# What’s your opinion of the Leningrad Symphony?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I listened today to Bernstein and the Chicagoans playing this on that long, long pair of CDs and was, once again, overwhelmed. But the symphony has a checkered history.

Originally a huge propaganda hit during WWII, even to the extent of having the score smuggled to the West on microfilm, our leading conductors contested for the right to give early performances. Toscanini gave the first performance outside of the USSR, and the symphony was performed 62 times in the 1942-43 season.

But soon it was singled out for criticism. Virgil Thomson wrote, "It seems to have been written for the slow-witted, the not very musical and the distracted.” Rachmaninoff dismissed it, and Bartok, resentful of the neglect of his own music, parodied it cruelly in his Concerto for Orchestra. Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union, it was boosted in a campaign approved by Stalin himself and was performed repeatedly across the Republics: “People still wept at concerts. They often rose from their seats during the finale and applauded thunderously afterwards. The difference now was that they were aiding a potent propaganda campaign.”

With the start of the Cold War, the symphony declined in popularity in the West and was increasingly seldom performed. But recently it seems to be regaining some ground.

Which is all by way of introduction to my question: What do you think of the Leningrad Symphony?


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

I enjoy it. Shostakovich would have been the first to dismiss the pretensions of other musicians, and I think he did a good job with this symphony.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I know that it fails to move me, except here and there. I don't want to hear it often enough to form a real opinion, but the first, fourth and fifth symphonies do seem to me finer works.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2018)

I like it, but only when I'm in the mood for an endurance test. I like the company of DSCH so I'm happy to listen to most of his symphonies, but I'm not putting him on the turntable at the end of a busy day at work.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

It had its value as a propaganda piece during the war of course, as a symbol of Russian resistance. Of course Russia was ruled by a tyrant who was little better than Hitler but happened to be on our side. People who didn't realise the full evil of the Soviet regime praised it but it is certainly not one of Shostakovich's best symphonies and with the advent of the Cold War and the realisation of what was going on in Russia and the oppression of the people ruled by the bear, it fell into disfavour. Now looking at it as a piece of music you can just say it is not one of the composers best


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

When I listen to it I do like it. The listener has to consider what it was for when it was written.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The best symphony by one of my favourite symphonists imo. It was my introduction to this composer in the late 80s, and I never grew tired of it.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

I like Shostakovich's 7th. I place it along side the symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler as one of those gargantuan symphonic adventures. Of the versions I know, I prefer Bernstein's earlier recording that he made for Columbia w/the NYPO. While the later DG recording that Bernstein made with the Chicago Symphony is ambitious, loud and lush; I think that the earlier one w/New York has more energy and enthusiasm. Haitink is a bit dull to my ears and Toscanini is good but suffers from antiquated sound technology.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Love it. Watched a documentary on TV about it once and it was so interesting but then again, an interesting symphony.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I consider it one of Shostakovich's better symphonies but I don't like it as much as the 1st, 5th, 8th and 10th.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I can't stand the first movement. The rest is good, but the work isn't among my favorites. I prefer 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 to the 7th.


----------



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

As soon as Shostakovich landed on the front cover of _Time_ magazine complete with fireman's helmet and a backdrop showing Leningrad in flames just ahead of the symphony being performed in the USA it was a shoe-in that the seventh would take on a life of its own. The attention it got in the USA after Toscanini's performance certainly helped to garner more Western sympathy towards the Soviet Union at a time when her allies were fighting mainly in the Far East and North Africa - the USSR was still pretty much on its own in holding the vast majority of the German war machine at bay in Europe.

Now a lot of the talk tends to revolve around what Shostakovich really intended when he wrote it (especially as it was alleged that a fair chunk of it been written before the Great Patriotic War started) but whatever the agenda I like the work very much.

However, I can also appreciate why many others wonder what all the fuss is about - the first movement is probably over-long, some of it sounds vulgar and blaring and as a coherent symphonic statement from beginning to end it perhaps doesn't hold up as well as the fourth, the fifth, the eighth and the tenth. But I don't care - yes, it was a work which was wrapped up in its times and circumstances and all the hype and spin that went with it but as it was THE anthem which came to represent the USSR's struggle against the Nazi war machine how different - or how better - should we have expected it to be?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

The reputation of the Leningrad dipped badly after the war, but it seems to have been recovering in recent years/decades. I see it as a relatively weak piece, especially compared to the two Symphonies either side of it. For me it comes 12th out of the fifteen, an easy position to allocate, as only the truly dire No.12 and the slightly less dire 2 and 3 are worse. No.14 comes 11th for me, the remaining ten works are all masterpieces in their own right.

Karel Ancerl did a fine recording of the Leningrad, almost convinced me of its worth. Almost........!


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

It is an important musical document, a response to the Great Patriotic War (which followed suit from Myaskovsky's Twenty-Second). It is also a response to Stalinism and its brutality (which, taken into context, that coda of this fine work is among the most uplifting yet dignified in the history of music, in my estimation). Outside the historical context, it is also quite personal (examine the middle movements of that work, originally titled "Reminiscence" and "Home Expanses"). It is only in his Eighth that Shostakovich took the profundity and introspection to greater heights. There's nothing pretentious in the music.

The first movement alone is a masterpiece, but yes, this great Russian tends to meander in the succeeding movements. But outside the matter of structuralism and tightness of expression of ideas (or lack thereof), it is a major composition which has significance from a number of angles.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

It's awful. Bombastic, repetitious, pompous, LOUD, vulgar, and too long. It resonated with the Soviet people in that particular time and place, but whatever meaning it had has been lost now. So it must stand on its own musical value which is minimal. I've heard it enough, played it once, and it hold absolutely no interest to me anymore. The 8th, another of his "war symphonies" is a much better work, and the 10th even better.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I like the Leningrad Symphony. Yes. the march gets a bit repetitive in the first movement, as if in composing it, Shosty had a bit too much potato water in his system, but the ultimate climax that results is absolutely thrilling, in a frightening way! Bernstein/Chicago Symphony is my favorite performance and from that terrific recording, evidence has been provided that perhaps Leonard Bernstein would have had a much happier music directorship at the Chicago Synphony than he endured at the New York Philharmonic. The Chicago/Bernstein chemistry was there!

Even so, I rate the Leningrad Symphony behind Shostakovich's Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth-these are the Shostakovich symphonies I reach for most often.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I like to see this symphony spoken of with respect, even if one doesn’t like it. It’s by one of Russia’s greatest composers and it was tremendously important at one of the low points in Russian history. It’s extramusical associations are important and I think it’s a sin to judge it without viewing it in that context. 

Some want to bash this symphony as if WWll never happened, but it did, and it affected everything at the time, including Shostakovich and what he wrote. I find it impossible to hear the symphony outside of its extra-musical, cultural, and political considerations—somehow that seems built-in but not necessarily in an obvious or literal way.

The War associated with it should never be forgotten, and the symphony is a lasting reminder. There are too many who want to judge the value of this symphony from their ivory tower who have never experienced the personal devastation of disaster and almost total destruction of their homeland. That it was ever performed at all during a catastrophic winter is a miracle, and it left an indelible impression on the psyche of the Russian people as they were fighting off Hitler’s Germany out to annihilate them. It may not be a great symphony in the conventional sense, but it was an important one, and I believe it still is because it’s still performed. It’s shortcomings are just as meaningful as it strengths.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I understand your point but I think that most people will listen to a piece of music for its musical value to them and not consider (or, perhaps, even be aware of) any historical connotations it may have. For example, how many people who enjoy Orff's "Carmina Burana" stop to consider that it was the most significant classical composition produced in Nazi Germany? Would any of them be any less likely to listen to it if they became aware of this after not previously being so? Or do they just enjoy the music?


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

chill782002 said:


> I understand your point but I think that most people will listen to a piece of music for its musical value to them and not consider (or, perhaps, even be aware of) any historical connotations it may have. For example, how many people who enjoy Orff's "Carmina Burana" stop to consider that it was the most significant classical composition produced in Nazi Germany? Would any of them be any less likely to listen to it if they became aware of this after not previously being so? Or do they just enjoy the music?


You make a fair point, chill, though personally I cannot separate the Leningrad Symphony from its historical context. Just the thought of that piece crackling out of loudspeakers strung along the streets of besieged Leningrad, with a starving scratch orchestra bringing the piece to life ... it's difficult not to be impressed. As for the piece itself, yes it lacks the coherence of the 10th and the first movement can go on a bit. But I recall a broadcast performance a few years back conducted by Gergiev: it is the one and only time that I have responded to music with genuine, irrational fear. We expect our emotions to be stirred by music, but I have never before or since felt frightened by music.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I don't find the Leningrad very compelling and it did not reward repeat listening for me. This is probably because many other Shostakovich symphonies are so much better -- the 1st, 5th, 8th, 10th all masterpieces. Had he never written any of those perhaps I'd feel differently about the 7th.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Bartok, resentful of the neglect of his own music, parodied it cruelly in his Concerto for Orchestra.


From the wiki entry on no.7

*"... it is much more likely that Bartók (as his pianist friend György Sándor has said)[59] was, like Shostakovich, parodying the very popular Lehár theme directly. This view has been confirmed by Bartók's son Peter, in his book "My father": Bartók had respect and admiration for Shostakovich's works, and was mocking Lehár's music and behind it the Nazis."*

Hitler was an admirer of Austro-Hungarian composer Franz Lehar.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Found on the Internet:

"If one consults Benjamin Suchoff's 1995 book on this work (Bartók: Concerto for Orchestra - Understanding Bartók's World), one finds a good source for this assertion, viz. Antal Dorati who claimed Bartók told him that this theme was a caricature of the Leningrad Symphony, then enjoying more popularity than he felt it merited. The source is an article by Dorati in Tempo 136 (1981), p.12."

Unfortunately, I can find none of the source material referred to.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

Pat Fairlea said:


> You make a fair point, chill, though personally I cannot separate the Leningrad Symphony from its historical context. Just the thought of that piece crackling out of loudspeakers strung along the streets of besieged Leningrad, with a starving scratch orchestra bringing the piece to life ... it's difficult not to be impressed. As for the piece itself, yes it lacks the coherence of the 10th and the first movement can go on a bit. But I recall a broadcast performance a few years back conducted by Gergiev: it is the one and only time that I have responded to music with genuine, irrational fear. We expect our emotions to be stirred by music, but I have never before or since felt frightened by music.


The question of context is an interesting one. On the one hand, if I go back to my teenage years when I first started with classical music, I remember that I liked Bach before I knew how religious he was; liked Beethoven before I knew that his life was anguished; liked Wagner before I knew that he was a scoundrel and an anti-Semite; liked Tchaikovsky before I knew that he was gay; liked Shostakovich before I knew his situation living in the Soviet regime. On the other hand, knowing what I know now about the great composers has given me some insight into understanding their music, or has it?

Does knowing the context make the sounds we hear any more or less pleasing; or does knowing the context make us want to like the music any more or less? What psychological associations come to pass as a result of what feelings we want to find in the music?

Therein lies the paradox.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Pat Fairlea said:


> You make a fair point, chill, though personally I cannot separate the Leningrad Symphony from its historical context. Just the thought of that piece crackling out of loudspeakers strung along the streets of besieged Leningrad, with a starving scratch orchestra bringing the piece to life ... it's difficult not to be impressed. As for the piece itself, yes it lacks the coherence of the 10th and the first movement can go on a bit. But I recall a broadcast performance a few years back conducted by Gergiev: it is the one and only time that I have responded to music with genuine, irrational fear. We expect our emotions to be stirred by music, but I have never before or since felt frightened by music.


You also make a very fair point although I would argue that it is the context of that particular performance more than the piece itself that is moving.

I can think of other performances with similar historical parallels. Bruno Walter's performance of Mahler's 9th with the Wiener Philharmoniker in early 1938 shortly before the annexation of Austria and Vaclav Talich's performance of "Ma Vlast" with the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra in the summer of 1939, several months after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, where the audience spontaneously starts singing the Czech national anthem at the end both spring to mind. Also the late 1944 Gieseking / Rother performance of Beethoven's 5th ("Emperor") piano concerto where anti-aircraft fire can faintly be heard in the background during the quiet sections.

Nonetheless, these as well as the legendary 1942 performance of Shostakovich's 7th in Leningrad all illustrate the emotional importance of music to humans and its ability to provide them with some degree of comfort, however difficult the situations they may find themselves in. Maybe that is what music is really about.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Another paradox: Shostakovich's music may benefit more than most from ignoring its context. But, more than most, it's a very hard thing to do!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

I haven't listened to Shostakovich in some time, but imagine when I do, I'll be returning first to the Seventh, my favorite of his symphonic works. I particularly enjoy both its majestic and poignant elements, however more than any other composer, the mood just has to be right for me to settle in for a session with this composer. Other than the Seventh, my primary interest is in his Fourth for this genre.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

starthrower said:


> From the wiki entry on no.7
> 
> *"... it is much more likely that Bartók (as his pianist friend György Sándor has said)[59] was, like Shostakovich, parodying the very popular Lehár theme directly. This view has been confirmed by Bartók's son Peter, in his book "My father": Bartók had respect and admiration for Shostakovich's works, and was mocking Lehár's music and behind it the Nazis."*
> 
> Hitler was an admirer of Austro-Hungarian composer Franz Lehar.


It is absurdly unlikely Bartok was parodying the Lehar theme of his own accord without reference to the Shostakovich. There is, however, an interpretation between that of Sandor and the one Ken cites (#25), a way to have it both ways: Bartok was quoting the Shostakovich intentionally but laughing with him rather than at him, because he got the allusion and found it grimly funny.

Anyone have access to the Suchoff book to check?


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Well there was St Petersburg before Leningrad and there is St Petersburg after Leningrad, but the Leningrad Symphony shows a bleakness and hollow emptiness by means of mindless repetition that is indeed making me respond to this work. This is Leningrad, not St Petersburg. Conductors like Mravinsky and Rozhdestvensky I prefer, because of the a-heroic interpretation they offer, accentuating the war like a desert of inhumanity. In Tsarskoje Selo the Nazi's destroyed the Summer Palace almost completely. When you look at the present rebuild of this palace, with all its glamour & splendour, you will sooner or later notice that it is fake, just like the remake of a Hollywood movie. Suddenly that moment of sorrow for what is lost for ever overwhelms me, and it that sorrow that Shostakovich's 7th relates to me.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Judith said:


> Love it. Watched a documentary on TV about it once and it was so interesting but then again, an interesting symphony.


I saw the documentary too. Rather more interesting than the actual symphony which is vastly too extended for its subject material imo


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> It is absurdly unlikely Bartok was parodying the Lehar theme of his own accord without reference to the Shostakovich. There is, however, an interpretation between that of Sandor and the one Ken cites (#25), a way to have it both ways: Bartok was quoting the Shostakovich intentionally but laughing with him rather than at him, because he got the allusion and found it grimly funny.
> 
> Anyone have access to the Suchoff book to check?


Amazon has the Suchoff book, but there's no "Look inside" feature.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

chill782002 said:


> I understand your point but I think that most people will listen to a piece of music for its musical value to them and not consider (or, perhaps, even be aware of) any historical connotations it may have. For example, how many people who enjoy Orff's "Carmina Burana" stop to consider that it was the most significant classical composition produced in Nazi Germany? Would any of them be any less likely to listen to it if they became aware of this after not previously being so? Or do they just enjoy the music?


 I understand your point. Carmina Burana was a highly popular and praised work in Nazi Germany and it has survived its association with the Nazis. I like it myself. But I wouldn't put it in the same league as the Leningrad Symphony as far as what it meant to the Russian people during a time of great peril compared to what Camina Burana meant to the survival of Germany during the War.

Orff's may be a more popular work but I doubt if it's a more important one historically. I believe the association of the Leningrad Symphony with that catastrophic war should never be forgotten, and I doubt if it will, regardless of its shortcomings according to its critics who may simply want to enjoy it like any other symphony written at the time of peace and have never experienced the horrors of the War as if it never happened. Well, it did happen and I believe the timing and context of that symphony are just as important as the merits of the Symphony itself, and it will never be disassociated from those terrible events. The War was that bad and the Symphony couldn't have come along at a better time as an inspiration in Russia and the rest of the world. I think Shostakovich cared very much about his own people and it was more than a piece of propaganda.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> I understand your point. Carmina Burana was a highly popular and praised work in Nazi Germany and it has survived its association with the Nazis. I like it myself. But I wouldn't put it in the same league as the Leningrad Symphony as far as what it meant to the Russian people during a time of the War compared to what Camina Burana meant to the survival of Germany during the War. Orff's may be a more popular work but I doubt if it's a more important one historically. I believe the association of the Leningrad Symphony with that catastrophic war should never be forgotten, and I doubt if it will, regardless of its merits by those who have never experienced the horrors of war as if it never happened. Well, it did happen and the timing and context of that symphony is just as important as the symphony itself, in my view.


"Carmina Burana" was very popular in Germany before the war but only one recording of it from the war years exists and that is only certain parts of it (1944 / Schmidt-Isserstedt / Philharmonisches Staatsorchester Hamburg). In fact, I believe that is the earliest performance that was captured. The recorded evidence would suggest that in the final crisis at the end of war in 1944 / 1945, the Germans derived more comfort from Beethoven, Brahms and Bruckner than they did from Orff. So in that sense you are correct about the relative historical significance of Shostakovich's 7th. The war was a tragedy for all involved.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I like the Leningrad Symphony. Yes. It gets a bit repetitive in the first movement, but the ultimate climax that results is absolutely thrilling. Bernstein/Chicago Symphony is my favorite performance and from that terrific recording, evidence has been provided that perhaps Leonard Bernstein would have had a much happier music directorship at the Chicago Synphony than he endured at the New York Philharmonic. The Chicago/Bernstein chemistry was there!
> 
> Even so, I rate the Leningrad Symphony behind Shostakovich's Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth-these are the Shostakovich symphonies I reach for most often.


That quote pretty much sums up my view as well.
I used to dislike it, after hearing a touring Soviet Orchestra play it when I was an Undergraduate, writing it off as Soviet agitprop. After I explored the rest of the Composer's output I returned to the Leningrad and began to see it in a different light. I think the whole work is a powerful critique of Totalitarianism, and I also think it owes a lot to Mahler 6


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Incredibly moving documentary.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Amazon has the Suchoff book, but there's no "Look inside" feature.


Silly me! I imagined someone accustomed to the inside of a library might happen by.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Silly me! I imagined someone accustomed to the inside of a library might happen by.


Yer a few years late on that one, matey! Even my kids, who are now middle aged, avoided the school library and stole their homework assignments from the Internet, mostly Encarta in those days.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

It is passing strange that this symphony has become the best-known of the fifteen Shostakovich composed. Its wartime origin and the publicity around its first American performance is certainly one of the main factors, but several modern novelists have made an important contribution by depicting this work. I think that the ambiguity I feel about this work has been stimulated by these extra-musical associations. Then actually attending a live performance with all the additional brass in the last movement helps also - I heard Petrenko's version in Liverpool before the Naxos CD was issued, and momentarily put it further up my list of Shostakovich symphonies. But in retrospect it is really in the lower third of his output, but ahead of the Third (a truly formless symphony), the Second and the 12th.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Incredibly moving documentary.


Yes, it was. Thanks for sharing. Very terrifying in a couple of shots, too. Can you imagine anything like this happening every again? What I mean is a public actually caring about hearing symphonic music no matter what? A leader (good or bad) actually knowing or paying attention to a composer? Orchestral music being so influential? Never again. Now, when something bad happens we turn to pop stars. Never again will a classical composer (and probably conductor) ever appear on the cover of Time magazine. That video should be shown in US high school history classes. Today's kids haven't a clue about the horrors, sacrifices and struggles previous generations went through.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mbhaub said:


> Yes, it was. Thanks for sharing. Very terrifying in a couple of shots, too. Can you imagine anything like this happening every again? What I mean is a public actually caring about hearing symphonic music no matter what? A leader (good or bad) actually knowing or paying attention to a composer? Orchestral music being so influential? Never again. Now, when something bad happens we turn to pop stars. Never again will a classical composer (and probably conductor) ever appear on the cover of Time magazine. That video should be shown in US high school history classes. Today's kids haven't a clue about the horrors, sacrifices and struggles previous generations went through.


iirc Copland's _Lincoln Portrait_ was removed from the concert celebrating Eisenhower's first inaugural because of concerns about the composer's political views. I don't know if Ike was involved in that decision, though.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I really like it. I like it as a work to listen to, and I've been lucky enough to perform it a few times as well. It's huge work, a big symphony in the scale of Mahler's biggest efforts...yes - lots of loud climaxes, huge sonorities, but there are also many wonderful chamber-music-scale passages as well...powerful work...Bernstein/CSO is a great performance....nothing like it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> iirc Copland's _Lincoln Portrait_ was removed from the concert celebrating Eisenhower's first inaugural because of concerns about the composer's political views. I don't know if Ike was involved in that decision, though.


With people like the Dulles brothers and Nixon in his administration, there was plenty of communist/Jew paranoia to go around.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

A great symphony of the 20th century. I honestly don't understand how can someone not stand it, the 2 last movements alone would be enough to call it a masterpiece. Bernstein's recording with the CSO is all one needs as the definitive version of this work.


----------

