# Shostakovich: intentionally ugly?



## 13hm13

By " intentionally ugly", I mean his music.

Wikipedia notes: "His music is characterized by sharp contrasts, elements of the grotesque, and ambivalent tonality..."

Don't get me wrong ... I dig atonality and dissonance -- Schonberg, Stravinsky ... bring 'em on! But much of Shostakovich has _become_ just plain nauseous!

I know the dude had issues with Stalin, but I'm not clear why his music is as "ugly" as I find it to be.

Like many of you, I own several of his CDs. Not sure how I wound up with the dozen or so Shostakovich CDs I have on my shelf.** I really only like his 5th symphony.

As for the rest of his repertoire , I never paid that much attention to it ... if a DS recording was playing on a classical radio station, I'll let it play--as _background _music. That is ... up until about a year ago. Now, for some reason, most of DS's music makes me cringe.

Here is an example of ugggghhhh (Violin concerto no. 1, 2nd mvt.):











Mvt. 1 is okay. But the rest of that VC ... well, not for me.

If anyone can point out DS compositions that are _beautiful_, list them away (and if I confirm, I'll admit it in this thread!!)

** The DS recordings in my collection were likely gifts or Record/CD Club selection that were automatically sent.


----------



## EdwardBast

You realize musical beauty isn't an objective quality people agree on, right? It might help if you'd tell us what beauty means to you before asking us to recommend music you will find beautiful.


----------



## Heck148

Sometimes Shostakovich does sound ugly...intentionally so....he experienced Russia in the 20th century, and face it, much of Russia's 20th century was exceedingly ugly. Ugly, brutal and violent. Try Symphony #11/III. It is really quite beautiful.....


----------



## amfortas

I believe there was a similar thread here back in 1869, when Wagner's _Rheingold_ premiered.


----------



## Torkelburger

Most people find his Piano Concerto No. 2, second movement beautiful (a popular choice). A more neglected piece which I enjoy is his Symphony No. 6--I find very expressive and full of pathos (the epic first movement). It's in b minor and is somewhat reminiscent of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. Very musical and beautiful imo.


----------



## KenOC

I seem to recall reading that Shostakovich was asked how his music would have changed had he not been under the watchful eye of the Party. He responded that it would have been more acerbic, more sardonic - not less.

For beautiful music, the _Romance _from the movie _The Gadfly_ is well-known.


----------



## Sol Invictus

As of late, I've come to realize that labeling music is difficult for me. All music must do, in my eyes, is be engaging or interesting in some way.


----------



## eugeneonagain

What a weird thread. One of the best-selling 'classical' albums in various editions is his "Film Music" album, full of ballet-type music and pieces palatable to the casual listener. Nothing ugly about it at all.

I like most of his symphonies - perhaps more than most 20thC symphonies - and there are moments of great beauty in all of them, but beauty isn't everything and as Ed Bast pointed out it isn't an objective quality anyway. His 4th symphony is splendid and exciting.

My advice is this: stop listening to Shostakovich if it upsets you. Anything else is masochism.


----------



## Larkenfield

It's helpful when his concerto is played with greater warmth and playfulness, acerbic on occasion, such as what Perlman brings, especially in the last movement. It seems apparent to me that here is a master composer patiently and carefully crafting everything down to the last detail. Highly original. Brilliant. There is even a logical Bach-like movement to some of his bass lines, and he's a fantastic orchestrator throughout its entire range.

Rather than one generally searching for the beautiful in Shostakovich's music-though Perlman certainly finds the beauty, humanity and liveliness in this work-it might bring more appreciation to listen for the complexity of the _adult_ emotions he's portraying and the vast number of emotions that he's not exactly spelling out. He lived in a complex age.

There's also a high sense of restraint and refinement, patience and waiting in the 1st movement that can be found in this score, and not to appreciate that, or any of the qualities already mentioned, might mean this composer is not meant for everyone, and that it might be better to move on to someone else who had a simpler life with less ambiguity, less inner conflicts, less challenge, less contradictions, who is more straightforward in spelling everything out for those listening predominately for 'beauty'.

I find the concerto lyrical, sardonic, modern, cosmopolitan, full of sophistication and wit, even offhanded humor, with some sarcastic bite, that when played well has some edge to it but is not overly harsh.

Like everything else, performances can vary and I was disappointed in Hillary Hahn's rather dry reading, nor did her intonation seemed to be right on with the orchestra. Shostakovich wasn't exactly a sentimentalist, but then much of the 20th-century was minus a great deal of beautiful sentiment because of war and political upheavals, and I believe his music reflects that.


----------



## Joe B

Shostakovich's String Quartet #8 is, for me, absolutely beautiful, haunting, and filled with emotion. I consider it one of the best string quartets ever written. If it does nothing for you I wouldn't waste any more of your listening time on his works. Especially avoid his Symphony #10 at all costs.


----------



## brianvds

Shostakovich is the Tim Burton of music, and thus, not for everyone. One need not feel guilty about it.


----------



## Botschaft

I disagree: that entire concerto is laughably bad, the first movement included.



13hm13 said:


> As for the rest of his repertoire , I never paid that much attention to it ... if a DS recording was playing on a classical radio station, I'll let it play--as _background _music. That is ... up until about a year ago. Now, for some reason, most of DS's music makes me cringe.


Clearly you're making progress.


----------



## Phil loves classical

As mentioned earlier, his Piano Concerto No. 2 2nd movement is really beautiful in a tonal melodic sense, more than anything by Tchaikovsky to me. Also this little ditty is heavenly


----------



## EdwardBast

Okay, try this. This is a great performance of the Fourth Quartet. Every movement is beautiful:






When you are done with that, proceed to the Fifth Quartet. All three movements of that are beautiful too, and powerful, I'd recommend the Borodin Quartet for that too. Then search out the Sixth Quartet. Every movement of that is beautiful. And so on …


----------



## KenOC

Improbus said:


> I disagree: that entire concerto is laughably bad, the first movement included.


??? On another forum, now defunct, DSCH's 1st Violin Concerto was voted the third best of all time. Quite a few members participated, many of whom are now here on this site.

1 - Beethoven
2 - Brahms
3 - Shostakovich: #1 A minor
4 - Tchaikovsky
5 - Sibelius

Might mention that DSCH's 1st Cello Concerto placed well in our own Talk Classical voting game.

1 - Dvorák: Cello Concerto in B Minor
2 - Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #1 in E-flat major
3 - Elgar: Cello Concerto in E minor
4 - Prokofiev: Symphony-Concerto for Cello and Orchestra
5 - Saint-Saëns: Cello Concerto #1 in A Minor


----------



## Becca

^^ Yes, but not only is it not by Brahms, it comes from after Brahms' time.


----------



## Botschaft

KenOC said:


> ??? On another forum, now defunct, DSCH's 1st Violin Concerto was voted the third best of all time. Quite a few members participated, many of whom are now here on this site.
> 
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Brahms
> 3 - Shostakovich: #1 A minor
> 4 - Tchaikovsky
> 5 - Sibelius


Masochism abounds, evidently. 



Becca said:


> ^^ Yes, but not only is it not by Brahms, it comes from after Brahms' time.


Quite right...


----------



## Strange Magic

Both piano concertos are quite non-ugly, if that's the operative term. At least I find both of them exceedingly non-ugly. Preludes and Fugues right up there in the non-ugly category.


----------



## MusicSybarite

The Violin Concerto 1 is a real masterpiece, one of my very favorites (the performance of Maxim Vengerov under Rostropovich is to die for). In fact, Shostakovich is on my Top 10 favorite composers. His music is not for everybody as I can see in this thread. I don't think his music is awful (absolutely not!). Better change composer.


----------



## Pugg

brianvds said:


> Shostakovich is the Tim Burton of music, and thus, not for everyone. One need not feel guilty about it.


This post makes my day. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich's Piano Concerto No. 2 -- as used in the tale of the ballerina and the tin soldier in Disney's Fantasia 2000.


----------



## 13hm13

> Shostakovich's Piano Concerto No. 2 -- as set to the tale of the ballerina and the tin soldier in Disney's Fantasia 2000.


This is UGLY -- exactly why I had in mind in my OP.

But ...

Whoever suggested "The Gadfly" ...yeah, I'll give him that. I'm sure I've missed several others, too. It's just that when he gets ugly --
intentionally or not -- it's time to move quickly to whatever is next on my playlist.

With the exception of his 5th, I'd never attend a live DS performance as I'd have to sit thru the hideousness 



eugeneonagain said:


> What a weird thread.
> My advice is this: stop listening to Shostakovich if it upsets you. Anything else is masochism.


Agreed. But DS's comps were included in a music course I took at the University. 
One "good" aspect of being exposed to ugliness is that when beauty does (finally) re-surface (e.g., Mozart, Barber, Brahms), it refreshes much better than having no ugliness exposure to "contrast" with. Alas, this is the weird human mind and human condition ... reacting.
Maybe _that_ -- in addition to pissing of Stalin--was one of DS's "strategies".


----------



## KenOC

13hm13 said:


> ...It's just that when he gets ugly -- intentionally or not -- it's time to move quickly to whatever is next on my playlist.
> 
> With the exception of his 5th, I'd never attend a live DS performance as I'd have to sit thru the hideousness  .


As with all of us, our opinions of music say more about ourselves than about the music.


----------



## Becca

13hm13 said:


> This is UGLY -- exactly why I had in mind in my OP.


What a sad commentary.


----------



## 13hm13

Wikipedia has quite an extensive "Criticisms" section on its DS page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Shostakovich#Criticism

Weirdly, wiki notes:


> William Walton, his British contemporary, described him as "the greatest composer of the 20th century".


Walton is one of my top three 20th century composers. His Violin Conc. and Symp. 1 are top-notch in my book. If WW's works were "inspired" by DS, then _that's_ a good thing, indeed.


----------



## Strange Magic

Maybe there is a bogus, counterfeit "Shostakovich Piano Concerto No.2" out there that is hideously ugly. Weird Al Yankovic and not Dmitri Shostakovich at work. No other plausible explanation .


----------



## 13hm13

KenOC said:


> Might mention that DSCH's 1st Cello Concerto placed well in our own Talk Classical voting game.
> 
> 2 - Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #1 in E-flat major


Yuck!!! 
And yes, just for the sake of this thread, I did listen / watch/listen to the whole thing just to reconfirm my OP.


----------



## Guest

brianvds said:


> Shostakovich is the Tim Burton of music,


Interesting. Not the Quentin Tarantino then. Who'd that be, I wonder? Crumb?


----------



## Larkenfield

Stunning performance by Nicola Benedetti and thrilling finale. Standing ovation.


----------



## KenOC

Wow! ......................................................


----------



## Zhdanov

Heck148 said:


> much of Russia's 20th century was exceedingly ugly. Ugly, brutal and violent.


not uglier than the west back then, ever heard of the great depression and two world wars?


----------



## larold

The style of Shostakovich's music paralleled changes in his life. His Symphony No. 1, written as a graduation exercise from the conservatory by a 19-year-old, is full of hope and high spirits. Then he came face-to-face with "Soviet realism" and wrote the forgettable Symphonies 2 and 3. His 4th symphony represents his immersion in the Stalin terror where many of his friends and cohorts disappeared and/or were murdered by the state. The loud sections of the 4th's first movement, which he allegedly wrote sitting in the hallway of his apartment building waiting for the state police to take him away, represent his paranoia and fear. All his symphonies through No. 10 represent this part of his life. No composer in history had to face what Shostakovich faced in terms of state-sponsored murder, fear, hatred and ugliness. Obviously this all showed up in his music during the years of the Stalin terror. His later music doesn't represent it so greatly and often deals with his other views of Soviet life.


----------



## Jacck

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not find Schostakovich or his music ugly.


----------



## Heliogabo

Ugly beauty was a landmark in modern art (Baudelaire's new estethique). Nothing new...


----------



## Barbebleu

Larkenfield said:


> Stunning performance by Nicola Benedetti and thrilling finale. Standing ovation.


Yeah. This is an absolute stunning piece of playing of a fantastic piece of music.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

KenOC said:


> For beautiful music, the _Romance _from the movie _The Gadfly_ is well-known


Easily one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever composed.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Shostakovich's music uncovers a wide range of emotions. His mature works reflect a built-in anxiety, depression and anger that I think was part of Shostakovich's personality not-with-standing his political circumstances. DS was a sensitive soul and human suffering had a deep affect upon him and his art. 

Ugly? I think it depends upon how you look at it. Perhaps it does us some good to contemplate the bad part of life so that we better appreciate the good. I have a friend who is a funeral director. He told me that his job constantly makes him aware of the fragility of life, to not take his family, friends or even his dog for granted.


----------



## 13hm13

> Stunning performance by Nicola Benedetti and thrilling finale. Standing ovation.


Most of his VC1 is not for me.

OTOH, some may find Britten's contemporaneous VC as "ugly" on similar grounds (atonality, dissonance, etc.) But not me! I can watch/listen to Britten all the way through totally diggin' it ...





Couple of more comments here ...

DS is inconsistent (purposefully or not). That doesn't mean he's a hack or that was "phonin' it in". He did put forth a lot of effort -- and his music demonstrates this as being complex and sophisticated (as unlistenable as it often is).

I personally don't care most music that has its impetus in politics or dissidence. Hence...
1960s-70s counterculture (Bob Dylan, et al.) = yech!
Punk rock= yech!
DS = can be yech.


----------



## eugeneonagain

13hm13 said:


> This is UGLY -- exactly why I had in mind in my OP.
> 
> But ...
> 
> Whoever suggested "The Gadfly" ...yeah, I'll give him that. I'm sure I've missed several others, too. It's just that when he gets ugly --
> intentionally or not -- it's time to move quickly to whatever is next on my playlist.
> 
> With the exception of his 5th, I'd never attend a live DS performance as I'd have to sit thru the hideousness
> 
> Agreed. But DS's comps were included in a music course I took at the University.
> One "good" aspect of being exposed to ugliness is that when beauty does (finally) re-surface (e.g., Mozart, Barber, Brahms), it refreshes much better than having no ugliness exposure to "contrast" with. Alas, this is the weird human mind and human condition ... reacting.
> Maybe _that_ -- in addition to pissing of Stalin--was one of DS's "strategies".


I don't mind saying then that you are obviously only out for pretty melodies and diatonic harmony, which is what you seem to refer to as 'beauty'.

Since that music course has now ended why are you still torturing yourself? Even more, how did you not have a breakdown mid-course? From Brahmsian boredom if nothing else.


----------



## millionrainbows

I've been listening to his Piano Concerto No. 2, and it is beautiful, not ugly. 

But the "ugliness" needs to be there so we can metaphorically relate it to the horrors of Rusian life, like Stalin and starvation, etc. You see how that works?


----------



## amfortas

13hm13 said:


> OTOH, some may find Britten's contemporaneous VC as "ugly" on similar grounds (atonality, dissonance, etc.) But not me! I can watch/listen to Britten all the way through totally diggin' it ...


Britten would be another vote in favor of Shostakovich: The two men were good friends and admired each other's work.


----------



## clavichorder

Sometimes a full dose(along with an open mind) of the ugliest(or whatever given quality is most prominent that you might not like) of a composer notorious for that can ironically sell you on what in other works bothered you. For this, I would recommend the 4th symphony, and maybe in a different way the 8th(particularly the 1st movement).


----------



## 13hm13

Wiki has this to say on it's Prokofiev page:



> In early 1948, following a meeting of Soviet composers convened by Andrei Zhdanov, the Politburo issued a resolution denouncing Prokofiev, Dmitri Shostakovich, Myaskovsky, and Khachaturian of the crime of "formalism", described as a "renunciation of the basic principles of classical music" in favour of "muddled, nerve-racking" sounds that "turned music into cacophony".


It seems that the rot had spread to other Soviet-era composers ...
Indeed, I acknowledge .. the same style of ugliness is readily on display in Prokofiev's VC1 (mvt. 2):


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^Oh Dearie Me! Once the Prokofiev violin concertos are deemed ugly, we must be nearing the end of the world. And I'm not ready to go just yet.


----------



## brianvds

13hm13 said:


> This is UGLY -- exactly why I had in mind in my OP.


You clearly have a very different aesthetic from most people here.


----------



## Guest

13hm13 said:


> Wiki has this to say on it's Prokofiev page:


Yes...and...? Are you saying that Zhdanov's view of the music he denounced was accurate? Or just a political statement? Or just a personal opinion (while others heard differently?)


----------



## eugeneonagain

13hm13 said:


> Wiki has this to say on it's Prokofiev page:
> 
> It seems that the rot had spread to other Soviet-era composers ...
> Indeed, I acknowledge .. the same style of ugliness is readily on display in Prokofiev's VC1 (mvt. 2):


I think we all get it now. You don't like anything outside of the traditional classical canon.


----------



## Boston Charlie

13hm13 said:


> Wiki has this to say on it's Prokofiev page:
> 
> It seems that the rot had spread to other Soviet-era composers ...
> Indeed, I acknowledge .. the same style of ugliness is readily on display in Prokofiev's VC1 (mvt. 2):


The Prokofiev VC 1 is a beautiful work that is wild, exotic and a creates a dazzling pyrotechnical place for the violinist.


----------



## Nereffid

It seems clear, especially with the reference to the second movement of Prokofiev's 1st VC, that by "ugly" the OP simply means "I don't like the sound of it" rather than anything even remotely objective. 
So, unless we can show that Shostakovich based his career around the idea of upsetting a specific person 40 years after his death, then I think it's safe to say that the answer to the question of whether Shostakovich's music is _intentionally_ "ugly" is a definitive _no_!


----------



## Taggart

A number of political posts have been removed. Please concentrate on the music and its aesthetics.


----------



## 13hm13

Nereffid said:


> So, unless we can show that Shostakovich based his career around the idea of upsetting a specific person 40 years after his death, then I think it's safe to say that the answer to the question of whether Shostakovich's music is _intentionally_ "ugly" is a definitive _no_!


DS directs his art a certain way which --in my book -- sounds ugly.
As far as classical music written for political causes there are many, many examples that sound splendid to my ears. Barber's Symp 2 is a prime example. 


> His early success led to a commission from the United States Air Force in 1943 to write a "symphonic work about flyers". The request came soon after he joined the United States Army in 1942. Barber spent time at a U.S. Air Force base so that he could take part in flight training and battle simulations. He was given four months to write the piece with the understanding that the army would receive all of the royalties forever.


There's quite a bit of angularity and violence in Sym. 2 -- none of which sounds less than beautiful to my ears.
Not sure what happened in Soviet Russia? In modern parlance, one could say ugliness was trending.


----------



## eugeneonagain

13hm13 said:


> DS directs his art a certain way which --*in my book* -- sounds ugly.
> As far as classical music written for political causes there are many, many examples that sound splendid to my ears. Barber's Symp 2 is a prime example.
> 
> There's quite a bit of angularity and violence in Sym. 2 -- none of which sounds less than beautiful to my ears.
> Not sure what happened in Soviet Russia? In modern parlance, one could say ugliness was trending.


"In my book" also means 'according to my personal aesthetics'. And "a certain way" is simply the way that doesn't tally with those aesthetics (if it means anything at all).

You keep on using the word 'ugliness', but several members here have already stated that they find Shostakovich's music to be the complete opposite. In what way must the message be packaged for it to hit home?


----------



## EdwardBast

13hm13 said:


> DS directs his art a certain way which --in my book -- sounds ugly.


How much of his art do you know? You haven't mentioned the string quartets, which many believe are the center of his oeuvre.


----------



## 13hm13

Some remarks about "ugliness" ...

For me, as in the examples I have given in thread, ugliness _is_ unlistenable [=invokes disgust and cringing]. But that does not mean I want something that's beautiful. The beauty/ugly continuum is one-dimensional.

I've got plenty of 20th century atonal/dissonant recordings in my collection -- none which I describe as romantically beautiful (of course!). Sticking with 20th century Russians, this would include Schnittke, Gubaidulina, etc. And I can listen to them -- as I can with Bartok, Schoenberg, et. al -- with engagement and interest. Not repulsion.



> How much of his art do you know? You haven't mentioned the string quartets, which many believe are the center of his oeuvre.


I do own a few DS SQs (I think they were gifts). And I just sampled some on YouTube for the sake of your question. Hmmm ... of the stuff I've heard ..._mostly_ ugly.

I think the best way I can describe DS's ugliness is atonal circus/carnival music.

Here's another example of this nauseous stuff from DS's Symph. 3:






I'm not surprised Politburo denounced it. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Ziggabea

I wasn't aware that music could be "beautiful" or "ugly", I thought it was just....umm....music. Music isn't a person :lol: (even if it's written by a person)


----------



## Larkenfield

"I think the best way I can describe DS's ugliness is atonal circus/carnival music."

So? That may or may not be true according to one's taste. But the mistake is for anyone to imply that this quality is found in all his works, though a number of counter examples have been presented that this idea is false, and that's a mistake that usually only shortsighted, novice, or careless listeners would make.

Just because someone has a certain amount of exposure to a composer's work does not mean they understand why the composer did what he did in his use of dissonance, or that anyone else knows either. Dissonance and ugliness are not necessarily the same, but sometimes they can be mistaken for each other and then the composer is blamed for simply carrying out his intentions for reasons that might not be apparent to others. He lived during a turbulent era and not in a nice peaceful vacuum. Some of that turbulence came out in his music.

What's missing in any kind of opinion on his Violin Concerto is that there's so much consonant writing in it, probably at least 2/3s harmonically, none of which has been acknowledged by his critics. Shostakovich strived for a balance between his use of consonance and dissonance, which certainly suggests that he had a feel for lyricism and beauty as well as brashness, stridency and dissonance.

I suppose that when Leningrad was under siege, he should have presented a nice pretty symphony to please his critics. But what he did write, though it's not exactly a war symphony, inspired the city and the nation during an awful time of war. I believe he made the right choice, both in that symphony and his violin concerto, and for whatever dissonance or so-called ugliness they have, he earned the right and was entitled because of what he lived through.


----------



## David OByrne

Taggart said:


> A number of political posts have been removed. Please concentrate on the music and its aesthetics.


Aren't aesthetics and politics naturally tied together? Like music and emotion?


----------



## Phil loves classical

13hm13 said:


> Some remarks about "ugliness" ...
> 
> For me, as in the examples I have given in thread, ugliness _is_ unlistenable [=invokes disgust and cringing]. But that does not mean I want something that's beautiful. The beauty/ugly continuum is one-dimensional.
> 
> I've got plenty of 20th century atonal/dissonant recordings in my collection -- none which I describe as romantically beautiful (of course!). Sticking with 20th century Russians, this would include Schnittke, Gubaidulina, etc. And I can listen to them -- as I can with Bartok, Schoenberg, et. al -- with engagement and interest. Not repulsion.
> 
> I do own a few DS SQs (I think they were gifts). And I just sampled some on YouTube for the sake of your question. Hmmm ... of the stuff I've heard ..._mostly_ ugly.
> 
> I think the best way I can describe DS's ugliness is atonal circus/carnival music.
> 
> Here's another example of this nauseous stuff from DS's Symph. 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised Politburo denounced it. YMMV, of course.


All atonal or dissonant music could be seen/heard as ugly. I don't hear how Shosty could be more ugly than Schoenberg, Prokofiev, Bartok, and others. It could also be heard as brilliant, in-yer-face.

So, if you must say it is ugly, in spite of the fugue in A major, and others, then sure, why not?


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> It seems clear, especially with the reference to the second movement of Prokofiev's 1st VC, that by "ugly" the OP simply means "I don't like the sound of it" rather than anything even remotely objective.
> So, unless we can show that Shostakovich based his career around the idea of upsetting a specific person 40 years after his death, then I think it's safe to say that the answer to the question of whether Shostakovich's music is _intentionally_ "ugly" is a definitive _no_!


A specific person? You're really suggesting that OP's perception isn't shared by many, and that no objective factors are in involved in the perception of ugliness and beauty in general?

I'm actually attending a concert featuring this sad, putrid mess of a work this spring. Luckily there's some Beethoven on the program as well or it would be a complete waste of time. I am however going to give it another try before the concert just out of fairness.


----------



## KenOC

Improbus said:


> A specific person? You're really suggesting that OP's perception isn't shared by many, and that no objective factors are in involved in the perception of ugliness and beauty in general?


Well, I'm a sucker for a lot of Shostakovich. Bernstein's Leningrad is one of the few instrumental recordings that can nail me to my seat for such a long time. No accounting for it, I guess.

But I notice that Dmitri's music remains rare on our classical station, suggesting that even 75 or more years later mass audiences still find his music, or most of it, hard to stomach.


----------



## 13hm13

KenOC said:


> But I notice that Dmitri's music remains rare on our classical station, suggesting that even 75 or more years later mass audiences still find his music, or most of it, hard to stomach.


If you're from SoCal, like me, you may be referring to KUSC. This is a very good radio station, tho' a bit too heavy on Haydn. 
KUSC is request-driven, so your comment on audience tastes is accurate.

I noticed lack of DS, too. Weirdly, right after posting in this thread yesterday, KUSC played DS's String Qt. 1 ... this was right after Tchaikovsky Symphony #4. Was the radio station sharing my sentiment: What happened to Russian music?


----------



## 13hm13

Improbus said:


> I'm actually attending a concert featuring this sad, putrid mess of a work [Prokofiev VC 1] this spring. Luckily there's some Beethoven on the program as well or it would be a complete waste of time. I am however going to give it another try before the concert just out of fairness.


Yeah ... that Prok. VC is hard to swallow -- esp. the Scherzo.

I was searching for another hint of ugliness in his VC2 ... and found NONE! I enjoyed this one ...


----------



## Lisztian

13hm13 said:


> What happened to Russian music?


It got better. 20th century Russian music is one of the greatest treasures of music IMO.


----------



## Lisztian

Improbus said:


> A specific person? You're really suggesting that OP's perception isn't shared by many, and that no objective factors are in involved in the perception of ugliness and beauty in general?
> 
> I'm actually attending a concert featuring this sad, putrid mess of a work this spring. Luckily there's some Beethoven on the program as well or it would be a complete waste of time. I am however going to give it another try before the concert just out of fairness.


From what I can see, there are only two people in this thread taking this stance. Your utter intolerance of 20th century music is not shared by many classical music lovers. Even many of the more conservative listeners tend to find quite a lot that they like from this great century.

More constructively, how is this work a 'sad, putrid mess?'


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> A specific person? You're really suggesting that OP's perception isn't shared by many, and that no objective factors are in involved in the perception of ugliness and beauty in general?


Whether it is one or many, the point is still valid, that DSCH could not be deemed to have _intentionally _composed ugly music to upset people 40 years into the future. The fact that he inadvertently succeeded for the OP is offset by the fact he failed miserably for the many who find his work beautiful. There is no objectivity involved here, just a matter of taste.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> A specific person? You're really suggesting that OP's perception isn't shared by many, and that no objective factors are in involved in the perception of ugliness and beauty in general?


Given that 2 people have described the 2nd movement of Prokofiev's 1st violin concerto as ugly, and that several others have found this opinion to be baffling and/or hilarious, it's hard to see where objectivity might come into perceptions of ugliness and beauty.

Of course, if by "objective" you mean "things at least some people agree on", then, yeah, sure, why not?


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> Given that 2 people have described the 2nd movement of Prokofiev's 1st violin concerto as ugly, and that several others have found this opinion to be baffling and/or hilarious, it's hard to see where objectivity might come into perceptions of ugliness and beauty.
> 
> Of course, if by "objective" you mean "things at least some people agree on", then, yeah, sure, why not?


It is totally subjective although I do find much avant-garde music (where it appears people are pushing a piano down a flights of steps) impossibly ugly


----------



## Botschaft

Lisztian said:


> From what I can see, there are only two people in this thread taking this stance. Your utter intolerance of 20th century music is not shared by many classical music lovers. Even many of the more conservative listeners tend to find quite a lot that they like from this great century.


It's pretty clear that this forum is increasingly dominated by people with modernist and anti-classical tastes and attitudes, which accounts for that number.



> More constructively, how is this work a 'sad, putrid mess?'


Its lack of cohesion, interesting themes and its tasteless, repugnant harmonies.



MacLeod said:


> Whether it is one or many, the point is still valid, that DSCH could not be deemed to have _intentionally _composed ugly music to upset people 40 years into the future. The fact that he inadvertently succeeded for the OP is offset by the fact he failed miserably for the many who find his work beautiful. There is no objectivity involved here, just a matter of taste.


Modernist and proto-modernist art in general has been riddled with deliberate ugliness; or what do you call this, for instance:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> It's pretty clear that this forum is increasingly dominated by people with modernist and anti-classical tastes and attitudes, which accounts for that number.


Anti-classical? It's possible to enjoy Shostakovich _and_ strict 'classical'. A person who likes and enjoys _music_ rather than trying to portray an image of moral, spiritual and cultural cleanliness, benefits from this eclecticism.

There's no legitimacy in berating others for your own failure to move beyond a subset of music and art.


----------



## Bulldog

Improbus said:


> It's pretty clear that this forum is increasingly dominated by people with modernist and anti-classical tastes and attitudes, which accounts for that number.


I don't think there is any evidence to that effect. First, if Shostakovich is a modernist composer, and I don't personally place him in that category, he is at the lower end of the scale. Second, I think that most folks feel that the numbers on the "other" side are greater than they actually are.

The dominant musical preference on TC as well as in the general classical music population is an orchestra, not modernism.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Improbus said:


> It's pretty clear that this forum is increasingly dominated by people with modernist and anti-classical tastes and attitudes, which accounts for that number.
> 
> Its lack of cohesion, interesting themes and its tasteless, repugnant harmonies.
> 
> Modernist and proto-modernist art in general has been riddled with deliberate ugliness; or what do you call this, for instance:


I'm not trolling but as soon as I saw this I thought of an anguished Mahler _sans pince-nez_.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Improbus said:


> Modernist and proto-modernist art in general has been riddled with deliberate ugliness; or what do you call this, for instance:


I don't find this ugly at all; it is an attempt to express something of the physicality of a human body and perhaps some emotion (anguish, perhaps?) It is obviously influenced in some way by anatomical studies. I think it rather beautiful, which only goes to prove the old adage: beauty is in the eye (ear, etc.) of the beholder.


----------



## Jacck

Improbus, the only conclusion is that you simply don't like modern music. Your loss. I can enjoy Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Modern. You seem to be stuck in the past and your choice of music is limited. Schostakovich is one of the great composers of the 20th century and his music is very enjoyable, yes a little disonance, a little carnerval atmosphere. Your loss that you cannot appreciate it. So I suggest that you say "I cannot enjoy his music" instead of making general statements such as "his music is ugly"


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> It's pretty clear that this forum is increasingly dominated by people with modernist and anti-classical tastes and attitudes, which accounts for that number.
> 
> Its lack of cohesion, interesting themes and its tasteless, repugnant harmonies.
> 
> Modernist and proto-modernist art in general has been riddled with deliberate ugliness; or what do you call this, for instance:


I'm not sure what you mean..."What do you call this?" Do you mean, do I label it as..."modernist" or are you asking if I find it ugly?

If it's the latter, it would be true that it doesn't stimulate my "classical visually beautiful aesthetic", but there are more criteria than that to judge the value of a work...as analysis by others here readily confirms.

In any case, we're talking about music, aren't we? Why introduce art?

Just to confirm my fully paid up membership of the cross-over fan club, I like DSCH and Haydn and Beethoven (and others across the "divide").


----------



## Botschaft

eugeneonagain said:


> Anti-classical? It's possible to enjoy Shostakovich _and_ strict 'classical'. A person who likes and enjoys _music_ rather than trying to portray an image of moral, spiritual and cultural cleanliness, benefits from this eclecticism.
> 
> There's no legitimacy in berating others for your own failure to move beyond a subset of music and art.





Bulldog said:


> I don't think there is any evidence to that effect. First, if Shostakovich is a modernist composer, and I don't personally place him in that category, he is at the lower end of the scale. Second, I think that most folks feel that the numbers on the "other" side are greater than they actually are.
> 
> The dominant musical preference on TC as well as in the general classical music population is an orchestra, not modernism.


There's a large and seemingly increasing portion of the membership that holds pre-modern composer to a much different and higher standard, habitually posting comments to the effect that Mozart and Haydn is music for babies, that Beethoven symphonies sound like jokes and that Brahms is stodgy and a bore. If this isn't anti-classical bias I don't know what is.



elgars ghost said:


> I'm not trolling but as soon as I saw this I thought of an anguished Mahler _sans pince-nez_.


But did Mahler have molding chest hair?



MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure what you mean..."What do you call this?" Do you mean, do I label it as..."modernist" or are you asking if I find it ugly?
> 
> If it's the latter, it would be true that it doesn't stimulate my "classical visually beautiful aesthetic", but there are more criteria than that to judge the value of a work...as analysis by others here readily confirms.
> 
> In any case, we're talking about music, aren't we? Why introduce art?


Because the aesthetics of visual art and music have influenced and been perceived as resonating with one another and been governed by similar tastes and principles.


----------



## 13hm13

Jacck said:


> ...Schostakovich is one of the great composers of the 20th century and his music is very enjoyable, yes a little disonance, a little carnerval atmosphere. Your loss that you cannot appreciate it. So I suggest that you say "I cannot enjoy his music" instead of making general statements such as "his music is ugly"


Disagree ... if one does not want this (or any type) of "art" to be paid attention to (because of politics or to influence Sony or Deutsche Grammophon to record another/better composer) ... then do anything (by by hook or crook if necessary) to make that happen.
Sorry, but even in the 21 century, this is the human condition ... The Carnival of Animals.


----------



## eugeneonagain

13hm13 said:


> Disagree ... if one does not want this (or any type) of "art" to be paid attention to (because of politics or to influence Sony or Deutsche Grammophon to record another/better composer) ... then do anything (by by hook or crook if necessary) to make that happen.
> Sorry, but even in the 21 century, this is the human condition ... The Carnival of Animals.


Whether you 'disagree' or not is beside the point. It's just a personal value judgement.

I've actually lost sight of what you're trying to achieve in this thread. It seems like nothing at all of any worth.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Improbus said:


> There's a large and seemingly increasing portion of the membership that holds pre-modern composer to a much different and higher standard, habitually posting comments to the effect that Mozart and Haydn is music for babies, that Beethoven symphonies sound like jokes and that Brahms is stodgy and a bore. If this isn't anti-classical bias I don't know what is.


Did you intentionally mean to write _pre_-modern? In any case, there are huge numbers of both Mozart and Beethoven fans on this forum. Your claim is therefore quite astonishing. There are some here who prefer music from either the earlier 20thc onward or mid 20thc onwards, but they are a minority. The few who have those narrower tastes and pass opinions on music they neither know nor listen to can be ignored, right?

Brahms was considered a bit dull even when he was alive. Tchaikovsky's diaries and letters are full of it. I accept it as a matter of opinion. Brahms also has huge numbers of listeners and is often played. Where's the problem? (It's rhetorical, there isn't one).


----------



## 13hm13

Improbus said:


> It's pretty clear that this forum is increasingly dominated by people with modernist and anti-classical tastes and attitudes, which accounts for that number.


By far, this forum (or even all the classical forums combined, incl. Reddit) do not statistically represent the majority -- i.e., classical audience _at large_.

Indeed, most fans or customers of an art genre or artist are the silent majority. Most commenters and star-raters on Amazon, for example, are passionate fans or passionate haters -- to "pick up a pen" in order to editorialize is an effortful act that the casual (common) fan cannot be bothered with.

Alas, even taking all that into account, recording companies and orchestras are highly influenced by $$. While no Mozart or LVB, DS is _quite popular_ in terms of record sales and concert attendance.


----------



## Nereffid

Improbus said:


> There's a large and seemingly increasing portion of the membership that holds pre-modern composer to a much different and higher standard, habitually posting comments to the effect that Mozart and Haydn is music for babies, that Beethoven symphonies sound like jokes and that Brahms is stodgy and a bore. If this isn't anti-classical bias I don't know what is.


I can't say I've been paying enough attention to TC over the last several months to be able to identify who the people are who have expressed such sentiments, but are you sure that they're the same people who are on this thread saying they find Shostakovich and Prokofiev's music beautiful?

Count me among those whose favourite composers encompass Mozart et al as well as Shostakovich. This thing about beauty vs ugliness... I get the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that for you the classical tradition (ie Haydn to Brahms) set the standard for beauty, and subsequent composers have failed to conform to the ways of achieving that standard, which means their music is inevitably not beautiful, some (many? most?) spectacularly so. Whereas for me, I find I don't have a standard per se: either something strikes me as beautiful or not, without my having to compare it to any perceived correct way of being beautiful. If someone with far too much time on their hands were to try to evaluate what my unconscious criteria for beauty are, they'd find those criteria to be ever-expanding.


----------



## manyene

Beauty is only beautiful when it is set next to, and contrasts with ugliness. Unalloyed beauty eventually becomes very insipid. This is why Silvestrov's 5th Symphony, which strikingly alternates between the two in consecutive movements, works so well. We need darkness to bring out the light.


----------



## Strange Magic

_Hamlet_, Act 2, Scene 2:

HAMLET
Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so......

Certainly true in music and the arts.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Improbus said:


> It's pretty clear that this forum is increasingly dominated by people with modernist and anti-classical tastes and attitudes, which accounts for that number.


Perhaps things have changed over the eight years since I've been a member - back in the day I lost count of the times when statements were made to the effect that if anything the opposite was true.


----------



## starthrower

Can't we all agree that his music is yucky? And thanks to the mods for deleting my other post. Apparently a little sarcasm directed at a member who refers to a composer as "dude" is unacceptable.


----------



## JeffD

I have tried Shostakovich. I am not a steady fan, but there are moments of great and surprising beauty that can overwhelm.

But there is an interesting bigger issue, aesthetic theory aside. Is there, could there be, a point to a composer deliberately writing something ugly, something by design unattractive?

Perhaps in order to highlight by contrast some following beauty.

Perhaps ugly in one sense so as to be beautiful in some other way, like some Bach which is musically hard to listen to but intellectually fascinating?

Perhaps some social/political statement, like performers who only wear black?

Perhaps poking fun at fans of modern music, in the way of "I have so much reputation they will love anything I compose" .

I dunno, just thinking out loud of the possibilities that would motivate such a thing.


----------



## starthrower

JeffD said:


> I have tried Shostakovich. I am not a steady fan, but there are moments of great and surprising beauty that can overwhelm.
> 
> But there is an interesting bigger issue, aesthetic theory aside. Is there, could there be, a point to a composer deliberately writing something ugly, something by design unattractive?
> 
> Perhaps in order to highlight by contrast some following beauty.
> 
> Perhaps ugly in one sense so as to be beautiful in some other way, like some Bach which is musically hard to listen to but intellectually fascinating?
> 
> Perhaps some social/political statement, like performers who only wear black?
> 
> Perhaps poking fun at fans of modern music, in the way of "I have so much reputation they will love anything I compose" .
> 
> I dunno, just thinking out loud of the possibilities that would motivate such a thing.


I doubt composers think along those lines. And there is no way to reach a consensus on what is considered "ugly" music. And even when a piece of music is perceived as ugly by a certain listener, what's so bad about that? Who wants to listen to cotton candy music all day?


----------



## Kivimees

starthrower said:


> Can't we all agree that his music is yucky? And thanks to the mods for deleting my other post. Apparently a little sarcasm directed at a member who refers to a composer as "dude" is unacceptable.


Indeed. And I would mention the irony of deleting "some political posts" given the choice of some participants of their monikers and avatars.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Kivimees said:


> Indeed. And I would mention the irony of deleting "some political posts" given the choice of some participants of their monikers and avatars.


Well said. In that earlier purge of 'political posts' I also lost a post that contained no politics and actually addressed the issue (the _issue_ being an ill-considered, baseless denunciation of Shostakovich's music).


----------



## TurnaboutVox

eugeneonagain said:


> Well said. In that earlier purge of 'political posts' I also lost a post that contained no politics and actually addressed the issue (the _issue_ being an ill-considered, baseless denunciation of Shostakovich's music).


Some posts were removed, and some edited, to remove both off-topic political arguments and comments, and negative statements about other members, in line with the ToS.


----------



## Kivimees

TurnaboutVox said:


> Some posts were removed, and some edited, to remove both off-topic political arguments and comments, and negative statements about other members, in line with the ToS.


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


----------



## Jacck

I just listened to Schostakovich's 6th symphony and you must be pretty deaf to call this music "ugly". Your taste in music is severely limited.


----------



## Heck148

JeffD said:


> But there is an interesting bigger issue, aesthetic theory aside. Is there, could there be, a point to a composer deliberately writing something ugly, something by design unattractive?


Very definitely, yes - Penderecki's "Threnody for Victims of Hiroshima" is meant to be ugly, disturbing, discordant - the event it depicts was ugly, disturbing and discordant....I don't think he was composing this work as any sort of put-on....he was dealing with the subject...
I think Shostakovich does this at times as well - not usually quite as event-specific, but in reference to a particular experience.

Honegger provides a a further example - Sym #3 - Litergique" - mvt 3, the "Stupid March" - depicting the malignant spread of fascist oppression and tyranny across the continents - this is not "nice" music, the subject is not nice - it is brutal, crushing, gnashing and ugly - but - it is defeated,, the resolution of peace <<Dona Nobis Pacem>> is beautiful by contrast...


----------



## Art Rock

When people start mixing up their own preference (I hate this) with objective statements (this is ugly), it's probably best to just stay out of the discussion. Nothing good ever comes of it.

Shostakovich is one of my five most favourite composers (together with "more acceptable" names to the conservative crowd: Bach, Mahler, Brahms, Schubert). If someone does not like Shostakovich, no problem. If someone states that it is garbage, see the first paragraph. I will just continue to enjoy his marvelous music.


----------



## mmsbls

eugeneonagain said:


> ...I've actually lost sight of what you're trying to achieve in this thread. ...


I've read through the thread, and I have the same thought. In the OP you made a request and stated a potentially interesting idea.

The request was: "If anyone can point out DS compositions that are beautiful, list them away." Many pointed to works they find beautiful. You did not find them beautiful. Musical beauty is relative, and it's no surprise that TC members would differ on works or composers they enjoy or dislike.

You also said, "I'm not clear why his music is as "ugly" as I find it to be." We can only give vague reasons why I adore Mozart, love Ades, and dislike Ferneyhough. The details are likely far beyond our present understanding. When you made the statement, were you looking for potential insights into why you might not appreciate Shostakovich when so many others do? If so, are you looking for a path to enjoy or appreciate his music?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Kivimees said:


> .......................................


:kiss:..........


----------



## 13hm13

*Ugly as a proxy*



mmsbls said:


> You also said, "I'm not clear why his music is as "ugly" as I find it to be." We can only give vague reasons why I adore Mozart, love Ades, and dislike Ferneyhough. The details are likely far beyond our present understanding. When you made the statement, were you looking for potential insights into why you might not appreciate Shostakovich when so many others do? If so, are you looking for a path to enjoy or appreciate his music?


 I think I was searching for other synonyms.

Pure music (not song or text), and the way it manipulates emotions, is ultimately un-resovable using conventional language (spoken or written -- English, German, Japanese, etc.). "Ugly" is the closest proxy I could come up with in the conventional language domain. I suppose I could have further codified the emotional internalization with other adjectives like "itchy" or "nauseous". Or describe in language of negation (e.g., DS is not mature). 


> Very definitely, yes - Penderecki's "Threnody for Victims of Hiroshima" is meant to be ugly, disturbing, discordant - the event it depicts was ugly, disturbing and discordant....I don't think he was composing this work as any sort of put-on.....the was dealing with the subject...


I like "Hiroshima" and Penderecki (as a composer). Yes, he is dissonant and can be "ugly" -- *but not like DS* _from my standpoint_. Sorry, I can't elaborate further -- I'm not musically trained. And I'm no wordsmith.

At any rate, I believe I gave plenty of specific (YouTube link) examples: several by DS, and one of Prokofiev (VC1, mvt 2).

Whether anyone _agrees_ with my assessment of this style of classical-music composition is unimportant.


----------



## eugeneonagain

If the "ToS" were being strictly applied this whole ridiculous thread would disappear. The fact that Shostakovich is its subject is not an argument against it being based in wilful ignorance, or perhaps trolling.


----------



## 13hm13

Art Rock said:


> When people start mixing up their own preference (I *hate *this) with objective statements (this is ugly), it's probably best to just stay out of the discussion. Nothing *good* ever comes of it.
> .


Discussion and debate is raison d'etre of places like TC.
In this world of social media -- where everyone is encouraged to follow the crowd-- art can suffer by ludicrous compliance alone.
Recall what I said a few posts back ... about using _whatever means_ necessary to get recording companies to release material _you_ like. Or getting orchestras to play _your favorite_ composers. 
*Hate* will work. And that's a *good* thing.


----------



## JeffD

starthrower said:


> I doubt composers think along those lines.


Probably not. Whatever we might think about it, the composer probably meant it to be attractive on some level.


----------



## Bulldog

13hm13 said:


> *Hate* will work. And that's a *good* thing.


Hate consumes the human spirit. And that's a very bad thing.


----------



## amfortas

Bulldog said:


> Hate consumes the human spirit. And that's a very bad thing.


Also a pretty shoddy basis for a thread lasting seven pages.


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> If the "ToS" were being strictly applied this whole ridiculous thread would disappear. The fact that Shostakovich is its subject is not an argument against it being based in wilful ignorance, or perhaps trolling.


13hm13 is well within his rights to express his views. I do not sense any trolling on his part; he posts what he feels and believes. Who am I to quarrel over his tastes, other than to say I do not share some/most/all of them. The fact that he finds the middle movement of the Proko VC No.1 "ugly" is his problem, not mine or Prokofiev's. He may grow to love it, given time .


----------



## eugeneonagain

13hm13 said:


> Discussion and debate is raison d'etre of places like TC.
> In this world of social media -- where everyone is encouraged to follow the crowd-- art can suffer by ludicrous compliance alone.
> Recall what I said a few posts back ... about using _whatever means_ necessary to get recording companies to release material _you_ like. Or getting orchestras to play _your favorite_ composers.
> *Hate* will work. And that's a *good* thing.


It would be okay if this was based upon actual facts, but the truth of the matter is that there is no plot for people to force Shostakovich down everyone's throats and certainly no massed crowds of art-music fans all lauding him for no reason other than fashion.

All the CDs I own of DSHC's music are on tiny, minor labels which don't sell at high volumes. He is neither more programmed nor more recorded than any other composer mentioned in this thread. That you don't like his music also happens to be irrelevant to these facts.

You've been trounced already in this thread, I don't know why you bother repeating the same nonsense. (Oh yes I just remembered, it's because the mods think it's okay to write complete rubbish over and over again, but an offence to identify it as such).


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> Hate consumes the human spirit. And that's a very bad thing.


Nonsense. Hate can be a very positive and even necessary thing. As J. F. Runciman wrote, "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect." True in 1896, true today! :lol:


----------



## amfortas

Those interested in exploring the topic further may wish to peruse my related thread:

Shostakovich is Stupid and I Hate Him


----------



## Larkenfield

In the arts the *means* determine the *ends*. That's what separates it from violence, hatred and war.


----------



## Triplets

13hm13 said:


> By " intentionally ugly", I mean his music.
> 
> Wikipedia notes: "His music is characterized by sharp contrasts, elements of the grotesque, and ambivalent tonality..."
> 
> Don't get me wrong ... I dig atonality and dissonance -- Schonberg, Stravinsky ... bring 'em on! But much of Shostakovich has _become_ just plain nauseous!
> 
> I know the dude had issues with Stalin, but I'm not clear why his music is as "ugly" as I find it to be.
> 
> Like many of you, I own several of his CDs. Not sure how I wound up with the dozen or so Shostakovich CDs I have on my shelf.** I really only like his 5th symphony.
> 
> As for the rest of his repertoire , I never paid that much attention to it ... if a DS recording was playing on a classical radio station, I'll let it play--as _background _music. That is ... up until about a year ago. Now, for some reason, most of DS's music makes me cringe.
> 
> Here is an example of ugggghhhh (Violin concerto no. 1, 2nd mvt.):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mvt. 1 is okay. But the rest of that VC ... well, not for me.
> 
> If anyone can point out DS compositions that are _beautiful_, list them away (and if I confirm, I'll admit it in this thread!!)
> 
> ** The DS recordings in my collection were likely gifts or Record/CD Club selection that were automatically sent.


I couldn't disagree more with this post. If the OP can't find 'beauty' in the great 3rd movement of the VC1, I just don't have much common ground with him/her


----------



## KenOC

Triplets said:


> I couldn't disagree more with this post. If the OP can't find 'beauty' in the great 3rd movement of the VC1, I just don't have much common ground with him/her


Agree. DSCH was a wizard with a passacaglia, here and elsewhere. I suspect that's one reason Britten was drawn to his music; Ben could never resist a well-turned passacaglia!


----------



## Strange Magic

Triplets said:


> I couldn't disagree more with this post. If the OP can't find 'beauty' in the great 3rd movement of the VC1, I just don't have much common ground with him/her


It's one thing to not have much common ground with 13hm13; it's quite another to express such seemingly all-consuming outrage on the part of some when their musical oxen are gored. Mine was gored, but what of it? I know what I like (and I like what I know). As I posted before, maybe he'll change his mind later; have a revelation or just ease into liking music later that he doesn't like now. But there is a shrill, enraged quality about some of these responses that is eyebrow-raising--what is going on here?


----------



## 13hm13

I think "ugly" was too vague an adjective** to describe my internal emotional state when I hear much (but not all) of DS.
Hence, I think I'll use a little mathematical notation: ugly+ridiculous+bombastic

I think I hinted at this a few posts ago when I mentioned many of his sound like "atonal circus/carnival" music.

** Alas, that language barrier I noted a few posts back in this thread. The same dilemma that perplexed Wittgenstein.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It's good that you mentioned Wittgenstein because you seem to be exhibiting another of his ideas: employing a private language, since no-one else here seems to share your conception of the meanings of the words you are using. 

I can only assume that you are using normal English words with your own meanings. That's never going to surmount the language barrier.

Lack of experience + inadequate description + confusion of subjective values with objective values = empty argument.


----------



## David OByrne

Heck148 said:


> Very definitely, yes - Penderecki's "Threnody for Victims of Hiroshima" is meant to be ugly, disturbing, discordant - the event it depicts was ugly, disturbing and discordant....I don't think he was composing this work as any sort of put-on....he was dealing with the subject...


No, it was a cool piece he wrote.....that he named that AFTER HE WROTE IT to provoke people.

If it wasn't named that, nobody would be interested. People are stupid.


----------



## amfortas

Strange Magic said:


> But there is a shrill, enraged quality about some of these responses that is eyebrow-raising--what is going on here?


For one thing, this is going on:



13hm13 said:


> I think "ugly" was too vague an adjective** to describe my internal emotional state when I hear much (but not all) of DS.
> Hence, I think I'll use a little mathematical notation: ugly+ridiculous+bombastic


----------



## Larkenfield

David OByrne said:


> No, it was a cool piece he wrote.....that he named that AFTER HE WROTE IT to provoke people.
> 
> If it wasn't named that, nobody would be interested. People are stupid.


Not all people are stupid. Your description is not accurate that it's just a "cool piece" that he renamed just to "provoke people". He ultimately had a deeper purpose in mind:

'Penderecki later said, "It existed only in my imagination, in a somewhat abstract way." When he heard an actual performance, "I was struck by the emotional charge of the work... I searched for associations and, in the end, I decided to dedicate it to the Hiroshima victims". The piece tends to leave an impression both solemn and catastrophic, earning its classified as a threnody. On 12 October 1964, Penderecki wrote, "Let the Threnody express my firm belief that the sacrifice of Hiroshima will never be forgotten and lost.'

This was not the first piece that has ever been named, renamed, or dedicated after the fact. Sometimes there can be deep subconscious forces at work that take time to emerge.

Let's not cheapen the composer's intentions or choice of a renaming, because he undoubtedly had felt deeply about war before he wrote this work-having lived through the catastrophic horrors of the Nazi occupation in Poland during WW2-and eventually the work and its final title came together. I find it easy to imagine _Threnody_ sounding like a city screaming, shrieking or weeping, and I hope never to live through such a cataclysmic experience. The work itself sounds far more terrifying than its original more generic-sounding title of _8'37"_.






Later he wrote his _Polish Requiem_...


----------



## Phil loves classical

13hm13 said:


> I think "ugly" was too vague an adjective** to describe my internal emotional state when I hear much (but not all) of DS.
> Hence, I think I'll use a little mathematical notation: ugly+ridiculous+bombastic
> 
> I think I hinted at this a few posts ago when I mentioned many of his sound like "atonal circus/carnival" music.
> 
> ** Alas, that language barrier I noted a few posts back in this thread. The same dilemma that perplexed Wittgenstein.


Ugly is one thing, and subjective, but ridiculous and bombastic does not quite follow ugly. Many moments such as Symphony 10, 2nd movement are brilliant.


----------



## Heck148

David OByrne said:


> No, it was a cool piece he wrote.....that he named that AFTER HE WROTE IT to provoke people.
> 
> If it wasn't named that, nobody would be interested. People are stupid.


It would still be harsh, and "ugly" sounding tho, wouldn't it??
it is certainly appropriate for the title, regardless of when it was named.


----------



## Vasks

Phil loves classical said:


>


One of my favorite movements.

And as to Penderecki substituting the more provocative title "Threnody" I say good. It has caused many more people to buy into the style of advanced string techniques and atonality.


----------



## David OByrne

Larkenfield said:


> Not all people are stupid. Your description is not accurate that it's just a "cool piece" that he renamed just to "provoke people". He ultimately had a deeper purpose in mind:
> 
> 'Penderecki later said, "It existed only in my imagination, in a somewhat abstract way." When he heard an actual performance, "I was struck by the emotional charge of the work... I searched for associations and, in the end, I decided to dedicate it to the Hiroshima victims". The piece tends to leave an impression both solemn and catastrophic, earning its classified as a threnody. On 12 October 1964, Penderecki wrote, "Let the Threnody express my firm belief that the sacrifice of Hiroshima will never be forgotten and lost.'
> 
> This was not the first piece that has ever been named, renamed, or dedicated after the fact. Sometimes there can be deep subconscious forces at work that take time to emerge.
> 
> Let's not cheapen the composer's intentions or choice of a renaming, because he undoubtedly had felt deeply about war before he wrote this work-having lived through the catastrophic horrors of the Nazi occupation in Poland during WW2-and eventually the work and its final title came together. I find it easy to imagine _Threnody_ sounding like a city screaming, shrieking or weeping, and I hope never to live through such a cataclysmic experience. The work itself sounds far more terrifying than its original more generic-sounding title of _8'37"_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later he wrote his _Polish Requiem_...


The name gives it it's popularity, if it wasn't a political piece then nobody would be interested in it (besides me).

He named the piece way after he wrote it too.

It is a cool piece.


----------



## David OByrne

Heck148 said:


> It would still be harsh, and "ugly" sounding tho, wouldn't it??
> it is certainly appropriate for the title, regardless of when it was named.


It's really dissonant, sure. I'd rather settle to call it amazing, rather than harsh. It's still cool


----------



## Star

Played part of the tenth symphony to my seven year old grandson last evening in the car. He thought it was great!


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> *the aesthetics of visual art and music have *influenced and been perceived as resonating with one another and *been governed by similar tastes and principles*.


An interesting idea, but I'm not sure that's true. Is "ugly" in the visual arts the same as "ugly" in music? Are either the same as "ugly" in real life?

At one end of a continuum, 'ugly' might mean nothing worse than not conforming to someone's narrow ideal of beauty. At the other end, it might mean so repulsive that the viewer/listener feels compelled to turn away. Somewhere in the middle lies the art that might be challenging, or difficult, but which neverthless conforms to a different range of aesthetic qualities. So 'Threnody' might not be beautiful to some ears because it's not consistent with classical forms that please the conservative. But it might be beautiful to others' ears because it has other qualities, engages other emotions and instincts than "Coo, that's pretty."

In the case of DSCH, I am attracted to, and enjoy the 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 15th symphonies - to the extent that I have more than one recording, have attended concerts and inflicted them on my children. There's a whole array of adjectives I would use to account for my liking, and I don't think 'beautiful' would be one of them. I might use 'bombastic' to describe some parts of the 7th, 10th and 11th - because it somehow connotes loud and in your face, which they are - but it would be a misuse since the word also connotes 'empty of meaning', and that's not what I get from DSCH.


----------



## 13hm13

Phil loves classical said:


> Ugly is one thing, and subjective, but ridiculous and bombastic does not quite follow ugly. Many moments such as Symphony 10, 2nd movement are brilliant.


For what it is, it's original, well-written and well-played. I would probably recommend it to students of music theory or serious classical fans. But this style of DS is a moderate definition of what I call DS's ugliness. I have no musical training to give more concrete descriptions of ugliness. Otherwise, I would use music notation or music theory to illustrate specifics.

A work-around might be a counter-example:

Dissonant and atonal -- but not ugly -- is Prokofiev. Symphony 3.






Returning to that DS 10th/mvt. 2, I noticed Walton re-cycling some elements in his 'Battle of Britain' (1969) soundtrack (which I've always really enjoyed!):


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^The above reinforces the certainty that we are dealing here with pure personal idiosyncrasy of taste--nothing more.


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^The above reinforces the certainty that we are dealing here with pure personal idiosyncrasy of taste--nothing more.


When is that not the case?


----------



## millionrainbows

Charles Ives, at his "ugliest," used dissonance for its own sake. At least with Shosakovich's dissonance, it can usually be referenced to some sort of tonal/harmonic context. So i see Shostakovich's "ugliness" as more conservative than Ives'.


----------



## philoctetes

Bacon for breakfast yum...

For me Dmitri is in the same doghouse neighborhood, maybe across the street from, Johannes Brahms. They are both driven to excess, extreme, and indulgence in ways that are completely different but comparably cringe-worthy. And [edit] both are somewhat conservative if not reactionary. That sounds like a contradiction but it isn't.

However I prefer Dmitri for chamber music, not his symphonies, while it's the opposite with Brahms. Both wrote excellent concertos.

Ives ugly is that of the American insurance man, a joyeful noyse, something Dmitri could hardly imagine.


----------



## millionrainbows

The "ugliest" music, for me, is non-tonal. I mean, highly chromatic, no harmonic references, just full-out 12 tone. Schoenberg's string Trio is probably at the top of the ugly list for me. It's so ugly it's fascinating.

Which brings us to the point: "ugliness' has more than one dimension, depending on how we take it and interpret it. Francis Bacon's paintings are grotesque, "ugly," and beautiful at the same time.

This could turn in to a more challenging thread, which doesn't assume we are simple-minded one-dimensional thinkers.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> The "ugliest" music, for me, is non-tonal. I mean, highly chromatic, no harmonic references, just full-out 12 tone. Schoenberg's string Trio is probably at the top of the ugly list for me. It's so ugly it's fascinating.
> 
> Which brings us to the point: "ugliness' has more than one dimension, depending on how we take it and interpret it. Francis Bacon's paintings are grotesque, "ugly," and beautiful at the same time.
> 
> This could turn in to a more challenging thread, which doesn't assume we are simple-minded one-dimensional thinkers.


I'm less sure about this. Ugly has a fairly definite meaning. Francis Bacon's paintings are indeed grotesque, but they end up more fascinating than ugly. When you're fascinated or impressed by something it no longer appears ugly in the simple, brute sense.

I'm not going to disagree with you entirely though; ugly means causing disquiet and perhaps even a slight feeling of threat and there's no reason why art shouldn't encompass this, actively engage with it.


----------



## apricissimus

13hm13 said:


> By " intentionally ugly", I mean his music.
> 
> Wikipedia notes: "His music is characterized by sharp contrasts, elements of the grotesque, and ambivalent tonality..."
> 
> Don't get me wrong ... I dig atonality and dissonance -- Schonberg, Stravinsky ... bring 'em on! But much of Shostakovich has _become_ just plain nauseous!
> 
> I know the dude had issues with Stalin, but I'm not clear why his music is as "ugly" as I find it to be.
> 
> Like many of you, I own several of his CDs. Not sure how I wound up with the dozen or so Shostakovich CDs I have on my shelf.** I really only like his 5th symphony.
> 
> As for the rest of his repertoire , I never paid that much attention to it ... if a DS recording was playing on a classical radio station, I'll let it play--as _background _music. That is ... up until about a year ago. Now, for some reason, most of DS's music makes me cringe.
> 
> Here is an example of ugggghhhh (Violin concerto no. 1, 2nd mvt.):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mvt. 1 is okay. But the rest of that VC ... well, not for me.
> 
> If anyone can point out DS compositions that are _beautiful_, list them away (and if I confirm, I'll admit it in this thread!!)
> 
> ** The DS recordings in my collection were likely gifts or Record/CD Club selection that were automatically sent.


The second movement of DSCH's first violin concerto is one of my all time favorite pieces of music. I also don't think it's ugly at all, and I'm not opposed to "ugly" music.


----------



## Josquin13

I'd recommend listening to Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues for solo piano. Being a pianist himself, Shostakovich wrote especially well for the piano. & it would greatly surprise me if you or anyone else cannot find beauty in this music:






as well as his Piano Quintet:






If you enjoy that music, you might move onto his Piano Trio No. 2:






If none of that works for you, you might enjoy the writings of British composer Robin Holloway:

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/26th-august-2000/41/music


----------



## eugeneonagain

And here is DSCH in truly delightful mode:


----------



## 13hm13

*"finger in pocket"*

I'm surprised no one suggested the following documentary ...






Shostakovich against Stalin, The war symphonies - A Documentary by Larry Weinstein (1997)

In it, the _intentionallity_ of the ugliness is presented. Namely, it was tool for *sarcasm*. As noted in the doc., (as in the case of the 9th symph), the ugliness was used as "finger in pocket" [giving Stalin the finger, inside his pants pocket].

I have actually begun listening to to DS's symphs, especially 11th. The cor anglais melody in the final mvt. is quite good, as is most of the rest of the symph.


----------



## 13hm13

Here's another that I find ugly+ridiculous...






... by its title, Parody from Ballet Music, it's clear that DS has deliberately composed it to be ridiculous.


----------



## Fritjof

I find the second movement of the piano concerto no 2 really beautiful: 




Other works by DS may be "ugly" but not really atonal, more bi-tonal I suppose. He got his music education during a really interesting cultural period in Russia, after the revolution. I guess he wanted to oppose the music made in the decadent west so in a sense maybe you can call it intentional.


----------



## philoctetes

Examples of not-ugly Dmitri are certainly coommon, often found in the slow movements, or even interludes, sandwiched by the ugly ones... so to listen to his music ones has to be prepared for the contrasts... if I'm working and the computer hangs and the march begins and the phone rings all at the same time... off goes the music. Same downside as Mahler for me. But he wrote especially well for individual instruments, so his solo passages are quite beautiful, for cello, bassoon, piano, etc...


----------



## philoctetes

Like many of the most famous composers, e.g. Bach and Mahler, Dmitri had certain modes of expression that repeat throughout his music and build recognition. These can be either annoying or fascinating, depending on mood. 

Dmitri's obsession with Rossini is one of these, idk, whaddaya call it, motifs in his music... the Lone Ranger motif... and another is his Ghost Dance motif, which I used to love but now it's like hearing a series of Wolfie's keyboard trills... either exhausting or inspiring, I guess that's why we keep listening to this stuff...


----------



## Jacck

it is interesting how controversial Schostakovich is
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/jan/14/classicalmusicandopera
Boulez was a pretty vitriolic charakter. I would bet that Boulez will be forgotten in 100 years and Schostakovich will live.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is a piece As posted in another thread. Some composers make use the "grotesque" as some call it. Meant to challenge certain perceptions of harmony. Not sure if it is intentionally ugly, but it definitely doesn't shy away from it.


----------



## R3PL4Y

As much of a fan as I am of Shostakovich, I have to agree with Boulez when he says that people are "influenced by the autobiographical dimension of his music". As the Shostakovich fan I am, I like the music for its own merits and not the facts of Shostakovich's life, but it is hard to deny that it is an important part of the music for many people.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It could be, but not for me. For years I only listened to the music before I bothered to read anything about Shostakovich. There are a few others about whom I know only minor biographical details: Rachmaninov, Kabalevsky (and I've heard about 75% of his output); I know next-to-nothing about Prokofiev's life, but I know some of his music well.

Shostakovich seems to be burdened with the notion that people listening to his music are somehow always trying to tune in to his troublesome life in the USSR. I don't think he needs any excuses though; certainly not any to excuse any alleged 'ugliness' in his music. That issue I place squarely on the shoulders of the listener. He's not the only composer, nor was he the first, to have produced dissonant, violent, disjointed music. He also wrote music with a different character altogether, as can be attested to by numerous examples in this thread.

The idea behind this thread was invalid rubbish from the start. A mere aesthetic opinion presented as some sort of objective fact.


----------



## Jacck

Schostakovich's music does not need any kind of political story behind it to make it more attractive. It is completely capable to stand on its own. I have been listening a lot to it lately (I listened to his 4th and 5th symphonies 5 times during the last couple of days) and the music is unique and ingenious. Schostakovich is in the same league with Mahler. That is why I think Boulez's comments are vitriolic, somehow implying that people only listen to him because of politics, which is BS.


----------



## Guest

R3PL4Y said:


> As much of a fan as I am of Shostakovich, I have to agree with Boulez when he says that people are "influenced by the autobiographical dimension of his music".


Perhaps they are. But then, who isn't influenced by the autobiographical dimensions of most composer's music? It takes some tough discipline not to pay at least some attention to Beethoven's deafness, Haydn's trips to London and Paris (and the patronage of Esterhazy) and Mozart's early life on the road with his father etc etc etc.


----------



## Larkenfield

Another outstanding performance in HQ sound of the Shostakovich 1st Violin Concerto (except for a minor glitch in the beginning). The second movement is a Scherzo, not circus music. I found the performance soulful, natural and completely unforced... with a focused and beautiful tone of the violin except for some measure of strident harshness the composer deliberately wrote into the score in the Burlesque (not circus) finale... Here's another work of great distinction that Pierre Boulez refused to perform because he foolishly considered Shostakovich a second or third rate Mahler:






Here's another soulful performance. It's not mentioned enough Shostakovich's genius for writing for the lower woodwinds and brass, including the extra depth and richness of the bass clarinet and contrabass bassoon. His orchestrations usually extended over the entire range of the orchestra.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> ..Here's another soulful performance. It's not mentioned enough Shostakovich's genius for writing for the lower woodwinds and brass, including the extra depth and richness of the bass clarinet and contrabass bassoon. His orchestrations usually extended over the entire range of the orchestra.


Yesss...makes me think of the close to the first movement of the 10th Symphony. The man was a wizard.


----------



## tdc

I've never been a great fan of Shostakovich, however I can't say I find his music generally ugly. Sometimes a little meandering and lifeless perhaps (from my perspective anyway), but rarely ugly.


----------



## christomacin

I've never found Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Bartok or Hindemith unbearably ugly...on the other hand, I've never found, Mozart, Brahms or Mendelssohn unbearable dull, either.


----------



## 13hm13

A prime example -- IMO, of course -- of Dimitri at work on hideousness ...


----------



## Larkenfield

13hm13 said:


> A prime example -- IMO, of course -- of Dimitri at work on hideousness ...


That's strident, circus-like sarcasm, and it's devilishly difficult to play. It may have been his way of expressing his displeasure about people, society, politics, and circumstances that he did not like. And it's not his fault if some of his determined critics take it literally as ugliness and are unable to pick up on that. If someone else were in his same shoes, he might have felt the same way. Sarcasm can act as a psychological relief but can sometimes be misunderstood by those who may not fully understand or accept his creative intentions. But by labeling it as "ugly" simply glosses over the sarcasm and his deeper creative intentions. He sometimes wrote this way because he couldn't directly say how he felt out loud. Those more familiar with his life and music who genuinely appreciate him are more likely to hear such a strident passage as having an underlying positive intent that's appropriately modern-they hear with different ears.

"The _Golden Age_ ballet is a satirical take on the political and cultural change in 1920s' Europe. It follows a Soviet football (soccer) team in a Western city where they come into contact with many politically incorrect bad characters such as the Diva, the Fascist, the Agent Provocateur, the Negro and others. The team falls victim to match-rigging, police harassment, and unjust imprisonment by the evil bourgeoisie. The team is freed from jail when the local workers overthrow their capitalist overlords. The ballet ends with a dance of solidarity between the workers and the football team."


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> That's a bit of strident, circus-like sarcasm, and it's devilishly difficult to play. It was his way of expressing his displeasure about people and circumstances that he did not like. And it's not his fault if some of his determined critics take it literally as ugliness and are unable to pick up on that.


The Age of Gold, written by a young Shostakovich in 1930: "The ballet is a satirical take on the political and cultural change in 1920s' Europe. It follows a Soviet football (soccer) team in a Western city where they come into contact with many politically incorrect bad characters such as the Diva, the Fascist, the Agent Provocateur, the Negro and others. The team falls victim to match rigging, police harassment, and unjust imprisonment by the evil bourgeoisie. The team is freed from jail when the local workers overthrow their capitalist overlords. The ballet ends with a dance of solidarity between the workers and the football team."

Good stuff, huh? Yes, the style was a bit strident, but wise comrade Stalin set Dmitri on the right path soon enough with some gentle admonishment.


----------



## 13hm13

KenOC said:


> Good stuff, huh? Yes, the style was a bit strident, but wise comrade Stalin set Dmitri on the right path soon enough with some gentle admonishment.


It's been reported that DS had nine lives when it came to Stalin. 
Yeah, DS didn't like Stalin, and ridiculed him thru ugly music. Maybe, Stalin had it comin'. But if you're the leader and are so openly/publicly humiliated .... maybe axe-sharpening is justified :devil:


----------



## KenOC

13hm13 said:


> It's been reported that DS had nine lives when it came to Stalin.
> Yeah, DS didn't like Stalin, and ridiculed him thru ugly music.


"Shostakovich, the secret rebel!" Doubtful. DSCH was a dedicated believer from his youth and even joined the Party in later years, when he no longer had anything political to worry about.* He served in the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR from 1947 to 1962 and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union from 1962 until his death. You will search the public record unsuccessfully for a single word he spoke criticizing the Party or its policies.

After he died, of course, the St Petersburg liberal intelligentsia suddenly remembered his anti-Party history, which they had earlier forgotten when abandoning him due to his criticisms of Sakharov and others.

Everybody is free to invent history to suit their own desires, but their inventions are often neither believable nor useful.

*He certainly had his problems with Stalin, of course. But he would hardly dare to criticize Stalin in music, given that Stalin was quite a smart guy and unlikely to be fooled. When he finally took a lick at Uncle Joe, in late 1953, the guy was safely dead.


----------



## Guest

13hm13 said:


> A prime example -- IMO, of course -- of Dimitri at work on hideousness ...


Hideousness? No. The man undoubtedly had a sense of humour, and it can be heard in his symphonies as well, especially the 9th and 15th.



KenOC said:


> DSCH was a dedicated believer from his youth


In what? Stalinism? I don't think so.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> In what? Stalinism? I don't think so.


No, Communism. I don't think he was ever a big fan of Stalin (to put it mildly).


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> No, Communism. I don't think he was ever a big fan of Stalin (to put it mildly).


Hardly a surprise in either case, then. Anyone who was unhappy with the rule of the Tsars might have seen that communism was the only way forward, whatever problems the West subsequently had with it.

Whilst I agree that it would be a mistake to portray DSCH as a rebel, I think it equally misleading to portray him as a composer happy with Soviet society. He was not one of the party faithful to the extent that he composed in compliance with the Party's wishes.


----------



## larold

As explained in Volkov's book, "Testimony" (and supported later by just about all his friends and his son), Shostakovich played the role of yurodivy in the Soviet Union, a sort of clownish, mocking artist poking fun at Soviet institutions and portraying it brilliantly in music. He was no rebel, however; he was a party member and believed in communism. His early music is sincere and later, after his friends and cohorts started disappearing and being murdered by the government, his music turned acerbic and critical. If you want to know about his music read the book


----------



## Barbebleu

Was 'Testimony' not pretty well discredited as being a reliable source of biographical detail?


----------



## elgar's ghost

I've never imagined Shostakovich's music as ugly, but it can be ironic, acidic, caustic, sardonic and sarcastic. Oh, and fantastic. :lol:


----------



## larold

_Was 'Testimony' not pretty well discredited as being a reliable source of biographical detail? _

There are those that question it as authentic. The composers friends and his son all said it was authentic. Just about everyone now believes that, whether authentic or not, what it said was a true representation of Shostakovich and his intent.


----------



## EdwardBast

larold said:


> _Was 'Testimony' not pretty well discredited as being a reliable source of biographical detail? _
> 
> There are those that question it as authentic. The composers friends and his son all said it was authentic. Just about everyone now believes that, whether authentic or not, what it said was a true representation of Shostakovich and his intent.


No, _Testimony_ was definitively debunked within a year of its publication by Laurel Fay ("Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose Testimony?" _Russian Review_ 39, no. 4 (1980), 484-92.) Anyone who has not read and come to terms with Fay's evidence has no business holding an opinion on the authenticity of _Testimony_.

Here is how the fraud seems to have been perpetrated: What Volkov apparently did was go to Shostakovich with the typescript of a book, the contents of which consisted entirely of articles previously published under Shostakovich's name and thus already vetted for political correctness. Given that Volkov was then the editor of _Sovetskaya Muzika_, this sort of collected essay project would have been believable. Volkov made only minor changes to the original texts to correct dated references that would sound strange when reprinted decades after the articles were initially published. He got Shostakovich to initial the first pages of these articles. Then he took those pages with the composer's initials and used them as the first pages of each of _Testimony_'s chapters, discarding the rest of each article and substituting his own fabrications and collected third hand gossip for the pages he had shown Shostakovich. This seems pretty obvious when one considers the discontinuity between the first page of each chapter and what follows. Fay points out how ludicrous it is to think that Shostakovich, when interviewed by Volkov, would have reproduced those seven first pages-and only those pages!-nearly verbatim from memory, before digressing into new material on every second page. _Testimony_ is a fraud. Anyone reading Fay objectively will see it.

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


----------



## Larkenfield

:tiphat: Here's some easy listening Ray Conniff for those who can't get into the adventurous swing of things with Shostakovich. Maybe next lifetime.


----------



## joen_cph

_Testimony_ in itself has been debunked, but the number of people close to Shosty who supported its representation of views held by him is impressive, so the general atmosphere it depicts seems quite true. A couple of these people only later, after the composer´s death, took their support to _Testimony _back.

Also, people in the debate tend to overlook the very direct, Stalin- and anti-system content of Shostakovich´s secret composition _Anti-Formalist Rayok-Cantata_.


----------



## EdwardBast

joen_cph said:


> _Testimony_ in itself has been debunked, but the number of people close to Shosty who supported its representation of views held by him is impressive, so the general atmosphere it depicts seems quite true. A couple of these people only later, after the composer´s death, took their support to _Testimony _back.
> 
> Also, people in the debate tend to overlook the very direct, Stalin- and anti-system content of Shostakovich´s secret composition _Anti-Formalist Rayok-Cantata_.


I don't dispute anything you say. In fact, I think it so obvious that Shostakovich hated Stalin-the way any sane person would hate the murderer of his friends and collaborators!-that it doesn't need to be argued. I also think there are subversive meanings in his music. For me, this just makes the fraud of _Testimony_ all the more egregious, as that book tends to make people want to believe in a cartoonish portrait of Shostakovich rather than the more interesting man he was. I'm not sure what satisfaction one can get out of reading a book not a single line of which can be trusted to be what it is claimed. If one wants "the general atmosphere," one should read Elizabeth Wilson's _Shostakovich: A Life Remembered_. In this book the statements are attributed to people who actually said them!


----------



## joen_cph

I just checked and Volkov, 74 years old, is still very active on subjects in Russian cultural life, including for example an announced, oncoming interview with Gergiev on the Russian Channel 1 (which generally has a quite mixed reputation), etc.


----------



## EdwardBast

joen_cph said:


> I just checked and Volkov, 74 years old, is still very active on subjects in Russian cultural life, including for example an announced, oncoming interview with Gergiev on the Russian Channel 1 (which generally has a quite mixed reputation), etc.


Interestingly, Volkov has always maintained that he has the original shorthand transcriptions of the interviews with Shostakovich he claims as the basis for _Testimony_. When Laurel Fay dared him to produce them, in effect saying put up or shut up, he slunk off and never produced them. This sort of lying and cowardice soured me on the man-that and his sneaking into Shostakovich's funeral to be photographed with the casket!


----------



## SCSL

Some thoughts: Like Prokofiev, Shostakovich was perfectly capable of writing beautiful music that is pleasant to the ear. (Some examples have been provided in this thread already.) For the most part, they just chose not to. Whether their motivations for doing so (or rather, not doing so) were motivated by politics, a twisted & mocking sense of humor, or a flair for the gated avant-garde so prevalent among fans of modern (and “post-modern”) music, is the more interesting discussion. IMHO, of course. 

All music is art, but not all art is music. Is there a difference between music and auditory art? If so, such a difference might explain a given listeners distaste for Shostakovich while providing non-pejorative adjectives. Similarly, it might allow a counterpoint from fans of Shostakovich that veers away from the moderately elitist and denigrating.


----------



## eugeneonagain

_All_ of Shostokovich's output is musical - based in musical knowledge, theory and practice. He was an artist, not a jingle-writer and I get the impression that too many are of the opinion that if a composer doesn't write pretty jingles or something you can whistle on your way to work, he/she has somehow 'failed'.

As it happens Shostakovich wrote a lot of great tunes. Not just that, he also wrote a lot of interesting melodies, but folk seem to home in on some of his other techniques, like the relentless drumming he employs (though with supreme orchestration surrounding it) or his use of 'cataclysmic' crashing chords.

Elsewhere, just today, I remarked that his 7th symphony is quite obviously the inspiration for much of Alex North's score to Spartacus. That score is regularly praised to high heaven - probably by some who think Shostakovich is a mere noise-maker.

All of the twitterings about DSCH's relationship to the Soviet regime and attempts to paint him as an artistic traitor or a cheap opportunist are rarely in earnest. Like criticism of e.g. Nietzsche they are tools used to undermine him in the face of a lack of any real, substantial criticism of the music (so often coming from people who can't read a note anyway).


----------



## millionrainbows

Really, the premise of this thread is simplistic. I'd rather hear substantive discussion about his music, assuming that we have crossed the "ugly" hurdle. Then, on to Boulez, like the discussions on the big-boy forums who seem to 'get it' all. Meanwhile, back in la-la land...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Boulez had a low opinion of Shostakovich, so I don't think his opinion is worth dwelling upon in this thread. I'm not interested in the views of a sensationalist conductor/third-rate composer.

However, please begin the substantive discussion.


----------



## Enthusiast

I have a strange relationship to Shostakovich. Some of his music (quite a lot) seems to be to be from the very very top drawer, including three or four of the symphonies and both violin concertos. But there is quite a bit more (including many of the symphonies) that I find I need to be in the right mood to listen to and that doesn't happen very often. And then there is much that I just can't be bothered with. I need to get to know the quartets better as I suspect they will change my opinion of him completely.


----------



## EdwardBast

Enthusiast said:


> I have a strange relationship to Shostakovich. Some of his music (quite a lot) seems to be to be from the very very top drawer, including three or four of the symphonies and both violin concertos. But there is quite a bit more (including many of the symphonies) that I find I need to be in the right mood to listen to and that doesn't happen very often. And then there is much that I just can't be bothered with. I need to get to know the quartets better as I suspect they will change my opinion of him completely.


Yes, his string quartets are the core of his output-where he was most consistent and free from political concerns.


----------



## 13hm13

I just watched (and enjoyed) DS's Cello Conc. 1 -- atonality and all -- in this March 2013 broadcast concert:






Some one in the Comments section noted "French Horn issues" at 04:53

Was that unintentional? I checked it against ...




...and, indeed, that French Horn chord sounds beautiful ... i.e., not ugly.

This makes me wonder _how much_ of DS's ugliness or abrasiveness is due to incorrect interpretation, faulty playing or other issues with orchestration. 
With another composer ( Mahler), I feel, a *particular* recording/concert can make or break the enjoyment, thrill or involvement of the piece.

Hmm ... maybe I'll dig into some Stokowski/Shostakovich recordings.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

eugeneonagain said:


> Boulez had a low opinion of Shostakovich, so I don't think his opinion is worth dwelling upon in this thread. I'm not interested in the views of a sensationalist conductor/third-rate composer.
> 
> However, please begin the substantive discussion.


Not that I'm interested in the views of anyone ignorantly branding the author of Sur Incises and Le Marteau sans maître a "third-rate composer", but what's a "sensationalist" conductor exactly?


----------



## eugeneonagain

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Not that I'm interested in the views of anyone ignorantly branding the author of Sur Incises and Le Marteau sans maître a "third-rate composer", but what's a "sensationalist" conductor exactly?


So you're a Boulez fan, that's great. A sensationalist anyone is someone who makes remarks to get noticed. Then again he'd have to or no-one would notice. 
When someone with little music of interest to his name can rubbish a composer of Shostakovich's stature, he's either a total genius or a petty contrarian. I'll let you decide, since you're not interested in what I think.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

eugeneonagain said:


> So you're a Boulez fan, that's great. A sensationalist anyone is someone who makes remarks to get noticed. Then again he'd have to or no-one would notice.
> When someone with little music of interest to his name can rubbish a composer of Shostakovich's stature, he's either a total genius or a petty contrarian. I'll let you decide, since you're not interested in what I think.


So you're someone who thinks of appreciation of music in terms of "fandoms", that's... great, I suppose. That would make me a "fan" of Boulez, Shostakovitch and hundreds of other music makers whose work I've enjoyed to this or that degree, from Johann Ludwig Krebs to Mica Levi.

What piqued my curiosity was the fact that you modified the noun "conductor" with the adjective "sensationalist", as though there was something specifically sensationalist in Boulez's conducting, but now I see what you meant. Other than that, you are correct, I have no interest in your opinion.


----------



## eugeneonagain

No, I don't think of music in terms of fandom, which is why I don't engage in polls or games and rankings. On the whole I just listen to it, but Boulez's arrogant opinion of Shostakovich has always annoyed me.

You _do_ have an interest in my opinion, that's why you replied to me twice. I know we all have to feign disinterest in situations like this.

Peace brother.


----------



## EdwardBast

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Not that I'm interested in the views of anyone ignorantly branding the author of Sur Incises and Le Marteau sans maître a "third-rate composer", but what's a "sensationalist" conductor exactly?


Why do you assume ignorance? You are talking to people who know the work and, in my case, just find it uninteresting. I'd say third rate composer is about right.


----------



## EdwardBast

13hm13 said:


> I just watched (and enjoyed) DS's Cello Conc. 1 -- atonality and all -- in this March 2013 broadcast concert:


Atonality? It's all tonal. Wonderful work!


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

eugeneonagain said:


> Boulez's arrogant opinion of Shostakovich has always annoyed me.


Artists tend to have strong opinions based on idiosyncratic perspectives. Glenn Gould, for example, placed every piece of music he touched within a rigid and complex historic, philosophic and aesthetic system of his own making. Agreeing, disagreeing or indeed taking offence at his derogatory statements on, say, Schumann or Bartok would be besides the point: such was his personal view of musical history, and it reflected a talent too idiosyncratic to be bothered with balance and fairness.

However, I truly, honestly have no interest in the opinion on Gould of anyone who'd brand him a third-rate pianist, unless - and here it gets circular - it were someone who I found interesting in his or her own right, and who placed every piece of music s/he touched within a rigid and complex historic, philosophic and aesthetic system of their own making, that reflected a talent too idiosyncratic to be bothered with balance and fairness etc.


----------



## Larkenfield

The Blind Spots of Pierre Boulez: 
http://slippedisc.com/2016/03/the-blind-spots-of-pierre-boulez/
Boulez's criticism of Shostakovich's lack of "originality".
--
This article aside, I never agreed with Boulez that Shosh was a second- or third-rate Mahler. Is the composer's 2nd Violin Concerto second-rate Mahler? Not to me. Yet Boulez never conducted it that I know of. He missed the mark on one of the greatest composers of the 20th century--not exactly a Robert Schumann when it came to music criticism and the appreciation of genius. In fact, I believe he missed the mark entirely. I believe he did this on the basis of a certain aesthetic ideological point of view that really didn't pan out that the past needed to be destroyed and an entirely new language created after the second world war. I believe he softened on this as he got older though he never changed his fixed viewpoint about Shostakovich being unoriginal or derivative. I do however consider him a great conductor of Mahler, Bruckner, and others, and I believe he could have been a great conductor of Shostakovich if their temperaments had not been so different and he'd given the composer half a chance.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> The Blind Spots of Pierre Boulez: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58331757e4b058ce7aac163a
> Boulez's criticism of Shostakovich's lack of "originality".


Lark, your link takes me to a different article. Can you check, please?

Added: Fixed, thanks!


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> Lark, your link takes me to a different article. Can you check, please?


 Thank you! Link fixed. 

http://slippedisc.com/2016/03/the-blind-spots-of-pierre-boulez/


----------



## 13hm13

EdwardBast said:


> Atonality? It's all tonal. Wonderful work!


"It's _all _tonal." ??? I don't think so. DS does mix it up, though. Or is it "dissonance"? I'll let you all decide...


----------



## eugeneonagain

13hm13 said:


> "It's _all _tonal." ??? I don't think so. DS does mix it up, though. Or is it "dissonance"? I'll let you all decide...


Well it is the Cello Concerto in _E-flat major_, so that rules out "atonal". Shostakovich was a polystylist, so there are indeed moments of heavy dissonance, but that first movement is pretty much consistent.


----------



## Tallisman

I think it's important to note that the sweeter, tonal moments of his works are made all the more sweet and tonal by their contrasting with chaos and atonality. Too much chocolate is bad for you, you know. You need some veggies every now and then.


----------



## EdwardBast

13hm13 said:


> "It's _all _tonal." ??? I don't think so. DS does mix it up, though. Or is it "dissonance"? I'll let you all decide...


It's even pretty traditional: Opening theme in E-flat, second theme in C minor. Where it departs from traditional tonality it's in the direction of modality, not atonality. it ends on a big E-flat major chord. 



Tallisman said:


> I think it's important to note that the sweeter, tonal moments of his works are made all the more sweet and tonal by their contrasting with chaos and atonality. Too much chocolate is bad for you, you know. You need some veggies every now and then.


Can you pick out a passage or two you guys think are atonal in this work because I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## 13hm13

eugeneonagain said:


> Well it is the Cello Concerto in _E-flat major_, so that rules out "atonal".


I Google'd "shostakovich atonal" and the first YouTube hit is:
String Quartet No. 12* in D flat major*, Op. 133 (1968)
So I'm not sure *declaring* the key/scale in the piece's title _locks_ the piece into tonality/atonality.

But you could argue for/against atonality in Op. 133. Have a listen:


----------



## EdwardBast

13hm13 said:


> I Google'd "shostakovich atonal" and the first YouTube hit is:
> String Quartet No. 12* in D flat major*, Op. 133 (1968)
> So I'm not sure *declaring* the key/scale in the piece's title _locks_ the piece into tonality/atonality.
> 
> But you could argue for/against atonality in Op. 133. Have a listen:


At issue was your statement about atonality in the First Cello Concerto. Of course Shostakovich occasionally flirted with atonality, but not in that concerto. The 12th quartet begins with a tone row (stating all twelve pitch classes without repeating any) and it is one of the few where Shostakovich plays around with 12-tone techniques. But even the tone row here ends up in a nice cadence on Db as the 12th note!


----------

