# Shostakovich is the last great symphonist



## Gustav

I have been listening to alot of Shostakovich, I must say his music opened a new way of listening/looking at music for me, but most important of all, it sounds so cool, he actually made his initial into his music, that's cool, except I can't do that with my name...

My favorite Shotakovich symphony has to be the fifth, and the seventh
what do you think, I also liked his second and third quartets


----------



## Music_Junkie

I really love Shostakovich's music! It can be hard and complex to play though. He has so many ways of evoking images in a persons mind and you can really hear his struggle against all the things that were built up against him in the time he was writing. I remember my first real exsposure to Shostakovich almost gave me nightmares because I could hear and see in my head the nazi's banging on people doors and dragging them away. 

There are many great symphonic composers after Shostakovich, they are just different (Alan Hovahness anyone?!) and Shostakovich is one of those composers who borderlined the untroven paths in music at his time without fully going there and the composers who did and classical music in the 20th century and today has changed a lot in such a short time.


----------



## jack_in_cincinnati

The Fourteenth is my favorite, although it's only a symphony because Shostakovich called it one. I also love the Fourth, the Fifth (the opening movement is sheer perfection: not one note out of place), the Eighth, the Tenth, the Eleventh (the most underrated: I keep waiting for it to catch on), the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. The weakest by far is #12.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I like the last two movements of his 5th Symphony. Have you noticed that the main theme of the 4th movement is the same as the main theme in the film Troy? Anyway, I love Shozzy's work - it reminds me of dark chocolate!


----------



## glezzery

*Shostakovich*

Shostakovich's best symphonies are world class. Some are not so hot!
Required 
Sym. 10 Karayan
Sym. 5 Bernstein
Sym. 8 Haitink or Mravinsky
Sym. 1 Bernstein or Haitink
Sym. 6 
Sym. 9 Bernstein

Sym. 2 and 3 sound like experiments, 4 is a huge mess, 7 is a War soundtrack and a bit hokey. Sym. 11 is a dismal Russian Bore! Sym 12 again. 13 is GREAT if you like dark Russian lieder!, 14 is tough to find anything to like and Sym. 15 is just plain weird.
I know this doesn't do his effort justice, just my opinion in a nut shell

TEN is Awesome!


----------



## 4/4player

This might be off subject, but I never heard of any works from Shostakovich. anybody can suggest pieces thats good(not painful or frightening) to a beginner listener? Thanks!


----------



## IAmKing

I've only heard Shostakovich's String Quartets (and only 5 of them, 2, 3, 7, 8, 12) but after reading this thread I must buy some of his symphonies. His 15th sounds very intriguing.


----------



## robert newman

Yes, you will surely love the 15th Symphony of Shostakovitch. It's simply extraordinary. 

Some years ago I heard it live in London in a concert given by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. The hall was packed. It's such a curious, riveting work. The final movement is just astonishing. Almost mystical in its use of long sustained strings and the extraordinary use of percussion. What an amazing end to Shostakovitch's symphonic career. One of the great works of the 20th century without doubt. Where does the symphony go from here ???

Regards


----------



## Edward Elgar

I also love Shozzy 15, because it ends quietly - this can be the most emotionally powerful ending to a symphony and was exerscised in Bhrams' 3rd. Unfortunatly it is for this reason that these uber symphonies are not performed as regulaly as they deserve. I do hope that symphonies to come are not that atonal, but do include dissonance and also reflect the times it's written in.


----------



## Lark Ascending

I enjoy listening to Shostakovich's lighter works such as his Ballet and Jazz Suites, the waltzes are simply gorgeous.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

4/4player said:


> Can anybody can suggest pieces thats good to a beginner listener?


The *5th Symphony* is probably the best exposition of Shostakovich's style, without getting too bombastic, well for Shostakovich anyway.

I must disagree, however, about Shostakovich being a "great symphonist". His output is extremely uneven, not only from piece to piece but _within each piece_ as well.

He is a composer with tremendous skill and facility, in any medium, largely owing to the drill that he subjected himself to. He wrote _all the time_, and when he had no ideas of his own, he arranged other people's compositions for various ensembles, to keep the "composing machine" well oiled. Unfortunately, I often get the feeling that that is precisely what one is listening to: a well-oiled composing machine. After a certain amount of hearings, the gloss of his music often wears off and you are left with the feeling of a composer going through the motions: theme - routine - transition - routine - climax - end.

But Shostakovich is *not to blame* for this, as he more than any other composer in history could not simply write what he wanted to write, and one cannot "just listen" to his music without understanding the context within which each individual piece was written.

We are left to wonder what his undeniable genius would have produced if he had been allowed to follow his own path.


----------



## Huge

I have just joined this forum, so hi everyone!

I LOVE shosty, he's one of the best composers ever IMO. I play the 2nd violin in a local amateur orchestra (http://www.concertorchestra.com) and our conductor is a huge fan as well. So far we've done Symohony No. 5 (mesmerising) 10 (very good, but not the best), and in March we will be doing the 7th (exhausting!) I don't know WHY I like this guy so much, but the 5th always gets to me, from the quiet and menacing de dah de dur beginning to the insanely cheerful and over optimistic ending. I love playing his stuff and I love listening to it.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

I hope you mean *insanely* cheerful and *over* optimistic.

Because is you mean insanely *cheerful* and over *optimistic*, you have missed the point entirely.

What Shostakovich meant by this ending is well documented in his own words:

_It is as if someone is grabbing you by the throat and shouting at you:
"Rejoice! Rejoice!"
Terrified, you reply:
"I'm rejoicing, I'm rejoicing!"_

The ending of the 5th was another in a long series of irony-filled concessions that Shostakovich had to make in his life. Unfortunately, not many conductors know Shostakovich's account of this ending, and misinterpret it entirely, mainly by playing it twice as fast as it is written. At the original tempo, it truly conjurs up the image of a man reading aloud the confession that the communist regime handed him.


----------



## hlolli

My favourette is NOT the 7th please!

I've not yet heard all but the 5th 8th and 10th are the best. The first movement when the string part comes in is mindeboggling. And 8th has it's complexity and simplity, very expressionism symphony.


----------



## IAmKing

Kurkikohtaus said:


> I hope you mean *insanely* cheerful and *over* optimistic.
> 
> Because is you mean insanely *cheerful* and over *optimistic*, you have missed the point entirely.
> 
> What Shostakovich meant by this ending is well documented in his own words:
> 
> _It is as if someone is grabbing you by the throat and shouting at you:
> "Rejoice! Rejoice!"
> Terrified, you reply:
> "I'm rejoicing, I'm rejoicing!"_
> 
> The ending of the 5th was another in a long series of irony-filled concessions that Shostakovich had to make in his life. Unfortunately, not many conductors know Shostakovich's account of this ending, and misinterpret it entirely, mainly by playing it twice as fast as it is written. At the original tempo, it truly conjurs up the image of a man reading aloud the confession that the communist regime handed him.


...

First chance I get I'm buying his 5th. That sounds amazing.


----------



## rojo

Here is a very interesting (imo) video about Shostakovich`s Fifth Symphony, including interviews with friends and family-






It`s odd; when I first heard this piece, I was completely unaware of the context/history behind the work. I was no longer at uni; for some reason this was a work that didn`t come up in my studies. Anyway, I only later heard the work; loved it, listened to it many times. The tension, the drama- OMG! Now having the story behind the piece, I think, no wonder this work is, well, what it is. But I didn`t need to have the background behind the piece; everything is right there in the music...


----------



## rojo

I just had to share this- it`s the 4th mvt. of his 5th. Conducted by Mravinsky, played by the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra (I think.) Of course one should listen to the whole thing, but here it is anyway-






This piece is so intense, it`s riveting. It`s almost unbearable. It moved me (not for the first time) to tears.

There are a few minor problems in this recording; the orchestra is not quite tight enough in places, the intonation is not absolutely perfect, and there are a couple of cracked notes, but who cares? The tempi and dynamics were very good, imo. Although I haven`t listened to this piece in a while, there may exist much better performances of it. I can only take listening to the piece on occasion; it takes too much out of me. I don`t think it`s good for my mental health!


----------



## IAmKing

So, what would be an excellent recording of his 5th to look around for?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

I stand corrected by the quote in the video...
_(For those of you who missed my first post, this is Shostakovich's explanation of the end of the 4th movement.)_

_It is as if someone is beating you with a stick and saying, "Your business is rejoicing!"

You rise, shaking, and march away muttering "Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing."_

I find the repetition of the forced phrase very poignant and representative of the Soviet dogma present at the time, and you can here this mindlessly obediant repetition in the music as well. The great joke on the regime. They fealt Shostakovich had finally come around with this piece, while all along he was thumbing his nose at them.


----------



## Topaz

Erm...Interesting that Shostakovich Symphony No 5 did not make the top 20 in the recent poll on the "greatest symphonies" thread here recently. Admittedly, it was only a small sample of posters but it was well down the list at rank 24. In fact, only one person mentioned it about half way down their list of preferences.

Re the video referred to above about the history of this symphony, it does not explain much about the history of persecution that Shostakovich suffered at the hands of the Soviet regime, and the totally ignorant, piercing, and devastating articles that appeared in Pravda about his earlier works. You can find out much more by just typing "Shostakovich, Pravda" into Google or Wikepedia.

For what it may be worth, my version of S5 is Riccardo Muti/Philadelphia, which sounds just as good if not better than the Mravinsky, as shown on the other video referred to above. Not to discredit Shostakovich (whom I acknowledge to be a great composer) in any way, but I still find this particular work largely uninspiring. I'm afraid it does not really interest me what inspired any part of it; it could be louder, slower, a joke, a political snub, or anything. To me, it's another example of his typical over-expressionist thrashing around, with too much use of gongs, drums, cymbals and other noisy orchestral paraphernalia. Not my scene at all. Give me Sibelius or RVW any day. I realise that others may disagree, but not too many, it seems, according to the results I quoted above. If you didn't vote, it's too late now.

Topaz


----------



## rojo

There are no gongs in the piece.


----------



## Topaz

*Rojo*

Ref the previous two posts, this is interesting.

*I* said: _To me, it's another example of his typical over-expressionist thrashing around, with too much use of gongs, drums, cymbals and other noisy orchestral paraphernalia._

*You* said: _There are no gongs in the piece.  _

See below:

*Chicago Symphony Orchestra* (notes on Shostakovich Symphony No 5)

_Shostakovich composed his Fifth Symphony in 1937. The first performance was given on November 21, 1937, in Leningrad. The *score* calls for two flutes and piccolo, two oboes, two clarinets and E-flat clarinet, two bassoons and contrabassoon, four horns, three trumpets, three trombones and tuba, timpani, triangle, snare drum, cymbals, bass drum, tam-tam, two harps, bells, xylophone, celesta, piano, and strings. Performance time is approximately forty-six minutes._

Source:http://www.cso.org/main.taf?p=5,5,5,16

*Wikipedia* (two extracts below from the article on "gongs")

_Suspended gongs are played with beaters and are of two main types: flat faced discs either with or without a turned edge, and gongs with a raised center boss. In general, the larger the gong, the larger and softer the beater. In Western symphonic music the flat faced gongs are generally referred to as tam-tams to distinguish them from their bossed counterparts, although the term "gong" is correct to use for either type._

Uses of gongs in the symphony orchestra

_Gustav Mahler was one of the first composers to use the tam-tam in his symphonic works. Within a few decades the tam-tam became an important member of the percussion section of a modern symphony orchestra. Fine examples of its use are demonstrated in the symphonies Dmitri Shostakovich, to a lesser extent, Sergei Rachmaninov_

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gong

...........

Maybe I have misunderstood, and would be glad of any further enlightenment.

Furthermore, although my comment was strictly in relation to Symphony No 5 as a whole, perhaps you'd like to listen to the *Youtube video *, which you flagged up, around 2 mins 50 secs to 3 mins 5 secs. What's that sound at *2min 57 secs* to be precise? Could it be a gong perhaps? I'm not an expert, of course, and I may be wrong.

Topaz


----------



## rojo

Well tbh, I was just being a tad silly. Of course I understood your point about not liking too much use of 'noisy orchestral paraphernalia.' I just checked wikipedia because I didn`t recall there being any gong in the work, and it made no mention of gong, nor tam-tam in it`s instrumentation list for the work. (see wikipedia: Shostakovich Symphony No.5) So I thought I would mention it, being the smarty-pants that I am.

But that definitely sounds like a gong at 2:57. Or at least a really big cymbal...

Is it possible that wikipedia made a, a... mistake? 

I`m too lazy to look around other sites for further confirmation; I`ll take your word that it`s a gong- it sure sounds like one. Maybe Kurkikohtaus would know, or perhaps some percussionist has played it and can confirm it for us. But I think you`re right, that it`s a gong. You win! 

Not sure what the reference to misunderstanding english is about...

Imo, there is just the right amount of noisy orchestral paraphernalia in this piece.  That being said, not all of Shosty`s stuff is this dramatic. Have you heard any of his waltzes? And there are plenty of other composers who have written works at least as bombastic as Shosty`s 5th, if not more so. What`s wrong with a little bombast now and then anyway?


----------



## Explorer-8

*Shostakovich symphonies*

Last week I borrowed Shostakovich's symphony no 8 from the library. I hadn't heard it since the 1970s when I was a teenager. I thought that I was listening to a re-arrangement of the 5th symphony. That is how similar it is in so many places, not only in the 1st movement. There are even a few quotes from the 4th symphony in the 5th movement of the 8th. I had never noticed any of this when I was a teenager. I don't know why.

Number 8 is still a good symphony and it is better than many of his others. The best parts are the drum roll sections in the climaxes and the largo, if they are performed as they should be.

I would say that no. 4 and no. 5 are Shostakovich's best. There is something about them, like there is with no. 1, that just seems more natural. I can't put my finger on it exactly. These three symphonies are full of surprises and have so much variety which appeals to me.

Number 5 has the best melodies and an emotional warmth; number 4 is like an impromptu with sudden changes and extremes of mood. The climax and the quiet section which follow it in the finale really do give it something special to finish with. No. 1 isn't as dark, and I love dark music, but it has the piano to give it more tone colours and it also has a great variety of rhythms and variations.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Explorer-8 said:


> Number 5 has the best melodies ...


Oh god here we go again.


----------



## Topaz

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Oh god here we go again.


Indeed. Just what I thought too.


----------



## Explorer-8

*melodies*

I don't know what's gone on before here, but to me Shostakovich's 5th symphony has the best melodies. 

A better wording would be to say that it is more lyrical than any of his other music.


----------



## Explorer-8

*symphony no 8*

I am just listening to the symphony no 8 again now and I enjoy it more each time I hear it. It is almost as though I never had all those years of listening to it as a teenager. I'm impressed by the dissonant passage about 4 minutes into the opening adagio with bassoons (I think). Am I right in saying that the same theme seems to introduce the allegro non troppo, but at a higher register? That whole first movement is something special. I can still see a resemblance to the wonderful first movement of the 5th symphony, but no 8 is even darker in mood.

For beginners they need the right performance and recording and they need to hear it a few times. I am listening to Rostropovich conducting the National Symphony Orchestra.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Take no heed of my sarcastic comments they were meant in jest.

If you are curious, however, look up the Tchaikovsky thread... there is a huge discussion there about "favourite" vs. "best", the consensus being that "best" requires a slew of objective criteria that is very hard to define and probably leads down a long and complicated road that ends up in the "favourite" camp anyway.


----------



## Topaz

Yes, we have definitely been here before. You might also have a look in the "favourite 10 symphonies" thread. You will see that the favourite Shosty symphony (among the 20 members here who voted) is No 10. All the others, including Nos 5 and 8, are well down the list. Of course, this has no status, and is only a bit of fun. 

You might like to read through that thread sometime. I'm not sure that any more voting on that list would make sense as it could just be for tactical purposes.

BTW: Kurki and I are the resident cynics. It's just out peculiar way of saying welcome, hope you enjoy it here.


----------



## Explorer-8

*enjoying here*



Topaz said:


> BTW: Kurki and I are the resident cynics. It's just out peculiar way of saying welcome, hope you enjoy it here.


Thanks Topaz.


----------



## orquesta tipica

Of Shostakovich's symphonies, I'd have to say there's a special fondness I have for his 14th, and maybe it's because of the recording (Turovsky - i musici de Montreal) that I have of it. The eighth song (Reply of the Zaporozhye Cossacks...) as sung by Nikita Storojev seems to contain all the anger pouring out that Shostakovich could muster, which he had bottled up over the years. I really love that piece, as I do the overall work.

The last three symphonies of his actually seem to be of a much different vein than his previous symphonies. They seem to be more earthy and less bombastic, but not less powerful. He has gotten past the worst of Soviet oppression and into the "thaw" period in which he could do a few more things than he could before, plus he's getting old so what's he have to lose anyway.

Then I also have a fondness for his 9th symphony, simply for not being what was expected of him, as of course anyone's 9th is supposed to be in the vein of Beethoven's 9th, being that it's...the 9th. He was supposed to write something majestic and bombastic and powerful, and the way it starts out, it seems a clear signal from the get-go that he's thumbing his nose at his critics again.

His 6th has a finale that I really love, and then his 5th I can't grow tired of hearing. And then his 1st rounds off my list of favorites.

Of recordings, I find one that is good that I'll listen to exclusively, but then I also grow used to the way the certain orchestra plays it, and it's hard for me to accept a different orchestra handling it much differently, even if it might be as good a performance if I were objective about it. 

I have a recording of Yoel Levi and the Atlanta SO performing the 5th and 9th on the Telarc label, and I like that one pretty much. I don't know how others feel about that one.


----------



## tahnak

Gustav said:


> I have been listening to alot of Shostakovich, I must say his music opened a new way of listening/looking at music for me, but most important of all, it sounds so cool, he actually made his initial into his music, that's cool, except I can't do that with my name...
> 
> My favorite Shotakovich symphony has to be the fifth, and the seventh
> what do you think, I also liked his second and third quartets


Without any doubt, he is the last great symphonist. Do listen to his tenth. It is a magnificent symphony.


----------



## joen_cph

I severely disagree with putting the label "the last great symphonist" on Dmitri S !
Surely, he wrote great symphonies, but some of his symphonies, however strong
their emotional impact, are very repetitive and simple in their material and language, 
the 12th for instance being mere film music; the 6th and 9th at least doesn´t bring 
much new either, their attractiveness nothwithstanding. 
Pettersson wrote some of the most monumental symphonies of the 20th century, 
Rochberg´s are very ambitious as well, Robert Simpson, Holmboe, Slonimsky, Sessions 
+ Tischenko likewise wrote major and sophisticated symphonies after Shostakovich, 
also modernizing and experimenting with the symphonic form and its language further, just 
to mention a few more. Here in Denmark we have Nørgårds 7, Holmboes 15, Nørholms 9,
all of them experimenting with the genre and trying to bring new and ambitious content into it.


----------



## Guest

Avet Terterian.

(Which is as much to say as that I wholeheartedly agree with joen_cph.)


----------



## JAKE WYB

joen_cph said:


> I severely disagree with putting the label "the last great symphonist" on Dmitri S !
> Surely, he wrote great symphonies, but some of his symphonies, however strong
> their emotional impact, are very repetitive and simple in their material and language,
> the 12th for instance being mere film music; the 6th and 9th at least doesn´t bring
> much new either, their attractiveness nothwithstanding.
> Pettersson wrote some of the most monumental symphonies of the 20th century,
> Rochberg´s are very ambitious as well, Robert Simpson, Holmboe, Slonimsky, Sessions
> + Tischenko likewise wrote major and sophisticated symphonies after Shostakovich,
> also modernizing and experimenting with the symphonic form and its language further, just
> to mention a few more. Here in Denmark we have Nørgårds 7, Holmboes 15, Nørholms 9,
> all of them experimenting with the genre and trying to bring new and ambitious content into it.


A great symphonist ought to be judged by the high points of his output only - weak works arent a hinderence - just offshoots - which are better than self critical silence or destuction which haunted other great symohonists - plus you say 6th nothing new to say - first movement to that is one of the high points of his whole ouevre


----------



## joen_cph

I agree with most of your comments, I was just somewhat
provoked about the fundamental assumption about
his position as the last symphonist -
and the overall language of the 6th (a fine work)
is not that very _different_ from the other ones.


----------



## tonphil1960

*Shosta.......*

I absolutely Love Shostakovich, and the 5th is my favorite. If he is the greatest Symphonist is not for me to say. Being a amatuer History buff and connecting his work to the War, and Russia it is very powerful to me. Love it.

Tony


----------



## Il Seraglio

His 11th symphony is my favourite. It's so collosal in its sound. His 15th symphony is something of a gem too. I'm not so crazy about the 5th or 7th.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I've recently discovered the joys of the 4th. It's much more experimental than the 5th.


----------



## JAKE WYB

He is not the last greast symphonist, but there hasnt been a greater one since him - 

11th is to me the greatest of his works in that it has a gripping intensity and drama which no other work of its type by anyone has and it is so chilling and uncompromising in its allusions to soviet historical events that it anyone dismissing it as cinematic or film music like is completely missing its depths - not that his cycle is free from such momemts - but he has encapsulated such strong and vivid directly inspired history in his symphonies that makes his music incredibly important and this importance will only increase with age.


----------



## tonphil1960

Reading the posts, I think I will endeavor to get all of his Symphonies so I can make a more educated decision. I do love the 5th tho.

T


----------



## TWhite

I like Shostakovich a lot--at least what I've heard of his works. The only symphonies I've heard are the 1st (delicious), 5th (extraordinary), 9th (reminds me of the 1st, only less 'acerbic') and 11th. Of them, I have to say that the 11th ("Year 1905") just absolutely knocks me out. I don't know whether or not it's a great "Symphony" or a massive four-movement orchestral score that's desperately looking for an Epic Movie to underline, but once I start listening to it, I can't walk away. "Symphony" or not, I find it absolutely extraordinary as musical drama.

However, purely as 'Symphony', I would say that I like the Fifth the best. I understand that Shostokovich wrote it as a psuedo-'apology' to the members of the Soviet Musical Committee (whoever they were) for whatever reason, in order to get himself re-instated for some reason or another. Yet if this is his 'apology' for writing 'contemorary' music, it must have been done tongue in cheek. I think that politics aside, it's a marvel of a work--very tight and taut, often very lyric in the best sense of the word, and beautifully orchestrated. And it seems to move inexorably, musically and psychologically from the first movement to the last (though I really think that he used Mahler's First as a model for that witty 'cafe-music' second movement). 

And oh yes, there IS a gong. Twice. Once in the first movement and in the fourth. I know, I was in the percussion section of my college orchestra when we played it, LOL! You whack the be-jeebers out of it when it's called for. 

But I like it a lot. It's very satisfying to listen to. 
Last great symphonist? I don't know, I'm not joining in on that argument, but what I've heard of Shostakovitch, I like a great deal.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Just heard a live performance of the 5th.


----------



## Sid James

Edward Elgar said:


> I've recently discovered the joys of the 4th. It's much more experimental than the 5th.


Yes, it was composed in the mid-1930's but withheld until the early '60's. I think it was reconstructed by the composer from the original piano score. I'm glad it survived, because it's my favourite of his symphonies that I've hear so far - I love how the music refuses to resolve & remains (tonally?) ambigious at the end...


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

tahnak said:


> Without any doubt, he is the last great symphonist. Do listen to his tenth. It is a magnificent symphony.


This is just silly. You can't say he is the last symphonist unless you can show that something has happened to the human race which prevents individuals form composing more symphonies. If that hasn't happened, someone, who is maybe 18 months old right now, may become, by all our standards, a greater symphonist.

And I don't buy the argument, posted by someone else, that he can be classified as a 'great' symphonist because some of his symphonies, like the tenth, are great. In fact, some of them, however much people might enjoy them, are not great (3, 7, 11, 12 for starters). To be a great symphonist, most of your symphonies have to be at least very good, and the rest good. There has to be consistency of quality. _Symphonist_, as a word, carries the implication of composing a string of symphonies, of being adept, imaginative and innovative in the genre. It isn't about writing one offs. Just writing ten (very) good symphonies would count someone as a great symphonist, simply because they could deliver a consistently high standard. If you thought Walton 1 was a 'great' symphony, would you say he was 'great' symphonist on the grounds that one out of two isn't bad?

A great architect is not someone who designed one great building, never mind all the rest fell down and killed lots of people.

Shostakovich is a fascinating person psychologically. And, of course, he was writing under duress all his life. Personally, we might give him the benefit of the doubt on many occasions, if we chose to, but that cannot affect the assessment of his music which stands or falls by itself.


----------



## starry

Certainly there will have been many excellent symphonies after Shostakovich, whether some define them as 'great' or not depends on how they define that word I suppose. I'd rather use the word excellent rather than great anyway, as great has implications of something which is somehow elite compared to others (which may be very good) which are somehow not elite. It's like it's a way of not just assessing music but setting up a pantheon of music, which in the case of modern music (with it's great abundance but largely unknown works) can be founded upon ignorance.


----------



## Guest

Jeremy, are you suggesting that Walton's second is not, in starry's term, excellent?

Because if you are, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.

Otherwise, I think Shostakovich's symphonic output is consistent enough to consider him to be an excellent symphonist. (You're right, starry, that word doesn't make me cringe like "great" does. Thanks!)

Otherotherwise, I concur with the other things you say, in principle. In practice, I don't see a "great" symphony being written anytime soon. Or ever.* But some people today have written motets and such-like, so anything's possible. 

*music seems to have gone a different direction from that that would produce decent symphonies. Though Francis Dhomont has written a large electroacoustic piece in four movements that's called a symphony.... Do I vacillate? Very well, I vacillate.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

some guy said:


> Do I vacillate? Very well, I vacillate.


Ooh, very Whitmaneque of you.


Jeremy Marchant said:


> In fact, some of [Shostakovich's symphonies], however much people might enjoy them, are not great (3, 7, 11, 12 for starters).


A curious assertion, on two different levels:

A)- Where's the popular clamor asserting the greatness (or even the enjoyability) of Symphonies 3 & 12?! In fact, isn't the common perception that Symphonies 2, 3 & 12 are considered pretty much by acclamation the artistic missteps (relatively speaking) among Shostakovich's symphonic canon?!

B)- Shostakovich's 7th has worked its way well into the Standard Repertory. The 11th, if it hasn't received the same level of play, is definitely working its way into the Repertory. The 7th is joined by the 10th in its frequency of airings in the concert hall, and, among DSCH's works, those two are possibly exceeded only by the 5th.

O.K.: then, let's take Shostakovich's four most frequently-played symphonies- 5, 7, 10, and (I think) 11... now (in the opinion of people who care enough about Classical Music to go to Concert Halls and purchase recordings), how many other symphonists have put out four or more symphonies that are held in equal or greater esteem? You can use the fingers of both hands- and you may find that you'll run out of the names of other composers before you run out of fingers.

Now, those who've followed my earlier postings on this issue are already aware- I don't buy into the "no creative reversals" theory of greatness. My previously-used metaphor on this topic is _Andrea del Sarto_ as depicted by Robert Browning. If using such a standard, del Sarto would be considered a nonpareil artist. As you might guess, Browning has a different point of view, and so do I.

And I don't really see the relevance of the "collapsing buiding" comparison. No-one died directly because they listened to Shostakovich's 12th. It's a case of trying to compare Electromagnetic Golf to Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy (*some* allowed himself a Whitmanesque turn-of-phrase, I'll work in an Huxleyesque turn-of-phrase, just to keep things interesting!).


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Chi_townPhilly said:


> O.K.: then, let's take Shostakovich's four most frequently-played symphonies- 5, 7, 10, and (I think) 11... now (in the opinion of people who care enough about Classical Music to go to Concert Halls and purchase recordings), how many other symphonists have put out four or more symphonies that are held in equal or greater esteem? You can use the fingers of both hands- and you may find that you'll run out of the names of other composers before you run out of fingers.


Not sure we're going to get anywhere useful by defining greatness in terms of box office receipts. On that basis, _The phantom of the opera_ is an alltime masterpiece and _Wozzeck _nowhere.


----------



## tahnak

jeremy marchant said:


> this is just silly. You can't say he is the last symphonist unless you can show that something has happened to the human race which prevents individuals form composing more symphonies.
> Yes something has happened to the human race... Symphonies are being composed but peek at the content and then affirm...
> 
> If that hasn't happened, someone, who is maybe 18 months old right now, may become, by all our standards, a greater symphonist.
> Maybe... We will see when that happens ... Until then it is with confidence we can say that he is the last great symphonist ( not one but fifteen symphonies)
> 
> and i don't buy the argument, posted by someone else, that he can be classified as a 'great' symphonist because some of his symphonies, like the tenth, are great. In fact, some of them, however much people might enjoy them, are not great (3, 7, 11, 12 for starters).
> If you say that seventh eleventh are not great symphonies , then stop listening to symphonies.. And come out of your bias..
> To be a great symphonist, most of your symphonies have to be at least very good, and the rest good. There has to be consistency of quality. _symphonist_, as a word, carries the implication of composing a string of symphonies, of being adept, imaginative and innovative in the genre. It isn't about writing one offs. Just writing ten (very) good symphonies would count someone as a great symphonist, simply because they could deliver a consistently high standard. If you thought walton 1 was a 'great' symphony, would you say he was 'great' symphonist on the grounds that one out of two isn't bad?
> Are you challenging that shostakovich does not have consistency of quality? Better not listen to him if you don't respect him but don't run him down...
> A great architect is not someone who designed one great building, never mind all the rest fell down and killed lots of people.
> 
> Shostakovich is a fascinating person psychologically. And, of course, he was writing under duress all his life. Personally, we might give him the benefit of the doubt on many occasions, if we chose to, but that cannot affect the assessment of his music which stands or falls by itself.


he does not require your benefit of doubt. Posterity will answer your question.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

tahnak said:


> he does not require your benefit of doubt. Posterity will answer your question.


But by the time posterity shows up we'll all be dead.


----------



## Toccata

Jeremy Marchant said:


> This is just silly. You can't say he is the last symphonist unless you can show that something has happened to the human race which prevents individuals form composing more symphonies. If that hasn't happened, someone, who is maybe 18 months old right now, may become, by all our standards, a greater symphonist.


I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. The proposition underlying this thread is that Shostakovich was the last great Symphonist we know about. No-one is suggesting that he will be the last great symphonist ever, throughout eternity, as seems to be the implication of your rather hapless comment.



> And I don't buy the argument, posted by someone else, that he can be classified as a 'great' symphonist because some of his symphonies, like the tenth, are great. In fact, some of them, however much people might enjoy them, are not great (3, 7, 11, 12 for starters). To be a great symphonist, most of your symphonies have to be at least very good, and the rest good. There has to be consistency of quality. _Symphonist_, as a word, carries the implication of composing a string of symphonies, of being adept, imaginative and innovative in the genre. It isn't about writing one offs. Just writing ten (very) good symphonies would count someone as a great symphonist, simply because they could deliver a consistently high standard. If you thought Walton 1 was a 'great' symphony, would you say he was 'great' symphonist on the grounds that one out of two isn't bad?
> 
> A great architect is not someone who designed one great building, never mind all the rest fell down and killed lots of people.


This being the case, how do you rate Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Mozart as symphonists?

If you consider they were "great" symphonists, can you please confirm that you consider all of their symphonies are at least "good". If so, by way of example, can you clarify what was "good" or "very good" about, say, Mozart's 4th and Haydn's 15th symphonies.

If however you do not consider they were great symphonists, can you please clarify your thinking as to why not.

In a more hypothetical scenario, suppose we take two composers A and B who wrote 7 and 15 symphonies respectively. Suppose that 5 of Composer A's symphonies were very good, and 2 were good. Suppose that 7 of Composer B's symphonies were very good, 2 were good, and the rest poor.

Are you saying that Composer A is a great symphonist but Composer B is not, as would seem to be the implication of your comments based on consistency? If that is what you believe, how do you reconcile this with the fact that B composed more very good or good symphonies than A? Further, how do you compare quality across composers. For example, a "poor" one by B's standards might be "good" on A's general standard.

Looking forward to your reply.


----------



## Zingo

I don't believe S. will be considered one of the great composers a few decades from now, when all the silly "subtext" has gone about how banal music should be heard as ironic etc. But that is just me. The last "great" symphonists would for me be Sibelius and Nielsen who wrote their last symhonies at about the same time (c. 1924). But what you consider "great" is highly subjective. Is Honegger's third a great symphony? Prokofiev's sixth?


----------



## JAKE WYB

Jeremy Marchant said:


> This is just silly. You can't say he is the last symphonist unless you can show that something has happened to the human race which prevents individuals form composing more symphonies. If that hasn't happened, someone, who is maybe 18 months old right now, may become, by all our standards, a greater symphonist.
> 
> And I don't buy the argument, posted by someone else, that he can be classified as a 'great' symphonist because some of his symphonies, like the tenth, are great. In fact, some of them, however much people might enjoy them, are not great (3, 7, *11*, 12 for starters). To be a great symphonist, most of your symphonies have to be at least very good, and the rest good. There has to be consistency of quality. _Symphonist_, as a word, carries the implication of composing a string of symphonies, of being adept, imaginative and innovative in the genre. It isn't about writing one offs. Just writing ten (very) good symphonies would count someone as a great symphonist, simply because they could deliver a consistently high standard. If you thought Walton 1 was a 'great' symphony, would you say he was 'great' symphonist on the grounds that one out of two isn't bad?
> 
> A great architect is not someone who designed one great building, never mind all the rest fell down and killed lots of people.
> 
> Shostakovich is a fascinating person psychologically. And, of course, he was writing under duress all his life. Personally, we might give him the benefit of the doubt on many occasions, if we chose to, but that cannot affect the assessment of his music which stands or falls by itself.


I dont know how you could include 11 in that list - its astonishing - it may not be seen as a structurally focused symphonic work but in terms of its continuous span of moods and events it grips and connects dramatically connects itself in a way more admirable and unifying than Mahler did in a few of his symphonies -

I dismiss anyne who thinks shostakovich wont be regarded so much in a few decades - but i agree that the likes if Sibelius are to be regarded as the last great (from the current viewpoint) symphonist to insert a dramatic new way of structuring and developing symphonically music material into a consistent unified whole, with a focused message.
since then, nobody has both created a cycle of reasonably consistent symphonies that take symphonic thinking to the next level and speak to the audience in an honest powerul way that will last through the decades at the same time as being in complete control of the motifs and weave of material from beginning to end.

So i reckon if as a symphonist shostakovich wasnt one of the very greats he was composer of his own dramatic works he called symphonies and was one of the very greats of course in that respect


----------



## starry

I agree, Shostakovich 11 is one of those I find more interesting by him. I'm not a huge fan of Shostakovich and I wonder if some of his pieces like the 5th symphony might be overrated, but I'm far from a conclusive judgement on him. I do tend to feel like some others though that as a symphonist Sibelius perhaps is better than Shostakovich, certainly for consistency.


----------



## Toccata

We now await Mr Marchant's return when hopefully he will attempt to deal with the various queries made since his last post (by "last post" I mean the last one he made on this thread as opposed to his very last post that he will ever make, which I trust will be a long time in the future).


----------



## starry

Opal said:


> We now await Mr Marchant's return when hopefully he will attempt to deal with the various queries made since his last post (by "last post" I mean the last one he made on this thread as opposed to his very last post that he will ever make, which I trust will be a long time in the future).


Why are you getting personal about this?


----------



## Toccata

starry said:


> Why are you getting personal about this?


You are such a drama queen, aren't you? Getting personal about this? I don't know what are you talking about. I merely suggested that since several people have now commented on Jeremy Marchant's thesis, from different angles, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say in reply. Or aren't you interested in getting any feedback on comments you and others have made?


----------



## afterpostjack

I would agree with that assertion (that Shostakovich is the last great symphonist), so far. I have read through this thread and listened to many of his symphonies, and I don't understand what some people seem to dislike about him. Also not a big fan of Sibelius, although he has produced some interesting music. I also find Shostakovich's music much more interesting than the music of Mahler.


----------



## Vaneyes

I like a couple of Schnittke's, but as a body of work I wouldn't describe the set as great. So, the Shostakovich claim may hold up. How many of us will be here to see/hear whether it does? *That* is the question or statement.


----------



## SuperTonic

Shostakovitch is one of my favorite composers. It was actually his 5th Symphony that got me hooked on classical music when I was a teen.
I would agree that his output was somewhat hit or miss, but I think the great symphonies more than make up for the lesser symphonies. I consider the 1st, 5th, and 10th to be true masterpieces.

It is interesting to see some of the comments regarding the 11th. That is one of his symphonies that I am not that familiar with. Based on some of the comments here I'm going to have to give it another listen.


----------



## angusdegraosta

Shostakovich had a flair for a playful, pranksterish sound which he achieves in his concertos and in several moments in the 6th, 9th, and 15th symphonies. The man was a genius, even if his music is mighty heavy at times. Sometimes that's a good thing: the first and fourth are varied examples of his sound prior to the criticism he had to endure at the hands of idiot politicians.

On the finale of the fifth, Shostakovich wrote:

"What exultation could there be? I think it is clear to everyone what happens in the Fifth. The rejoicing is forced, created under threat... It's as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, 'Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing,' and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, 'Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing.' What kind of apotheosis is that?"

Mravinsky captured it well:





"A Soviet artist's reply to just criticism" was how Shostakovich billed the release of the symphony ... ha! The government was ready to send him to Siberia, so he had to change the tone of his music or wither away in a camp. What he managed to do was make the Party happy while snickering at them. You can hear it in the music.

The ending still conveys a kind of hard-won triumph, even more so when we listen to it today. Those were tough circumstances for creating art and music - always a dictator to please.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

angusdegraosta said:


> On the finale of the fifth, Shostakovich wrote:
> 
> "What exultation could there be? I think it is clear to everyone what happens in the Fifth. The rejoicing is forced, created under threat... It's as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, 'Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing,' and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, 'Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing.' What kind of apotheosis is that?"


To be sure, Shostakovich didn't _write_ this- it's what Solomon Volkov _said_ Shostakovich _told_ him. Did Shostakovich actually say this?! I don't know that he did... I don't know that he didn't--

The controversy surrounding Volkov's "Testimony" is grist for the argument-mill, and will continue in that manner until there is further supporting hard evidence on one side or the other. Now, I consider myself to be anti-authoritarian and anti-Communist... and I'd like to believe that the vast bulk of "Testimony" is true. Yet, there's something about it that I never thought entirely passed the smell-test...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Chi_townPhilly said:


> To be sure, Shostakovich didn't _write_ this- it's what Solomon Volkov _said_ Shostakovich _told_ him. Did Shostakovich actually say this?! I don't know that he did... I don't know that he didn't--
> 
> The controversy surrounding Volkov's "Testimony" is grist for the argument-mill, and will continue in that manner until there is further supporting hard evidence on one side or the other. Now, I consider myself to be anti-authoritarian and anti-Communist... and I'd like to believe that the vast bulk of "Testimony" is true. Yet, there's something about it that I never thought entirely passed the smell-test...


If Testimony is false, I don't see why Volkov would have made it all up. What point would there be in doing that? I think most of it's true too, with a little bit of personal commentary mixed in, perhaps to stress some point.


----------



## angusdegraosta

I do agree: far more accurate to mention Volkov's transcription as the source. 

Has anyone heard the late tone poem October? That's a party line piece that I remember being intense and musically interesting, though I haven't heard it in years.


----------



## Guest

I'm just starting to open up to Shostakovich and I like what I've heard, but as far as being the "last great symphonist," I would disagree. He's good, but there are some guys that are still around writing great symphonies, most notably Rautavaara. If anyone isn't familiar with him, definitely check out the 7th and 8th symphonies, maybe the 3rd too.


----------



## angusdegraosta

Yes, Jeff. The concertos and symphonies I've heard by Rautavaara have been great. His Third Symphony has a really interesting fusion of his own style with the spirit of Bruckner. My favorite so far is the one-movement Fifth Symphony: love the intro and the beautifully haunting conclusion.


----------



## Guest

Agreed, the 5th may have one of the coolest symphonic openings I've heard. The 3rd piano concerto is great too, especially the beautiful first movement.


----------



## Ma-Goh

Hi Kurkikohtaus,


> Unfortunately, not many conductors know Shostakovich's account of this ending, and misinterpret it entirely


Shostakovich often suffers from misinterpretation and all kinds of mistaken exposition. Bernstein misunderstood him fundamentally. Karajan, however, did not.


> Unfortunately, I often get the feeling that that is precisely what one is listening to: a well-oiled composing machine. After a certain amount of hearings, the gloss of his music often wears off and you are left with the feeling of a composer going through the motions: theme - routine - transition - routine - climax - end.


That`s nothing more than your (in a way regrettable) personal opinion.


> The 5th Symphony is probably the best exposition of Shostakovich's style, without getting too bombastic, well for Shostakovich anyway.


I would not formulate it like that. His style has many aspects, created to fit a wide range of intent. Bombastic? No, just an overwhelming intensity of explicitly expressed elevated, pure sentiments. 


> We are left to wonder what his undeniable genius would have produced if he had been allowed to follow his own path.


Sadly, it's so true. For instance, I was surprised and disappointed by the tonality of the 5th Symphony. Not knowing the historical background at that time, I just felt something was terribly wrong. 


> I must disagree, however, about Shostakovich being a "great symphonist". His output is extremely uneven, not only from piece to piece but within each piece as well.


Whose output is more even? Hopefully, you are not suggesting Sibelius, he did not have the genius of Shostakovich, simply playing in the Lower League. Without further analysis, his music is embarrassingly out of step with time, which is universally an ominous sign in art.
Maybe you should consider having a go at Shostakovich, carefully choosing tempi, not turning music history`s most magnificent finales into a Sunday parade march...

Kind regards


----------



## janne

Ma-Goh said:


> Shostakovich often suffers from misinterpretation and all kinds of mistaken exposition. Bernstein misunderstood him fundamentally. Karajan, however, did not.


And what exactly did Bernstein not understand ?



Ma-Goh said:


> That`s nothing more than your (in a way regrettable) personal opinion.


Very interesting when we look at what you wrote next..



Ma-Goh said:


> Whose output is more even? Hopefully, you are not suggesting Sibelius, he did not have the genius of Shostakovich, simply playing in the Lower League. Without further analysis, his music is embarrassingly out of step with time, which is universally an ominous sign in art.


That`s nothing more than your (in a way regrettable) personal opinion, eh ?

So who are you to rack down on Sibelius music and how did you come up with the very idiotic idea to compare the two composers ?


----------



## Ma-Goh

janne,


> And what exactly did Bernstein not understand ?


The composer`s intentions. I`m not referring to subtle nuances, but to an annoying Mahlerization and other incompatibilities, whereby the musical content gets distorted nearly beyond recognition.


> That`s nothing more than your (in a way regrettable) personal opinion, eh ?


Yes, since the subject has no objective values. It pertains to you as well.


> So who are you to rack down on Sibelius music


Do you find it inappropriate or incorrect (or both) ?


> how did you come up with the very idiotic idea to compare the two composers ?


Please pay a courtesy visit to: http://sites.google.com/site/misharohac/

Kind regards


----------



## Toccata

Ma-Goh said:


> Please pay a courtesy visit to: http://sites.google.com/site/misharohac/


The first first oddity that struck me about your post #70 was its extremely highly belated nature. It would seem that the post of member _Kurkikohtaus_ to which you refer was written in December 2006.

The second oddity is that it is easily confirmed that Kurkikohtaus has not been active on this Forum for over a year now, in which case it would seem quite obvious that you are p..s..g in the wind!

Third, I am perplexed as to why you (a complete newcomer to this Board with no credentials whatsoever, or none that you have told us about) should think that anyone will take seriously your opinions against those former longer-standing member, who (as far as I can discern) was regarded in high repute, and deservedly so. You wouldn't, perhaps, have some kind of a grievance against him, would you?

As for your thoughts about Shostakovich, the truth is he is another second-rate hack who doesn't deserve to be mentioned among the ranks of the real Greats. So I would like to suggest that you might make an attempt to get real.


----------



## janne

Ma-Goh said:


> Please pay a courtesy visit to: http://sites.google.com/site/misharohac/


So ?
Is that you or what ?


----------



## Ma-Goh

Opal,


> The first first oddity that struck me about your post #70 was its extremely highly belated nature. It would seem that the post of member Kurkikohtaus to which you refer was written in December 2006.
> 
> The second oddity is that it is easily confirmed that Kurkikohtaus has not been active on this Forum for over a year now, in which case it would seem quite obvious that you are p..s..g in the wind!


Nothing has lost significance or validity.


> You wouldn't, perhaps, have some kind of a grievance against him, would you?


Why would I? What in my post does indicate I would?


> As for your thoughts about Shostakovich, the truth is he is another second-rate hack who doesn't deserve to be mentioned among the ranks of the real Greats. So I would like to suggest that you might make an attempt to get real.


Whose truth? Look, my reality won't get more real so I respectfully disagree with your stance on this.

Please try to make clear factual statements in your capacity as a long-standing member with credentials and I will briefly comment on them.

Best regards


----------



## Ma-Goh

janne
no, it`s not me, it`s Kurkikohtaus, a Sibelius expert.


----------



## Toccata

Ma-Goh said:


> Opal,
> 
> Why would I? What in my post does indicate I would?


It just seems odd to me that a new member (you) should make his first post a critique of views expressed in December 2006 concerning Shostakovich by a member (Kurkikohtaus) who hasn't been active for over a year, and at the same time make disparaging remarks about that member's favoured composer, Sibelius.


----------



## janne

Ma-Goh said:


> janne
> no, it`s not me, it`s Kurkikohtaus, a Sibelius expert.


Ok... 

Why did you post that link ?


----------



## angusdegraosta

Sibelius will always be my #1; that's another story. Back to Shosta. Here are two versions of Fifth's finale:

1. Again, Mravinsky (same link I posted prior)





and 2. Bernstein





I like the hearing slower ending just as much as watching Lenny in his glory. Here Bernstein slows it down quite a bit from his own 1959 recording, which is super fast.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

> I've recently discovered the joys of the 4th. It's much more experimental than the 5th.


 I've recently attended a cocnert with Wladimir Jurowski an RNO. They were perfoming the 4th. Yes, it is much more experimental than the 5th. The perfomance of it has been banned.

***
I have double thoughts about his 11th symphony. Sometimes I love it,vsometimes in seems to me to be long and boring and sometimes bombastic. Still, it impress me.

I am not so sure about the 13th. I do not find this symphony-cantata form to be very good. The music is more abstract art than the poetry. And I am not a big fan of Yevtushenko. My favorite Russian poet is *Mandelstamm.* Compare him and Yevtushenko - and you'll see the big difference. BTW, Mandelstamm was an only artist who rejects getting a free flat from Soviet government and wrote an epigramme on Stalin. He was a real hero.


----------



## NightHawk

I have been trying to find that 1959 recording of Bernstein with NYPhil - can you send me the exact bar code information? I would be so grateful. I have three Bernstein recordings (2 w NYP) but none (in my memory) match that barely post-soviet tour recording. Shostakovich, from all accounts, loved Bernstein's tempos!



angusdegraosta said:


> Sibelius will always be my #1; that's another story. Back to Shosta. Here are two versions of Fifth's finale:
> 
> 1. Again, Mravinsky (same link I posted prior)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and 2. Bernstein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the hearing slower ending just as much as watching Lenny in his glory. Here Bernstein slows it down quite a bit from his own 1959 recording, which is super fast.


----------



## NightHawk

Barely a month ago I would likely have agreed that Shostakovich was the last great symphonist, but that was before I was introduced to the music of Alfred Schnittke (1934 -1998) on TC. Schnittke's musical 'references', 'quotes', and 'paraphrases' within numerous of his works may not sit well with all, but I have been completely won over by this surreal quality, and really just the beauty of his music. Though raised in Russia, and influenced significantly by Shostakovich...

_It was in Vienna, Schnittke's biographer Alexander Ivashkin writes, where "he fell in love with music which is part of life, part of history and culture, part of the past which is still alive." "I felt every moment there," the composer wrote, "to be a link of the historical chain: all was multi-dimensional; the past represented a world of ever-present ghosts, and I was not a barbarian without any connections, but the conscious bearer of the task in my life."[3] Schnittke's experience in Vienna "gave him a certain spiritual experience and discipline for his future professional activities. It was Mozart and Schubert, not Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, whom he kept in mind as a reference point in terms of taste, manner and style. This reference point was essentially Classical ... but never too blatant."_ Wikipedia.com

It seems so strange that I should not have known this man's music while he was living. It is even stranger than I mourn his passing 13 years later in these days of heavy listening to his work.


----------



## tahnak

NightHawk said:


> Barely a month ago I would likely have agreed that Shostakovich was the last great symphonist, but that was before I was introduced to the music of Alfred Schnittke (1934 -1998) on TC. Schnittke's musical 'references', 'quotes', and 'paraphrases' within numerous of his works may not sit well with all, but I have been completely won over by this surreal quality, and really just the beauty of his music. Though raised in Russia, and influenced significantly by Shostakovich...
> 
> Indeed Alfred Schnittke is a great musician and also a symphonist. Yet, his symphonies will not replace the weight and impressions of Dmitri Shostakovich.
> I have thought about this much and I tend to endorse that Shostakovich is indeed the last great symphonist before the decadence set in.


----------



## starthrower

Considering his output, I haven't listened to a whole lot of Shostakovich. However, I do own a bunch of CDs. He may be universally acclaimed as a great symphonist, but I prefer the chamber music I've listened to over the symphonies. They're a bit over the top for my taste.

Like Nighthawk, I like Schnittke a lot, he has a sense of humor. And I also listen to William Schuman's and Lutoslawski's symphonies more than Shostakovich.


----------



## Tapkaara

I could agree that Shosty was the last great symphonist. I enjoy his works tremendously, though I have a hard time sitting through some of them due to the length.

We can mention Schnittke or Petterrsson or any of these other "contemporary" symphonists all we want, but do they REALLY hold up to the likes of Shostakovich? I think not. It's not to put them down, but they (and others) simply cannot match the popularity and influence Shostakovich had and still has.

Will there be another symphonist of his caliber? Anything is possible, but we may need to wait a long time.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> I could agree that Shosty was the last great symphonist. I enjoy his works tremendously, though I have a hard time sitting through some of them due to the length.
> 
> We can mention Schnittke or Petterrsson or any of these other "contemporary" symphonists all we want, but do they REALLY hold up to the likes of Shostakovich? I think not. It's not to put them down, but they (and others) simply cannot match the popularity and influence Shostakovich had and still has.
> 
> Will there be another symphonist of his caliber? Anything is possible, but we may need to wait a long time.


I think that is over-rating Shostakovich quite a bit. It seems you think he is the last great symphonist because he is the last symphonist that wrote in a style you like.

Also, may I ask who they influenced exactly? As great as Shostakovich's symphonies are they are also quite conservative for the time and unless I am wrong the range of influence is rather smallish relatively speaking.


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> I think that is over-rating Shostakovich quite a bit. It seems you think he is the last great symphonist because he is the last symphonist that wrote in a style you like.
> 
> Also, may I ask who they influenced exactly? As great as Shostakovich's symphonies are they are also quite conservative for the time and unless I am wrong the range of influence is rather smallish relatively speaking.


I think people throw the word "great" around quite a bit. If Beethoven is great, and Mahler is great, and Shostakovich is great, does someone like Schnittke, who is popular and at least good, really fit into that league?

And I doubt that i would tend to overrate Shostakovich. I like him but I am not a fanatic. But I can and do accept him for his stature and influence as a symphonist.

And when I say "influence," I do not necessarily mean that other composers somehow sound like him because they have lifted his music writing techniques. I mean influence in the greater sense. In the same way Mozart has been very influential in the world of music, though composers who consider him influential do not sound like him and simply copy his style.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> I think people throw the word "great" around quite a bit. If Beethoven is great, and Mahler is great, and Shostakovich is great, does someone like Schnittke, who is popular and at least good, really fit into that league?
> 
> And I doubt that i would tend to overrate Shostakovich. I like him but I am not a fanatic. But I can and do accept him for his stature and influence as a symphonist.
> 
> And when I say "influence," I do not necessarily mean that other composers somehow sound like him because they have lifted his music writing techniques. I mean influence in the greater sense. In the same way Mozart has been very influential in the world of music, though composers who consider him influential do not sound like him and simply copy his style.


Yes! I would definitely put Schnittke's symphonies on the same pedestal of those other composers. They are incredible. Why are people so quick to claim that there cannot be a composer in more recent years incapable of writing symphonies at the same level?


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> Yes! I would definitely put Schnittke's symphonies on the same pedestal of those other composers. They are incredible. Why are people so quick to claim that there cannot be a composer in more recent years incapable of writing symphonies at the same level?


Perhaps the quality of his work has yet to enter into the public's consciousness. But even in classical circles, Schnittke's work is of limited appeal; only the intelligentia REALLY know his work. This is not a reflection on the quality of his work; I know of several composers who should be better known but don't even have the recogntion of Schnittke. Despite his qualities, he just isn't there yet.

What it comes down to for me is the use of the term "great." Again, I feel it is thrown around fairly carelessly, as is the word "genius." I think when we start calling good and better-than-good composers "great," it actually does a gross disservice to the term.

I am not against any modern/contemporary composers entering into the pantheon of "great" composers, and it very well could happen. Perhaps it could happen to Schnittke if his output if properly and fairly appraised by the general concert-going public and others who study and care about such things. But I feel PERSONALLY that the era of great, epoch-defining composers probably did die around the time of Shostakovich. I think with the onset of the musical avant-garde, classical music lost its way as an art form worthy of a wider public appreciation and became something of a "secret handshake" for self-serving intellectuals. Music is now scattering and trying to find its way again and maybe when it does, another "great" composer will come to the fore. Is the current and wide-spread idiom of minimalism a reaction to the avant-garde, just as the classical period was a reaction to the "excesses" of the baroque?

Of course, all of that is simply my opinion. I don't need lectures on how wonderful avant-garde music is. Don't try to convince me because you will not. We should all be allowed our theories.

Thanks!


----------



## starthrower

No use in forcing yourself to listen to music that you have no taste for. As far as the avant garde is concerned, Schnittke may be a modernist, but he is not like Boulez. He has a deep sense of tradition running through his works which he obviously loved a respected. But he is also relevant to his own time and thoroughly contemporary. It's quite obvious when you listen to his music.


----------



## Tapkaara

starthrower said:


> No use in forcing yourself to listen to music that you have no taste for. As far as the avant garde is concerned, Schnittke may be a modernist, but he is not like Boulez. He has a deep sense of tradition running through his works which he obviously loved a respected. But he is also relevant to his own time and thoroughly contemporary. It's quite obvious when you listen to his music.


I quite agree! I won't pretend to be a Schnittke expert. In fact, I only know very little of what he has composed. I've heard him played on the radio (I listen to a fair amount of classical radio) and I have heard clips on Youtube. But based on what I have heard, I definitley hear the "tradition" in his works, despite his modernist leanings. I admire that and, quite frankly, find it refreshing. And in a funny round-about way, it shows his merit as an individualist; it seems for a while having any amount of traditional aesthetic or tonality in your music was a sign of regression, not progression. I wonder if the likes of Boulez ever sneered at the music of Schnittke for not being "modern enough."


----------



## tdc

I think if we are being really conservative with the word 'great' than perhaps Mahler is more worthy the title of last 'great' symphonist (not that I am saying he was the last 'great' symphonist). Still I am not completely sold on Shostakovich 'great' symphonies - aren't there those detractors that consider Shostakovich symphonic output 'Mahler second pressing'?

From the works I have heard of Shosty I find him very skilled but lacking in certain areas perhaps such as imagination and innovation.


----------



## Tapkaara

tdc said:


> I think if we are being really conservative with the word 'great' than perhaps Mahler is more worthy the title of last 'great' symphonist (not that I am saying he was the last 'great' symphonist). Still I am not completely sold on Shostakovich 'great' symphonies - aren't there those detractors that consider Shostakovich symphonic output 'Mahler second pressing'?
> 
> From the works I have heard of Shosty I find him very skilled but lacking in certain areas perhaps such as imagination and innovation.


Well, if you want to go back as far as Mahler, then we should include Sibelius who did compose his remaining symphonies after Mahler passed on. I feel, personally, that Sibelius is the best symphonist of the whole 20th century, so if anyone is going to be worthy of the title "great," it's him!!  So, if you do go back that far, we cannot leave Sibelius out.


----------



## tdc

Tapkaara said:


> Well, if you want to go back as far as Mahler, then we should include Sibelius who did compose his remaining symphonies after Mahler passed on. I feel, personally, that Sibelius is the best symphonist of the whole 20th century, so if anyone is going to be worthy of the title "great," it's him!!  So, if you do go back that far, we cannot leave Sibelius out.


Well, I think I can agree that Sibelius was a great symphonist. The jury is still out for me on whether he matches Mahler's greatness. There was a time when I would've said not even close, but now I am not so sure. I still need to explore Sibelius in more depth.


----------



## Tapkaara

tdc said:


> Well, I think I can agree that Sibelius was a great symphonist. The jury is still out for me on whether he matches Mahler's greatness. There was a time when I would've said not even close, but now I am not so sure. I still need to explore Sibelius in more depth.


That's the power of Sibelius. He's more coy than Mahler and tends to reveal his greatness a little but more slowly and mysteriously!


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> That's the power of Sibelius. He's more coy than Mahler and tends to reveal his greatness a little but more slowly and mysteriously!


Obviously in some cases not so much......


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> Obviously in some cases not so much......


I don't know what you mean...


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> I don't know what you mean...


My point exactly....


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> My point exactly....


I am sorry, but I really do not know what you mean.

If you are saying that Sibelius has never tickled your fancy, no matter how much time you have given him, I surely will not hold that against you. No composer is for absolutely everyone.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> I am sorry, but I really do not know what you mean.
> 
> If you are saying that Sibelius has never tickled your fancy, no matter how much time you have given him, I surely will not hold that against you. No composer is for absolutely everyone.


Nope thats not what I'm saying.

But anyway, on an unrelated note, I don't understand your compulsive need to insult Mahler in the process of praising Sibelius. They're two totally different composers ya know...


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> Nope thats not what I'm saying.
> 
> But anyway, on an unrelated note, I don't understand your compulsive need to insult Mahler in the process of praising Sibelius. They're two totally different composers ya know...


Well, like I said, I do not know what you meant. If you are making a very plain point, I apologize I am not clever enough to catch it. If you'd care to exaplain what you mean by "My point exactly...", I wouldn't mind being enlightened. But if explaining it causes it to lose its "gotcha" edge, I'd hate for you to have to lose the wind behind your sails.

And also, can you please tell me where I _insulted _Mahler? And where I have done it compulsively? You and I must be on really different wavelengths.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Tapkaara said:


> Well, if you want to go back as far as Mahler, then we should include Sibelius who did compose his remaining symphonies after Mahler passed on. I feel, personally, that Sibelius is the best symphonist of the whole 20th century, so if anyone is going to be worthy of the title "great," it's him!!  So, if you do go back that far, we cannot leave Sibelius out.


I don't see how one can describe a composer as a "great symphonist" if there are a number of duds in his output as is, unfortunately, and for whatever the reason, the case with Shostakovich. My vote's for Sibelius too, though 1 does make me a bit uneasy, greatness-wise.

However, I would like to argue that a work can be a great symphony without having the word "symphony" in its name, and so I urge the inclusion of _Tapiola _in the Sibelius symphonic canon.

That is hardly an original remark. But I'd also like to include the _Four legends _as being a better four movement symphony than many would-be symphonies by other composers.


----------



## NightHawk

In terms of his symphonies, I agree - his chamber music is the thing.



tdc said:


> I think if we are being really conservative with the word 'great' than perhaps Mahler is more worthy the title of last 'great' symphonist (not that I am saying he was the last 'great' symphonist). Still I am not completely sold on Shostakovich 'great' symphonies - aren't there those detractors that consider Shostakovich symphonic output 'Mahler second pressing'?
> 
> From the works I have heard of Shosty I find him very skilled but lacking in certain areas perhaps such as imagination and innovation.


----------



## Tapkaara

Jeremy Marchant said:


> I don't see how one can describe a composer as a "great symphonist" if there are a number of duds in his output as is, unfortunately, and for whatever the reason, the case with Shostakovich. My vote's for Sibelius too, though 1 does make me a bit uneasy, greatness-wise.
> 
> However, I would like to argue that a work can be a great symphony without having the word "symphony" in its name, and so I urge the inclusion of _Tapiola _in the Sibelius symphonic canon.
> 
> That is hardly an original remark. But I'd also like to include the _Four legends _as being a better four movement symphony than many would-be symphonies by other composers.


The 1st is better than most people give it credit for, though it is his most unoriginal. Still, though, there are original touches in it.

And I see your point about the duds in Shostakovich. We be seein' eye to eye.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

No author will has such influence as Leo Tolstoy had in late XIX Russia. The time is different. We live in a different epoch. The same with Shostakovich. He was a symbol, not only a composer. But it does not mean, that there can not be any skillful, talented or maybe genial composers or authors. Just no one will treat them as prophets.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

On Shostakovich's conservatism... He himself felt that he was in crisis after the tenth symphony. He wrote about these feeling to some of his correspondences.
Yes, sometimes when you've heard a lot of Shostakovich in a short time you could say: it's the same Shostakovich. 

But I do not think that at last young Shostakovich lacked imagination. Think of his First symphony for example. It was quite imaginative for such a young composer.


----------



## tdc

Moscow-Mahler said:


> On Shostakovich's conservatism... He himself felt that he was in crisis after the tenth symphony. He wrote about these feeling to some of his correspondences.
> Yes, sometimes when you've heard a lot of Shostakovich in a short time you could say: it's the same Shostakovich.
> 
> But I do not think that at last young Shostakovich lacked imagination. Think of his First symphony for example. It was quite imaginative for such a young composer.


You know, I can agree with that. I take back the lacking imagination comment, and innovation actually. He has a lot of moments I really enjoy, and he certainly doesn't sound exactly like Mahler by any stretch. I don't know why I feel tempted to put him down sometimes, he is a little too consistently gloomy for my tastes I think - but the 'lacking imagination' comment on second thought I think is certainly inaccurate, and I admittedly haven't listened to a lot of his chamber works outside the 8th SQ and the Piano Quintet.


----------



## KenOC

angusdegraosta said:


> Has anyone heard the late tone poem October? That's a party line piece that I remember being intense and musically interesting, though I haven't heard it in years.


A very fine piece, in the idiom of the 10th Symphony. DSCH's only tone poem. His "party hack" music could be quite inspired and fine.


----------



## PetrB

Last -- proven wrong.
Great Symphonist -- rather debatable, permanently debatable without resolve, even.

meh.


----------



## spradlig

I would suggest listening to #9, #10, and #15. I love Shostakovich, but what from what I've heard and read I suspect some of his symphonies are better than others. I am not familiar with his quartets, but I will give them a try. I recommend the unjustly neglected second cello concerto.


----------



## spradlig

Some quite accessible pieces are the symphony #9, the Festive Overture, and the first cello concerto.


----------



## KenOC

Another angle on Shostakovich: With his permission, Rudolf Barshai made chamber orchestra arrangements of five of his quartets:

#1, Op. 49a
#3, Op. 73a
#4, Op. 83a
#8, Op. 110a
#10, Op. 118a

These so-called "chamber symphonies" are all great listening, and some people may find them more "forgiving" than the original quartets. All are available.


----------



## apricissimus

I'm not sure I understand the point of chamber orchestra arrangements of string quartets. I haven't heard any of these Shostakovich/Barshai arrangements; are they string instruments just multiplied?

I've heard Beethoven's Grosse Fuge arranged for larger string sections. It adds nothing, in my opinion, and you lose some of the sound and timbre of the individual voices.


----------



## KenOC

apricissimus said:


> I've heard Beethoven's Grosse Fuge arranged for larger string sections. It adds nothing, in my opinion, and you lose some of the sound and timbre of the individual voices.


I agree on the Beethoven. I think these work quite a bit better. Only two (I think) are for strings only, others have additional instruments. The orchestration is imaginative and effective.


----------



## neoshredder

PetrB said:


> Last -- proven wrong.
> Great Symphonist -- rather debatable, permanently debatable without resolve, even.
> 
> meh.


How has it been proven wrong?


----------



## Garlic

I find Shostakovich's symphonies hit and miss at best. I don't know many modern symphonists but I'm sure there are some who are more consistent. I do like his string quartets a lot.


----------



## chalkpie

jack_in_cincinnati said:


> The Fourteenth is my favorite, although it's only a symphony because Shostakovich called it one. I also love the Fourth, the Fifth (the opening movement is sheer perfection: not one note out of place), the Eighth, the Tenth, the Eleventh (the most underrated: I keep waiting for it to catch on), the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. The weakest by far is #12.


Right on. Don't overlook the 1st three either. He would still be a greatly unique symphonist if he only did 1-3. Lucky for us he wrote more!


----------



## sharik

hlolli said:


> My favourette is NOT the 7th please!


for godsake why?.. the 7th is his best and standing above the rest and this is more than obvious to everyone.


----------



## Rangstrom

It is difficult to predict the preferences of future listeners. Go back 40- 50 years and I doubt many would have guessed the current popularity of Mahler and Rachmaninoff and the relative eclipse of Stravinsky. I suspect Shostakovich will remain well thought of, but but as an inconsistent composer. Symphonies 4, 6, 8 and 10 are favorites of mine, but I rarely enjoy 3, 7, 11 or 12.

As for the last great symphony composer, that ship has already sailed. As many have mentioned Simpson, Holmboe, W. Schuman and probably one of the Poles (Panufnik, Penderecki, Lutoslawski) have already staked their claims. There will be more to come.


----------



## KenOC

sharik said:


> for godsake why?.. the 7th is his best and standing above the rest and this is more than obvious to everyone.


Well, perhaps not everyone...


----------



## neoshredder

Garlic said:


> I find Shostakovich's symphonies hit and miss at best. I don't know many modern symphonists but I'm sure there are some who are more consistent. I do like his string quartets a lot.


I doubt it. The cream usually rises to the top. In this case, nothing is that obvious. Which means Shostakovich wins by default. Not that he is the greatest. But no one else has made a loud noise in showing they are the winner. Many decent/good Symphonists. Not many great Symphonists. No signs of any great Symphonists coming up. Will there ever be a great one again? Who knows.


----------



## jimsumner

sharik said:


> for godsake why?.. the 7th is his best and standing above the rest and this is more than obvious to everyone.


More than obvious to everyone? Seriously? Talk about confusing one's opinion with universal opinion.


----------



## Garlic

Frankly I'd rather listen to 2 or 3 than 7. I don't know why it's so highly rated.


----------



## Mahlerian

Garlic said:


> Frankly I'd rather listen to 2 or 3 than 7. I don't know why it's so highly rated.


I agree. I dislike it intensely.

As to the thread title, I say a resounding NO.


----------



## Cosmos

"Last great symphonist" my own opinion Einojuahni Rautavaara holds that title, but still

I don't love Shost's symphonies, but I'm just now starting to get into them more. So far, I like his 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 11th.


----------



## sharik

jimsumner said:


> Talk about confusing one's opinion with universal opinion.





Garlic said:


> I'd rather listen to 2 or 3 than 7. I don't know why it's so highly rated.





Mahlerian said:


> I dislike it intensely


the academic circles were of unanimous opinion that 7th is the best, and you only have to listen to it, instead of paying attention to the anti-propagandists.


----------



## KenOC

sharik said:


> the academic circles were of unanimous opinion that 7th is the best, and you only have to listen to it, instead of paying attention to the anti-propagandists.


Not that I've seen. The 7th has been out of academic fashion for quite a few years now. For once, I agree with the eggheads.


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> The 7th has been out of academic fashion for quite a few years now


no, never, quite the contrary: whenever mentioned, the 7th is spoken about with very special reverence by the academics.

there's of course a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda done in the West today, and the 7th fell victim of it among others, but we all are grown up men here and we know what's what, don't we?


----------



## KenOC

sharik said:


> ...there's of course a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda done in the West today...


A strange comment! There hasn't been a "Soviet" to be "anti" for quite a few years now. I'm sure some have moved beyond that...


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> There hasn't been a "Soviet" to be "anti" for quite a few years now


this is why it is a wonder that they still go on with bashing every thing Soviet/Russian in the West media.


----------



## Garlic

sharik said:


> this is why it is a wonder that they still go on with bashing every thing Soviet/Russian in the West media.


There's a difference between criticising a country's foreign and domestic policies and criticising the country itself or its people.


----------



## sharik

Garlic said:


> There's a difference between criticising a country's foreign and domestic policies and criticising the country itself or its people.


that is exactly what i mean, let us leave politics out of music, why ordinary Russians and their heritage should suffer in the hands of the West only because of being Russian?


----------



## Garlic

sharik said:


> that is exactly what i mean, let us leave politics out of music, why ordinary Russians and their heritage should suffer in the hands of the West only because of being Russian?


I agree, they shouldn't. Does this happen?


----------



## sharik

Garlic said:


> I agree, they shouldn't. Does this happen?


it does happen all the time.


----------



## jimsumner

sharik said:


> the academic circles were of unanimous opinion that 7th is the best, and you only have to listen to it, instead of paying attention to the anti-propagandists.


I have no idea what the academics are saying and no idea what the anti-propagandists (whatever that means) are saying. The academics I've known aren't unanimous in anything, so I'd be stunned if they're unanimous of the relative merits of Shostakovich's 15 symphonies.

But I've listened to Shostakovich's 7th symphony numerous times over the last four or so decades, your condescension notwithstanding. It has its moments but I wouldn't place it anywhere near my favorite Shostakovich symphonies--5, 8, 10 and 13, fwiw. But I sense an agenda here and it's not one that has much to do with music.


----------



## LFTBR

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that Shostakovich was the last great symphonist. A great symphonist of the last century, to be sure, but since his passing we've witnessed the rise of other singular voices in symphonic composition such as John Adams. Yes, his minimalist style may not be to the taste of all (or even the majority) of listeners, but there is no denying his impact as a genuine 21st century symphonist. I think maybe Adams is overlooked in this regard because his output is not conventional in the sense that his symphonies are numbered. Rather, we have stunning works such as Doctor Atomic Symphony or City Noir, both of which are absolutely symphonies, albeit rather different than what we have have expected from a symphonist even 20 or 30 years ago.


----------



## KenOC

I like Adams as much as the next guy, but claiming that his works, however symphony-like, can be compared with those of Shostakovich is a stretch. A real stretch.


----------



## Selby

sharik said:


> no, never, quite the contrary: whenever mentioned, the 7th is spoken about with very special reverence by the academics.
> 
> there's of course a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda done in the West today, and the 7th fell victim of it among others, but we all are grown up men here and we know what's what, don't we?


Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1985?


----------



## PetrB

Mitchell said:


> Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1985?


No, some people seem to have that date as their last (and current) set of references to _their _modern world though, something like that famous quip, "When it is 4 a.m. in Manhattan, it is 1936 in London."


----------



## sharik

Mitchell said:


> Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1985?


you didn't. your country did.


----------



## Selby

sharik said:


> you didn't. your country did.


I'm honestly not sure where you're finding this neo-Cold War boogy man but your impressions of the average American's cultural sentiments towards Russia are very incongruent with my experiences.

It sounds to me as if you have a problem with the U.S. not the other way around. Which is fine, I have a number of pointed critiques myself - but I'm feeling a bit prickly about your painting the entirety of the U.S. as a bunch of reactionary Neo-Cons sitting next to that elusive red telphone, with an itchy trigger finger, excited to export nuclear armeggedon to "those da**ed commie-Ruskies!"

This is simply not reality. Russian culture, especially in the arts, is highly thought of in the U.S. I would guess that Russian classical composers only rank second to the German-Austrians in overall admiration. Beyond the realm of classical music: names like Tolstoy, Chekhov, Nabokov, Eisentstein, Tarkovsky - these are absolute giants of the arts, whenever spoken of, spoken of with awe and admiration. Even in the dirty capitalist Vest! (please allow for some humor here)


----------



## Aries

Symphony No. 7 is a really great masterpiece. Well-balanced beautiful music in every movement.
Symphony No. 3 is less well-blanced but a great work jocular and heroic.
Symphony No. 2 has also a great final chorus, but the first two thirds are strange atonal.
Symphony No. 5 has magical mysterious sounds. It is something special.
Symphony No. 12 develops more like an opera. Heroic and expressive.
Symphony No. 8 is a little bit long-drawn-out, but has great parts.
Symphony No. 4 is shrill, aggressiv and interessting.
Symphony No. 10 has a great scherzo.
Symphony No. 11 sounds good.

Symphony No. 9 is a "****-take".
Symphony No. 1 sounds uninterssting.
Symphony No. 15 includes Wagner and Rossini parts and things like this. Strange.
Symphony No. 14 Singing?
Symphony No. 13 Russian singing?

I have not heard enough Symphony No. 6.

Shostakovic a great symphonist? Sure!


----------



## jimsumner

Aries said:


> Symphony No. 7 is a really great masterpiece. Well-balanced beautiful music in every movement.
> Symphony No. 3 is less well-blanced but a great work jocular and heroic.
> Symphony No. 2 has also a great final chorus, but the first two thirds are strange atonal.
> Symphony No. 5 has magical mysterious sounds. It is something special.
> Symphony No. 12 develops more like an opera. Heroic and expressive.
> Symphony No. 8 is a little bit long-drawn-out, but has great parts.
> Symphony No. 4 is shrill, aggressiv and interessting.
> Symphony No. 10 has a great scherzo.
> Symphony No. 11 sounds good.
> 
> Symphony No. 9 is a "****-take".
> Symphony No. 1 sounds uninterssting.
> Symphony No. 15 includes Wagner and Rossini parts and things like this. Strange.
> Symphony No. 14 Singing?
> Symphony No. 13 Russian singing?
> 
> I have not heard enough Symphony No. 6.
> 
> Shostakovic a great symphonist? Sure!


Some of the best symphonies ever written have singing. Including those by Shostakovich.

Beethoven 9? Singing? In German? Yuk?

And I won't even venture a guess on what you found in #9.


----------



## senza sordino

I like the 7th, it's supposed to be brutal, considering its story.
The 5th is indeed something special, I've had the chance to play it in an orchestra 
The 9th is kind of quirky 
The 10th is great.
I haven't figured out the 4th yet, I've listened to it a few times.

Shostakovich, the last great symphonist? Possibly, but we don't yet know what the future holds.


----------



## Piwikiwi

sharik said:


> that is exactly what i mean, let us leave politics out of music, why ordinary Russians and their heritage should suffer in the hands of the West only because of being Russian?


If your police would stop protecting Neonazis, your government stop prosecuting gays, if thugs would stop beating up my countries diplomats


----------



## violadude

senza sordino said:


> I like the 7th, it's supposed to be brutal, considering its story.
> The 5th is indeed something special, I've had the chance to play it in an orchestra
> The 9th is kind of quirky
> The 10th is great.
> I haven't figured out the 4th yet, I've listened to it a few times.
> 
> Shostakovich, the last great symphonist? Possibly, but we don't yet know what the future holds.


Well, we hopefully all of us DO know what the post-1975 future held.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Well, we hopefully all of us DO know what the post-1975 future held.


Having already passed two dates of the future - 1984 and 2001 - I'm now in some kind of limbo, waiting for the next writer to provide the future for me.


----------



## Bradius

I just started listening to S. love his works. Both symphonic and chamber. Especialy the SQ & symphony 10.


----------



## sharik

Jeremy Marchant said:


> You can't say he is the last symphonist unless you can show that something has happened to the human race which prevents individuals form composing more symphonies


this 'something' has indeed happened that mankind has lost any *talent* to create anything but boorish stuff, even if its a symphony or opera.


----------



## joen_cph

sharik said:


> this 'something' has indeed happened that mankind has lost any *talent* to create anything but boorish stuff, even if its a symphony or opera.


One would think that you were perhaps a supporter of some symphonies by Schnittke, Sergei Slonimsky, Artyomov, Mirzoyan, Weinberg, Nasidze, Balanchivadze, Glonti, Silvestrov, Kancheli, Gabichvadze, Gubarenko, Lyatoshinsky, Melikov, Parsadanian, Karen Khachaturian, Gubaidulina, Bunin, Eshpai, Gomelyaka, Lokshin, Golubev, Knipper, Popov, Mosolov, Shebalin, Sviridov, Ovchinnikov, Nosyrev, Salmanov, Norymov, Peiko, Svetlanov, Tischenko, Boris Tchaikovsky, Ustvolskaya, Terterian, Revutsky, Pavlova, Machavariani, Kara Karayev, Karetnikov, Alexandrov, Arapov or the like, but apparently not .


----------



## sharik

joen_cph said:


> One would think that you were perhaps a supporter of some symphonies by Schnittke, Sergei Slonimsky, Artyomov, Mirzoyan, Weinberg, Nasidze, Balanchivadze, Glonti, Silvestrov, Kancheli, Gabichvadze, Gubarenko, Lyatoshinsky, Melikov, Parsadanian, Karen Khachaturian, Gubaidulina, Bunin, Eshpai, Gomelyaka, Lokshin, Golubev, Knipper, Popov, Mosolov, Shebalin, Sviridov, Ovchinnikov, Nosyrev, Salmanov, Norymov, Peiko, Svetlanov, Tischenko, Boris Tchaikovsky, Ustvolskaya, Terterian, Revutsky, Pavlova, Machavariani, Kara Karayev, Karetnikov, Alexandrov, Arapov or the like


the above mentioned belong in the 20th century and most of them are dead but i referred those who began writing music these days.


----------



## joen_cph

They have all composed symphonies after the "Leningrad" and roughly half of them after the death of Shostakovich. Around 10 of them are alive or have died within the last couple of years. Slonimsky has written around 35 symphonies of very varied content and style.


----------



## sharik

joen_cph said:


> They have all composed symphonies after the "Leningrad" and roughly half of them after the death of Shostakovich


i've already told you i did not mean them.

do you even read posts before replying?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

MacLeod said:


> Having already passed two dates of the future - 1984 and 2001 - I'm now in some kind of limbo, waiting for the next writer to provide the future for me.


Blade Runner (1982): set in the future, 2019, four years after I finish school.


----------



## joen_cph

> i've already told you i did not mean them.
> 
> do you even read posts before replying?


None of us know all the people who have recently begun writing classical music, not to say on an international scale. We can observe a more or less selected bunch and the more established ones among contemporary composers, in the depth we want to, or we be can be indifferent. There´s a lot of catch-up to do in that respect. The names above were given as an illustration to the variation even in your own country regarding symphonies of the last 40-50 years. Internationally speaking, this variation is even larger. Among relatively young composers, have you heard any music by Onute Narbutaite or Pawel Szymanski, just as an example? The contemporary music of one´s taste is out there, it´s just a matter of finding it.


----------



## Jobis

Why are people here so divided on the 7th, I've just started listening to his symphonies and really like it. does that mean I will like his other symphonies less?


----------



## Blake

"Shostakovich is the last great symphonist," - sounds more like a brain-fart you've given way too much attention too.


----------



## Guest

Jobis said:


> Why are people here so divided on the 7th, I've just started listening to his symphonies and really like it. does that mean I will like his other symphonies less?


No, I'm not divided - I'm with you. I like it, and it's led me to the 10th, 11th and 5th so far. I know I'll get round to the others in time.


----------

