenged the authenticity of _Testimony_ within a year of its publication and her evidence has never been convincingly countered. ("Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose _Testimony_?" In _Russian Revie_w 39, no. 4 (1980), 484-92) This essay and an update from 2002 are published in Malcolm Brown's _A Shostakovich Case Book_. Anyone who has not read and come to terms with Fay's evidence has no business holding an opinion on the authenticity of _Testimony_. To summarize her case:

The main evidence for the authenticity of _Testimony_ is that, in a typescript of the book, Shostakovich's signature (initials) appears on the first page of seven of its chapters, allegedly indicating that the composer read and vouched for the text's accuracy. But Fay demonstrated that those seven initial pages (and only those seven pages!) were cribbed from the opening paragraphs of articles previously published under Shostakovich's name. Volkov is thus asking us to believe that Shostakovich began each of their sessions together by regurgitating nearly word for word and from memory, three hundred words of a previously published article, some of which are suspected of having been ghost written by party hacks and not by the composer! This is absurd and if anyone has a good explanation for it other than fraud I've yet to hear it.

Fay hypothesized about the likely nature of the fraud and how it was perpetrated: What Volkov apparently did was go to Shostakovich with a typescript of a book, the contents of which consisted entirely of articles previously published under Shostakovich's name and thus already vetted for political correctness. Volkov made only minor changes to correct dated references that would sound strange when reprinted decades after they were written. He got Shostakovich to initial the first pages of each typescript chapter. Given that Volkov was then the editor of a major music journal, it would have made perfect sense to the composer that Volkov might be collecting a series of articles by Shostakovich to be published under one cover. Then Volkov took those pages with the composer's initials and used them as the first pages of each of _Testimony's_ chapters, discarding the rest of each article and substituting his own fabrications and collected third hand gossip for the pages he had shown Shostakovich. This is more obvious when one sees the discontinuity between the first page of each chapter and what follows. Fay points out how ludicrous it is to think that Shostakovich, when interviewed by Volkov, would have reproduced those seven first pages-and only those pages!-nearly verbatim, before digressing into new material on every second page. Volkov claimed to have in his possession his initial shorthand transcription of his talks with Shostakovich, which would have supported his claim for the book's authenticity. When asked by Fay and others to produce it Volkov would not or could not. _Testimony_ is a fraud. Anyone reading Fay objectively will see it.

Does _Testimony_ express opinions Shostakovich held? Probably. But where Volkov got them is anyone's guess (except that Lev Lebidinsky seems to have been the source of a good bit.) Nothing in _Testimony_ that is not substantiated in other sources can be assumed to be the words of Shostakovich.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

What is a great recording of the opera _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_? I would be very curious to hear the work that nearly got the young Shostakovich killed.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are many really good ones, a lot now on DVD. This is the one that for my taste has the most electricity. Great conducting, great sound, and the French orchestra really has the spirit! And can be had for little cost from re-sellers.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> There are many really good ones, a lot now on DVD. This is the one that for my taste has the most electricity. Great conducting, great sound, and the French orchestra really has the spirit! And can be had for little cost from re-sellers.
> 
> View attachment 129737


Awesome, thanks. I was between this and the Rostropovich. I'll check out both of them.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> What is a great recording of the opera _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_? I would be very curious to hear the work that nearly got the young Shostakovich killed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Since I crave "back story" so much, I should get those book recommendations. I suspect that the ideas in "Testimony" are accurate, and the only "fraud" is that they are not Shostakovich's actual spoken testimony; but if the ideas are consistent with what he thought, I'm fine with that, and now we know. After all, we can all agree that Stalin was a 'bad apple.'


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> Bigger how, I wonder. Does Volkov's Shostakovich dwell too much on the politics of it all?
> 
> I'm listening to Shostakovich's 4th symphony for the first time. Very fascinating music.


It seems to paint Shostakovich as primarily inspired by a hatred of the Soviet regime - even to the extent of coding political dissent in his works. This fits with a strong belief (or do I mean desire?) that many in the west felt that Shostakovich was a dissident - in the same way that Solzhenitsyn was - as if that was a vital aspect of liking his music. When Shostakovich visited America there were crowds outside his hotel with placard encouraging him to jump through the window to escape.

I feel that Shostakovich probably shared the dislike that many Russians felt towards their government but that in this he was just a typical Russian who had a life to get on with. I do not believe he actively or overtly sought to overthrow the government and do not think his holding what must have been widely held political views defined him and his art. And I am suspicious of a book that plays so overtly to his Western fans' needs. Of course, much of his popularity in the West owes much to his use of the fairly conservative, simple and accessible language and forms - even if he did frequently succeed in transcending these - that had been required by Stalin's state critics. The only book I have read thoroughly on Shostakovich is Laurel Fay's. It seems more penetrating and balanced but what do I know?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Since I crave "back story" so much, I should get those book recommendations. I suspect that the ideas in "Testimony" are accurate, and the only "fraud" is that they are not Shostakovich's actual spoken testimony; but if the ideas are consistent with what he thought, I'm fine with that, and now we know. After all, we can all agree that Stalin was a 'bad apple.'


My thoughts exactly. I'll give it a read sometime soon.



Enthusiast said:


> It seems to paint Shostakovich as primarily inspired by a hatred of the Soviet regime - even to the extent of coding political dissent in his works. This fits with a strong belief (or do I mean desire?) that many in the west felt that Shostakovich was a dissident - in the same way that Solzhenitsyn was - as if that was a vital aspect of liking his music. When Shostakovich visited America there were crowds outside his hotel with placard encouraging him to jump through the window to escape.
> 
> I feel that Shostakovich probably shared the dislike that many Russians felt towards their government but that in this he was just a typical Russian who had a life to get on with. I do not believe he actively or overtly sought to overthrow the government and do not think his holding what must have been widely held political views defined him and his art. And I am suspicious of a book that plays so overtly to his Western fans' needs. Of course, much of his popularity in the West owes much to his use of the fairly conservative, simple and accessible language and forms - even if he did frequently succeed in transcending these - that had been required by Stalin's critics. The only book I have read thoroughly on Shostakovich is Laurel Fay's. It seems more penetrating and balanced but what do I know?


And I will track down Fay's Shostakovich bio too to perhaps get a more balanced picture. Thank you for breaking it down for me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's hard for me to see in Shostakovich's music any "social realism;" even at its most conservative, it always seemed modern-sounding enough to irritate Stalin. Now, if you want some _real_ social realism, try "Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy," and I don't mean the Eno album of the same name.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I would also be interested in reading "Testimony" sometime, but I too have a tough time believing that Shosty was an active dissident against the regime. He was too concerned with his own life to be a revolutionary. The closest he came to outright rebellion was through his art- even when he wrote music that pleased the masses like the 5th Symphony, he wrapped it up with that superb pseudo-victorious ending, one of the great empty victories in music. Played how it was intended to be played, it should sound like a brutal slog and a forced declamation of joy (although it can also work in a more "thrilling" fashion like how Bernstein played it, where it sounds even more vapid). It really is like a brutal parody of the propaganda he was supposed to be writing. Nonetheless, he got the public and the government to like it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't know if Stalin imprisoned or executed any composers during his reign. If I remember correctly, Simon Sebag Montefiore's biography suggests that artists were not visited with the extreme horrors that many others were and that musicians were treated better than writers and painters. Still, I would not have liked to be creatively active in his Russia!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Since I crave "back story" so much, I should get those book recommendations. I suspect that the ideas in "Testimony" are accurate, and the only "fraud" is that they are not Shostakovich's actual spoken testimony; but if the ideas are consistent with what he thought, I'm fine with that, and now we know. After all, we can all agree that Stalin was a 'bad apple.'


Yes, but instead of getting it second or third hand and possibly distorted or fabricated, why not read what his friends and acquaintances said about Shostakovich's ideas and statements in their own words? Elizabeth Wilson's _Shostakovich: A Life Remembered_ has as much material as Testimony but it is accurate and documented. And why give money to a fraud if one doesn't have to? Haven't you wondered why a work purportedly consisting of only Shostkovich's words has one copyright holder who is not Shostakovich or his estate?



larold said:


> Galina Vishnevskaya, who said the finale of the 5th symphony was the sons and daughters of Russia being torn from the soil, said so. So did Maxim, the conductor's son. His friends, who said the 8th symphony was the composer's testament to totalitarianism and the noisy sections of the 4th represented him sitting in the hallway waiting for the police to take him away, said so. The pianist Vladimir Ashkenazy said so and repeated it in another book about the composer.


Which is why you should read Galina's and Ashkenazy's books, not Volkov's! Also, if you want to read good criticism of Shostakovich's Fifth, read Richard Taruskin's "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony," in David Fanning's _Shostakovich Studies._ In this essay he takes apart and demonstrates the silliness of Ian MacDonald's reading of the Fifth.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

flamencosketches said:


> What is a great recording of the opera _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_? I would be very curious to hear the work that nearly got the young Shostakovich killed.


I have the Rostropovich/LPO version with his wife Galina Vishnevskaya in the title role..it's very good, Slava works up some serious frenzies when needed...great opera, one of my favorites.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know if Stalin imprisoned or executed any composers during his reign. If I remember correctly, Simon Sebag Montefiore's biography suggests that artists were not visited with the extreme horrors that many others were and that musicians were treated better than writers and painters. Still, I would not have liked to be creatively active in his Russia!


He seemed to have it in more for writers. Those who weren't imprisoned were constantly harassed or placed under surveillance (i.e. Anna Akhmatova). Shostakovich was an international figure - it probably would have been a step too far even for Stalin to persecute him on the same level as he did with Isaac Babel or Osip Mandelstam. Babel, like the theatre impresario Meyerhold, was executed in 1940. Mandelstam conveniently died in transit two years earlier. Poet Maria Tsvetaeva hung herself in despair in 1941 after making the fateful decision to return to her homeland in 1939.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> Wow, I'm surprised that his complete works only fit onto 27 discs.


This is _not_ a complete edition. But it is highly representative.

Here is the review by James Leonard at AllMusic:

Packaged in bright USSR crimson, this 27-disc set contains the nearly all the great instrumental works by Dmitry Shostakovich: his 15 symphonies, 15 string quartets, and 6 concertos, plus his sonatas for violin, viola, cello, and piano, plus suites from his two best-known film scores and from all three of his ballet scores, plus both his jazz suites and overtures, plus his Piano Quintet, Second Piano Trio, and all five string quartet orchestrations, plus his ineffably lovely and incredibly brief Novorossisk Chimes. The best recordings here are among the best recordings of the works ever made: David Oistrakh's blazing violin concertos with Mravinsky and Rozhdestvensky and Rudolf Barshai's searing symphonies with the WDR Sinfonieorchester. Some are very good: Theodore Kuchar's thrilling ballet, film, and jazz suites with the National Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine and Cristina Ortiz's exciting piano concertos. Some are respectable: the Rubio Quartet's possibly too introspective string quartets and Colin Stone's probably too extroverted piano sonatas. And some but not many are substandard -- Barshai and the Orchestra Sinfonica di Milano Giuseppe Verdi's scrappy and lackluster performances of the string quartet orchestrations. Anyone who loves Shostakovich will surely enjoy the majority of these performances and simply skip lightly over the rest. 

https://www.allmusic.com/album/shostakovich-edition-includes-interview-dvd-mw0001422176

I find the performances of the symphonies and the string quartets stellar and turn to them often.

Of course, I have much more Shostakovich in my collection.

What I don't have is the 49 CD Brilliant Classics box set titled SHOSTAKOVICH EDITION.









Here's information on that box set:

This set presents the near complete works of Shostakovich: complete symphonies, chamber symphonies, concertos, songs, string quartets, a generous selection chamber music, ballets and suites (the famous Jazz suites!), cantatas and operas. Famous and legendary performers include Rudolf Barshai (a close friend of Shostakovich), Cristina Ortiz, Moscow Symphony Orchestra, Valery Polyansky, Victor Popov, Theodore Kuchar, Muza Rubackyte, Yuri Serov, Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra, Andrey Chistiakov and Mstislav Rostropovich. This set also includes unique historical recordings featuring Shostakovich at the piano.

https://www.classicselect.com/products/shostakovich-edition

This later box set contains many of the same performances included in the earlier "red box" edition.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know if Stalin imprisoned or executed any composers during his reign. If I remember correctly, Simon Sebag Montefiore's biography suggests that artists were not visited with the extreme horrors that many others were and that musicians were treated better than writers and painters. Still, I would not have liked to be creatively active in his Russia!


The only Soviet composer arrested for political reasons in the Stalin years, so far as I know, was Polish-born Mieczysław Weinberg. He was arrested in 1953 for "Jewish bourgeois nationalism" in relation to the purported "doctors' plot" on Stalin's life. He was soon released when Stalin actually did die.

Mosolov was arrested some years earlier and served time in the camps, but that was another matter entirely.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

..........................


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Returning to the OP, there was a request for other DSCH works to explore. 
I recommend the 10th Symphony, both Piano Concerti and the lovely Viola Sonata.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Many posters on this thread have recommended Shotstakovich's string quartets and I feel the same way. I haven't even heard all of the symphonies yet (ouch! gotta do some homework…), but from what I have heard it's the string quartets that really moves me.

My favorite among the string quartets is the last one (no. 15) with its six requiem-like slow movements interrupted by a noisy unpleasant screech between them that somehow makes perfect sense. (If you sometimes feel that Shostakovich is a bit of a neurotic musical troublemaker just try to put yourself in his shoes having the KGB chasing you around…).

Beyond the string quartets there is a few other chamber works among which my favorites are the Cello Sonata opus 40 and the Sonata for violin and piano opus 134.

The best recording of the string quartets by the Borodin Quartet is out of print:








But the Borodin Quartet now has an all new line-up and they have (re-)recorded the cycle for Decca:








There are other complete recordings of Shostakovich's string quartets that I like (I haven't checked if they are out of print):
- Emersons on DG
- Sorrel on Chandos
- Fitzwilliam on Decca

So far the 7th Symphony "Leningrad" is the only symphony by Shostakovich that I really like. The music illustrates the sufferings of Shostakovich's hometown during the German WWII siege of the city - one of the worst traumas the Russian nation ever suffered depicted in music as it took place.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Ras said:


> ... (If you sometimes feel that Shostakovich is a bit of a neurotic musical troublemaker just try to put yourself in his shoes having the KGB chasing you around…).


I agree about the quartets and the Borodins' earlier recording of them (although I don't agree about the 7th symphony). But the bit quoted above seems wrong. Neighbours spied on neighbours in Stalin's Russia and terrible things could happen to you simply because someone didn't like you. Shostakovich was actually in a privileged position compared to most people. If he had an excuse to be neurotic (and if one needs an excuse!) then the whole country did, and most of them more so than Shostakovich.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I agree about the quartets and the Borodins' earlier recording of them (although I don't agree about the 7th symphony). But the bit quoted above seems wrong. Neighbours spied on neighbours in Stalin's Russia and terrible things could happen to you simply because someone didn't like you. Shostakovich was actually in a privileged position compared to most people. If he had an excuse to be neurotic (and if one needs an excuse!) then the whole country did, and most of them more so than Shostakovich.


I guess I'm a "Volkov-believer" - and I haven't even read "Testimony"!


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I crave "back story" with my Shostakovich, and the Mravinsky recording with the 6th and 10th has plenty of that in the liner notes. Mravinsky is now my "go to" guy for Shostakovich. Sold! American...Mravinsky is now my "go to" guy for Shostakovich. Sold! American. _

I think his Shostakovich holds up well today against all newcomers. For me it will always be the authentic Shostakovich though I know others I like as well. The only recent set of his symphonies played like he did it in his day is from Oleg Caetani and an Italian orchestra. Most others tend to slow it down a lot, bloating the textures and excitement.

FYI the Mravinsky 'war" symphonies, 5-8, are all masterpieces. I don't know that I've heard his 4th but am sure it too would be persuasive.

FYI this conductor was just as good with Prokofiev. This performance comes with a remarkable back story on that composer's 6th symphony:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

larold said:


> _I crave "back story" with my Shostakovich, and the Mravinsky recording with the 6th and 10th has plenty of that in the liner notes. Mravinsky is now my "go to" guy for Shostakovich. Sold! American...Mravinsky is now my "go to" guy for Shostakovich. Sold! American. _
> I think his Shostakovich holds up well today against all newcomers. For me it will always be the authentic Shostakovich though I know others I like as well. The only recent set of his symphonies played like he did it in his day is from Oleg Caetani and an Italian orchestra. Most others tend to slow it down a lot, bloating the textures and excitement.
> 
> FYI the Mravinsky 'war" symphonies, 5-8, are all masterpieces. I don't know that I've heard his 4th but am sure it too would be persuasive.
> ...


Prokofiev Sym #6 was a Mravinsky specialty, He performed it often...his 5/67 recording with LenPO is superb.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> The fifteen string quartets. There's not a weak one in the bunch.


"after all, the quartet is one of the most difficult musical genres." -Shostakovich

My impression of Shostakovich regarding the genre of string quartets is that he heavily struggled with it. For example, in the most esteemed of his bunch, the 8th -- maybe I'm judging with a classicist mindset, but look how many bars he fills with those ghastly long sustained tones [0:52] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGo...s, Ravel.
[MEDIA=youtube]uGoxfQ2H3ns[/MEDIA]


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I don't believe for one second he struggled with 4tet writing HammeredK. His works are deeply personal and what you perceive as technical weaknesses are something entirely different, a uniqueness, inventiveness and individuality pervading the music I feel.

Your condemning of parallel 5ths as a weakness feels outdated and inappropriate to me and doesn't feel right as a good reason for disparagement. He had no need to adhere to formal classical/technical limitations and yet every bar oozes inherited discipline and fluent, cohesive thought.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> My impression of Shostakovich regarding the genre of string quartets is that he heavily struggled with it. For example, in the most esteemed of his bunch, the 8th


The 8th isn't the most esteemed. It's just the one best known to people, like you, who don't really know Shostakovich's quartets. It gets attention because of its thematic quotations, the signature motive, and its arrangement for string orchestra. Most of the other quartets, IMO, are more interesting than the 8th.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> "after all, the quartet is one of the most difficult musical genres." -Shostakovich
> 
> My impression of Shostakovich regarding the genre of string quartets is that he heavily struggled with it. For example, in the most esteemed of his bunch, the 8th -- maybe I'm judging with a classicist mindset, but look how many bars he fills with those ghastly long sustained tones [0:52] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGo...ke your objections objective seems misguided.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There's another way of hearing some of the quartets - in Barshai's terrific arrangements as Chamber Symphonies. They're really good and although not a replacement for the originals, they are a fine way to enjoy the music.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> "after all, the quartet is one of the most difficult musical genres." -Shostakovich
> 
> My impression of Shostakovich regarding the genre of string quartets is that he heavily struggled with it. For example, in the most esteemed of his bunch, the 8th -- maybe I'm judging with a classicist mindset, but look how many bars he fills with those ghastly long sustained tones [0:52] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGo... other than the 8th. It is tiresome and lazy.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> This is the umpteenth time you have posted this exact criticism of Shostakovich's quartets as a whole, without ever betraying the slightest sign of familiarity with any other than the 8th. It is tiresome and lazy.


I apologize. But I have to skip whenever I come across sections like these:

[8:21]


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> "after all, the quartet is one of the most difficult musical genres." -Shostakovich
> 
> My impression of Shostakovich regarding the genre of string quartets is that he heavily struggled with it.


And you cite that statement as evidence?  The Shostakovich quotation repeats one of the most venerable saws among classical composers. It's been said hundreds of times by everyone and their stepmothers' dogs. A common variant is to aver that string quartets are much more challenging to compose than symphonies, a statement with which I agree based on personal experience. Because you don't know this context you assumed Shostakovich had some specially difficult time with string quartets. He didn't.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> And you cite that statement as evidence?  The Shostakovich quotation repeats one of the most venerable saws among classical composers. It's been said hundreds of times by everyone and their stepmothers' dogs. A common variant is to aver that string quartets are much more challenging to compose than symphonies, a statement with which I agree based on personal experience. Because you don't know this context you assumed Shostakovich had some specially difficult time with string quartets. He didn't.


Why do you believe quartets are compositionally more difficult than symphonies? This difficulty might just be explained by the obvious limitations that just four instruments places on the composers who might wish more tones were available - but this is of course a self-imposed restriction.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I apologize. But I have to skip whenever I come across sections like these:
> 
> [8:21]


You're forgiven for your ultra conservative taste (expecting the inevitable retort). It just sounds very grave and sombre. How else could anyone achieve that sound better? Simon and Garfunkel harmonies of a third apart? It reminds me of a passage in Bach for solo instrument (can't recall which work), but it sounded more meditative, and less full of angst.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Why do you believe quartets are compositionally more difficult than symphonies? This difficulty might just be explained by the obvious limitations that just four instruments places on the composers who might wish more tones were available - but this is of course a self-imposed restriction.


One has to maintain a high level of interest with a more limited color palette, and there are types of melodies and passages appropriate to brass or winds that won't work as well for strings. Fewer textural contrasts are available to differentiate important gestures. There is a more limited dynamic range. Some have compared the difference to creating a line drawing versus an oil painting, although this analogy doesn't give proper credit to the great array of string tone.

Self-imposed? Uh … yes, one chooses to write string quartets, it doesn't happen by accident. What's your point?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> One has to maintain a high level of interest with a more limited color palette, and there are types of melodies and passages appropriate to brass or winds that won't work as well for strings. Fewer textural contrasts are available to differentiate important gestures. There is a more limited dynamic range. Some have compared the difference to creating a line drawing versus an oil painting, although this analogy doesn't give proper credit to the great array of string tone.
> 
> Self-imposed? Uh … yes, one chooses to write string quartets, it doesn't happen by accident. What's your point?


I agree with the limitations you point out - but this would apply to all groupings that are arbitrarily limited in some way - so it's relative is it not? One might argue the same in respect of the so cello suite in relation to the string quartet.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Heck148 said:


> Prokofiev Sym #6 was a Mravinsky specialty, He performed it often...his 5/67 recording with LenPO is superb.


I just got this one, a 'live' recording from 1984. That's appropriate, the Orwellian year.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

janxharris said:


> I agree with the limitations you point out - but this would apply to all groupings that are arbitrarily limited in some way - so it's relative is it not? One might argue the same in respect of the so cello suite in relation to the string quartet.


The expectations for gravity, seriousness of expression, and dramatic unity tend to be lighter for wind quintets, accompanied wind sonatas, brass quintets and so on, than for symphonies. By contrast, string quartets are traditionally expected to match symphonies in these respects. Thus higher expectations than for other "arbirarily limited" groupings - expectations that must be fulfilled with fewer resources.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Because you don't know this context you assumed Shostakovich had some specially difficult time with string quartets. He didn't.


I hate to say this, but I think Shostakovich's quartets could have been written for other instruments, like solo piano and would have still sounded fine. It might not be a good analogy, but Shostakovich's quartet writing can be likened to Chopin's orchestration. Someone once said that one way to tell how unimpressive Chopin's orchestration is playing his orchestral parts on the piano. (Not that I want to keep bashing the wonderful composers, Chopin and Shostakovich.) Maybe Shostakovich just wanted to utilize the sonority of the strings by choosing the string quartet (ensemble) for the medium of his string quartet (piece), but did he really understand the mechanics of string quartet writing fully? I doubt it. Even Beethoven for example is sometimes criticized for his vocal writing, and yet the more modern composers could go about things whatever fk they wanted and not get criticized? It seems a little unfair..


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> I agree with the limitations you point out - but this would apply to all groupings that are arbitrarily limited in some way - so it's relative is it not? One might argue the same in respect of the so cello suite in relation to the string quartet.


Someone once explained very well on another site why string quartets are hard to write:

_"Anyone can play big chords. A quartet (of any kind) is four (mainly) monophonic instruments that have quite specific playable ranges. To compose something that utilises them at their best managing to create melody, harmony, baselines, and maintain dynamics and listener interest is a real challenge. When you listen to classic string quartets by the masters you often can't believe its just four instruments, because it sounds so much bigger and busy and impressive. I LOVE composing for quartets. It's a bit like stripping back any help and safety nets and stretching your raw compositional and arrangement skills. You learn LOADS about harmony and counterpoint. Think of it as a master chef making a meal with really limited ingredients or a master artist only having a paper and pencil to use. it's the same reason that drives big Hollywood movie stars occasionally back to a crappy small theatre to be in a play. Not for the faint hearted but as a musician it's invigorating."_


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I hate to say this, but I think Shostakovich's quartets could have been written for other instruments, like solo piano and would have still sounded fine. It might not be a good analogy, but Shostakovich's quartet writing can be likened to Chopin's orchestration. Someone once said that one way to tell how unimpressive Chopin's orchestration is playing his orchestral parts on the piano. (Not that I want to keep bashing the wonderful composers, Chopin and Shostakovich.) Maybe Shostakovich just wanted to utilize the sonority of the strings by choosing the string quartet (ensemble) for the medium of his string quartet (piece), but did he really understand the mechanics of string quartet writing fully? I doubt it. Even Beethoven for example is sometimes criticized for his vocal writing, and yet the more modern composers could go about things whatever fk they wanted and not get criticized? It seems a little unfair..


You don't hate to say it. And what you've said is nonsense. The quartets are perfectly and uniquely composed for strings and would not work at all on piano. You give no evidence of knowing or understanding the quartets or anything about composing for the ensemble. Shostakovich is regarded as one of the most important composers in the history of the string quartet. Once again, you insist on making negative critiques of music you don't know or understand from a position of ignorance.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> One has to maintain a high level of interest with a more limited color palette, and there are types of melodies and passages appropriate to brass or winds that won't work as well for strings. Fewer textural contrasts are available to differentiate important gestures. There is a more limited dynamic range.


OK. You don't like Shostakovich. His signature bleakness doesn't work for you unless it can be spiced up with orchestral colours. It doesn't seem to have occured to you that he wrote the music as he wanted it to be heard rather than because of some technical challenge. Your point is an arrogant one. And tell me, anyway, which great composer composed music by the book? I think it behoves listeners to throw out the book - music is not a bureaucratic exercise - and listen to the music.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> OK. You don't like Shostakovich.


What are you basing this conclusion on?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Bluecrab said:


> What are you basing this conclusion on?


Because he takes a feature that is very typical of Shostakovich, one of the "defining features" of his "voice" (and presumably something that Shostakovich fans enjoy about his music), as the weakness that disturbs him. I am not a huge Shostakovich fan but fair's fair.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> Because he takes a feature that is very typical of Shostakovich, one of the "defining features" of his "voice" (and presumably something that Shostakovich fans enjoy about his music), as the weakness that disturbs him.


Please post a link to the post in this thread in which EdwardBast speaks of this "feature" in Shostakovich's music that "disturbs him."


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Because he takes a feature that is very typical of Shostakovich, one of the "defining features" of his "voice" (and presumably something that Shostakovich fans enjoy about his music), as the weakness that disturbs him. I am not a huge Shostakovich fan but fair's fair.


I think you have misinterpreted EdwardBast - the comments were made regarding the difficulties of writing string quartets compared to symphonies because of the limited resources and colours.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> The expectations for gravity, seriousness of expression, and dramatic unity tend to be lighter for wind quintets, accompanied wind sonatas, brass quintets and so on, than for symphonies. By contrast, string quartets are traditionally expected to match symphonies in these respects. Thus higher expectations than for other "arbirarily limited" groupings - expectations that must be fulfilled with fewer resources.


This seems about right it terms of the general consensus - though, personally speaking, it does not matter to me whether a composer has written a string quartet or not.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> I think you have misinterpreted EdwardBast - the comments were made regarding the difficulties of writing string quartets compared to symphonies because of the limited resources and colours.


Yes ... and he had a problem with what he thought was a failure of the composer when actually it was a distinctive aspect of his style. I think to criticise a composers technical ability as shown by a piece must start with an understanding of what the composer was aiming at. I think we can be fairly certain, knowing Shostakovich's music, that he wanted bleakness: delivering bleakness therefore isn't a failure to find colour.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes ... and he had a problem with what he thought was a failure of the composer when actually it was a distinctive aspect of his style. I think to criticise a composers technical ability as shown by a piece must start with an understanding of what the composer was aiming at. I think we can be fairly certain, knowing Shostakovich's music, that he wanted bleakness: delivering bleakness therefore isn't a failure to find colour.


Which post Enthusiast?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> OK. You don't like Shostakovich. His signature bleakness doesn't work for you unless it can be spiced up with orchestral colours. It doesn't seem to have occured to you that he wrote the music as he wanted it to be heard rather than because of some technical challenge. Your point is an arrogant one. And tell me, anyway, which great composer composed music by the book? I think it behoves listeners to throw out the book - music is not a bureaucratic exercise - and listen to the music.


Wow, have you misread my posts! Or mistaken the context of what you quoted? My remarks were meant to explain why composing string quartets is a greater challenge than composing symphonies. I think Shostakovich's quartets are the center of his musical legacy, perfectly suited to his style and expressive aims. He is among my favorite composers and his quartets the high point of his work. Where did you get these bizarre ideas? Or did you not read the thread?



Enthusiast said:


> Because he takes a feature that is very typical of Shostakovich, one of the "defining features" of his "voice" (and presumably something that Shostakovich fans enjoy about his music), as the weakness that disturbs him. *I am not a huge Shostakovich fan but fair's fair.*


I _am_ a huge Shostakovich fan and I have no idea what you are talking about!



janxharris said:


> I think you have misinterpreted EdwardBast - the comments were made regarding the difficulties of writing string quartets compared to symphonies because of the limited resources and colours.


Thanx Janx  (and bluecrab). That's right.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Wow, have you misread my posts! Or mistaken the context of what you quoted? My remarks were meant to explain why composing string quartets is a greater challenge than composing symphonies. I think Shostakovich's quartets are the center of his musical legacy, perfectly suited to his style and expressive aims. He is among my favorite composers and his quartets the high point of his work. Where did you get these bizarre ideas? Or did you not read the thread?
> 
> I _am_ a huge Shostakovich fan and I have no idea what you are talking about!
> 
> Thanx Janx  (and bluecrab). That's right.


Yes, it seems to be that I did misunderstand your post. Sorry. I read the thread quickly and saw your post as providing further argument that Shostakovich was too challenged to write effective quartets (I think the line of argument opened up by Hammeredklavier). Still, I'm not sure your example was a good one ... or maybe I just don't get it.


----------



## rice (Mar 23, 2017)

Ras said:


> The best recording of the string quartets by the Borodin Quartet is out of print:


Is it the same recording in this Chandos set?
This is still readily available.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

rice said:


> Is it the same recording in this Chandos set?
> This is still readily available.


No, the one from Chandos on the picture you posted is their first recording with the original members of the Borodin Quartet which I believe was made before Shostakovich had composed the last two quartets (14 and 15). The one on Melodya that I posted about was made later with a new line-up and does include the last two quartets. I think having the last two quartets is essential - obviously because my favorite Shostakovich Quartet is no. 15. :lol:


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Has anyone heard the new recording on Linn with the Fitzwilliam Quartet playing the last three quartets? (It's not on Spotify where I usually hear new stuff) :


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Ras said:


> Has anyone heard the new recording on Linn with the Fitzwilliam Quartet playing the last three quartets? (It's not on Spotify where I usually hear new stuff) :
> 
> View attachment 129988


By coincidence, I'm listening to the 13th right now. I bought these CDs last year and I was not quite sure what to expect. Slightly worried that the "50th Anniversary" of it would be the most important thing of it all and the actual performance would not quite be the main focus. Well, these performances are excellent, with energy and edge in all the right places. Bleak when it needs to be bleak and intense when it needs to be. The sound quality is fabulous, so called demonstration quality, IMHO. It's closely miked, but not too close and so detailed. My current go-to for these last 3 quartets.


----------



## Christine (Sep 29, 2020)

Shostakovich is THE BOSS of bosses!!! I discovered him in early 2020 and it was like seeing colors I'd never seen before. I have the following CDs for his symphonies: 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. 

His symphonies are unlike any other classical composer. He was decades ahead of his time; his symphonies sound very modern, like film music post-1975. He has a very distinct sound. His use of heavy strings in symphonies is unparalleled. If you like a lot of thick heavy strings, listen in particular to Symphonies 10, 5 and 7. 

Unlike a film composer like John Williams (whom I've always loved), Shosty didn't have video footage to create his epic music by. He got it from the depths of his tortured soul (from living under the Stalin regime as well as through the Nazi invasion of his hometown while he was still living there).

He put the terror, fear, despair, suffering, anger of his fellow Russians as well as himself to symphony, and he did it in a way that was unlike other composers who were also war-influenced. Can't say enough. Check out the last five minutes of Symphony 7. It was composed by God himself.

Want to hear what a panning view of hundreds of dead bodies strewn everywhere sounds like? Check out the fourth movement of Symphony 8. The third movement is the battle that caused all those deaths. Nobody really knows what the movements were meant to depict precisely, but it sure SOUNDS THAT WAY. Want to hear the German tanks rolling into Leningrad? Listen to the part that becomes very dissonant in the first movement of #7.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I feel like he's becoming my second favorite composer. First being Beethoven.
I really got into Shosty's stuff recently. Currently listening to String Quartet no. 8. What a great composition...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Ras said:


> Many posters on this thread have recommended Shotstakovich's string quartets and I feel the same way. I haven't even heard all of the symphonies yet (ouch! gotta do some homework…), but from what I have heard it's the string quartets that really moves me.
> 
> My favorite among the string quartets is the last one (no. 15) with its six requiem-like slow movements interrupted by a noisy unpleasant screech between them that somehow makes perfect sense. (If you sometimes feel that Shostakovich is a bit of a neurotic musical troublemaker just try to put yourself in his shoes having the KGB chasing you around…).
> 
> ...


That *Borodin Quartet* set is on Spotify, but you can also find it from third party sellers, although at a high price. I bought it when it came out. It's good, but there are other sets I like as well, or even better.

Currently my preferred sets:
*Quatuor Danel
Pacifica Quartet* ("The Soviet Experience")

The sets I've owned for years and have always enjoyed:
*Shostakovich Quartet
Fitzwilliam Quartet
Emerson String Quartet*

My most recent set, which I haven't completed listening to:

*Brodsky Quartet*

Not sure if the *Jerusalem Quartet *has finished their complete cycle, but the ones I've heard are good.

Also, if you like the Shostakovich string quartets, you should check out the *Weinberg* string quartets, 17 in all - in some cases I like his better than Shostakovich's. The *Quatuor Danel* has recorded all of them, and the *Silesian Quartet *has an ongoing set in progress.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Someone once explained very well on another site why string quartets are hard to write:
> 
> _"Anyone can play big chords. A quartet (of any kind) is four (mainly) monophonic instruments that have quite specific playable ranges. To compose something that utilises them at their best managing to create melody, harmony, baselines, and maintain dynamics and listener interest is a real challenge. When you listen to classic string quartets by the masters you often can't believe its just four instruments, because it sounds so much bigger and busy and impressive. I LOVE composing for quartets. It's a bit like stripping back any help and safety nets and stretching your raw compositional and arrangement skills. You learn LOADS about harmony and counterpoint. Think of it as a master chef making a meal with really limited ingredients or a master artist only having a paper and pencil to use. it's the same reason that drives big Hollywood movie stars occasionally back to a crappy small theatre to be in a play. Not for the faint hearted but as a musician it's invigorating."_


Looking over the shoulder, seeing Beethoven. It would make a person nervous.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I have been making my way through this set, one symphony per night, and it has been very pleasurable. The sound quality is astonishing.

Listening as I type:


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

Essential Shostakovich:


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

I absolutely love this composer and rate him very highly... Yet I respect the opinion of others, who might not like him. A very lot of threads on here amount to discussions about taste you see....

My favourite Symphony : 10th
My favourite string quartet : 8th

I really like the Mariss Janssons and Kondrashin sets of Symphonies and the Borodin quartet playing the quartets ... But there are many others I like tbh... (Mravinsky , Barshai,...) 
I prefer Shostakovich to Mahler tbh , although he was the one influenced by Mahler. I have recently rediscovered the 6th Mahler Symphony and I have begun to like it.
I hated Pierre Boulez for bashing Shostakovich...but now I can put it into perspective...


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

HerbertNorman said:


> I absolutely love this composer and rate him very highly... Yet I respect the opinion of others, who might not like him. A very lot of threads on here amount to discussions about taste you see....
> 
> My favourite Symphony : 10th
> My favourite string quartet : 8th
> ...


I don't know if he would make my top 20, but I respect his work. I kind of view it in a similar vein as Mahler. I respect his sound world, but some of the compositions are just too meandering to keep my attention. Sibelius is the guy who creates a unique sound world and gets in and out of it with brevity and grace.

Composers like this in order of my preference are:
Sibelius
R. Strauss
Bruckner
Shostakovich
Mahler


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> The quartets are perfectly and uniquely composed for strings and would not work at all on piano.


Actually, they work on piano very well: 



Of course, that distract nothing from their quality.


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm listening to his piano trios 1 & 2 and heard his piano preludes yesterday evening. I find him quite intriguing and was looking for more direction in what to explore with him.
> 
> :tiphat:


If you liked the trios and piano preludes, I would recommend you another chamber composition of Shostakovich: Sonata for violin and piano. I really like this sonata in the interpretation of Richter & Oistrakh. There is an interpretation with Shostakovich and Oistrakh also, but personally I like more the one with Richter.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

This genius, an underrated giant, deserves a place among the pantheon of classical music composers.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

lucrescu said:


> Actually, they work on piano very well:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that distract nothing from their quality.


Glissandi? That makes several of them unplayable on piano. Crescendos on a sustained pitch? There go several more. Long melodic notes requiring vibrato? There go all of the rest.


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Glissandi? That makes several of them unplayable on piano. Crescendos on a sustained pitch? There go several more. Long melodic notes requiring vibrato? There go all of the rest.


I'm a fan of Shostakovich and I like his quartets a lot. I'm especially fond of 8th. I didn't want to listen this transcription for piano, because I did not believe it could be good and it would do justice to the original piece. But, because a friend of mine recommended it and because this friend also likes Shosta a lot, I decided to give it a try. And guess what? I think it works, at least for me.

Now, if you choose not to believe because glissandi, crescendos and vibratos, I respect your opinion. But, have you at least try to listen Giltburg's transcription?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

lucrescu said:


> I'm a fan of Shostakovich and I like his quartets a lot. I'm especially fond of 8th. I didn't want to listen this transcription for piano, because I did not believe it could be good and it would do justice to the original piece. But, because a friend of mine recommended it and because this friend also likes Shosta a lot, I decided to give it a try. And guess what? I think it works, at least for me.
> 
> Now, if you choose not to believe because glissandi, crescendos and vibratos, I respect your opinion. But, have you at least try to listen Giltburg's transcription?


Giltburg is great. I'm sure his interpretation is brilliant and that he gives the best possible account of a piano transcription. I am faintly curious. But the Eighth is one of my least favorite Shostakovich Quartets even when played by string players. And given the thematic quotations in that quartet, Giltburg must occasionally be playing a piano transcription of a string transcription of a piano part, which is amusing I'm sure. Have you heard Giltburg's performance of Prokofiev's Eighth Piano Sonata? Maybe when I get tired of that I'll look into transcriptions.


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

If 8th it's not one of your favorites (have you tried it with one of Borodin's recordings?), maybe you're right not to hurry to listen Giltburg's transcription.

I didn't listen Giltburg until now, but I like Prokofiev sonatas. It's a long time since I last listen some of them, but I remember I liked Sviatoslav Richter. I'll keep Giltburg in mind for my next listen of Prokofiev's sonatas. Thank you for your suggestion!


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> But the Eighth is one of my least favorite Shostakovich Quartets even when played by string players. [...] Have you heard Giltburg's performance of Prokofiev's Eighth Piano Sonata?


If Eighth it's not one of your favorites (have you tried it with one of Borodin's recordings?), maybe you're right not to hurry to listen Giltburg's transcription.

I didn't listen Giltburg until now, but I like Prokofiev piano sonatas. It's a long time since I last listen some of them, but I remember I liked Sviatoslav Richter. I'll keep Giltburg in mind for my next session. Thank you for your suggestion!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

lucrescu said:


> If Eighth it's not one of your favorites (have you tried it with one of Borodin's recordings?), maybe you're right not to hurry to listen Giltburg's transcription.
> 
> I didn't listen Giltburg until now, but I like Prokofiev piano sonatas. It's a long time since I last listen some of them, but I remember I liked Sviatoslav Richter. I'll keep Giltburg in mind for my next session. Thank you for your suggestion!


Yes, I have the Borodin performance of the Eighth on CD and enjoy it - just not as much as most of the others. 

Here is Giltburg playing Prokofiev's Eighth, one of my favorite sonatas by anyone:


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

This is what a beginner does, it duplicates posts. Sorry!

@EdwardBast - I will listen and I'll be back (Schwarzenegger)


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Here is Giltburg playing Prokofiev's Eighth, one of my favorite sonatas by anyone:


Ok, I tried Giltburg - Prokofiev, piano sonata no 8.
But I did a mistake, I listened one of Richter's recordings first. Inevitably, I compared Giltburg's interpretation with Richter's. In the first movement Richter's is so much better (for me), and listening Giltburg after it just sounded ... empty. In the second and the third movements I didn't pay the same attention, but I think I also prefer Richter, although by a smaller margin.
This is the Richter's recording I listened: 



- it's also live and also in London, but the quality of sound is poor.

After I saw Giltburg's transcription of Shostakovich quartet no 8, I was really curious about what else he recorded and Prokofiev's sonatas immediately got my attention. Maybe I will try his studio recordings of these sonatas sometime, but, for now, Richter is my king.


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

Oh, NO!

Boris Giltburg - Prokofiev War Sonatas
„_I have to say that these performances of Prokofiev's three 'War' Sonatas eclipse all others on record - even those tirelessly and justifiably celebrated performances by Richter and Gilels._" (gramophone.co.uk)

„_I don't know if I've heard a better 8th: Giltburg catches all the music's depth, its weird sound world, its hushed sadness, and its ominous bursts of energy. His phrasing of that dark, quiet second theme in the first movement is haunting and utterly hypnotic. This is a performance to match or surpass any by Richter, Gilels, Glemser or anyone._" (classical.net)

Poor Giltburg, I'm almost sorry for him!


----------



## lucrescu (Nov 22, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm listening to his piano trios 1 & 2 and heard his piano preludes yesterday evening. I find him quite intriguing and was looking for more direction in what to explore with him.


I feel a little bit guilty because I derailed this topic, so I'll try to put it back on track. Considering @Captainnumber36 liked some of Shostakovich chamber music, I'll try recommend him something along the same lines. 
So, here it is, the not so well known, but beautiful Cello Sonata in one of the best renditions (from my point of view): 




Daniil Shafran (cello), Shostakovich (piano)


----------

