# Dmitri Shostakovich



## Rachovsky

Here is the first of our Composer Guestbooks.

Dmitri Shostakovich was quite the interesting man, so hopefully this will be an interesting one.

As I may have stated before, I'm going to see his Symphony No. 14 in March in London.
I've never been to a live performance and I might be going alone. I'm only 16, so does anyone have some suggestions? Some etiquette or anything?

Anyways, lets hear it. What do you find interesting about Shostakovich? He outlived Joseph Stalin by a few decades, unlike poor Prokofiev who only lived one day after Stalin died.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almost two-dozen people expressed their opinions regarding Shostakovich symphonies in this poll.

I know he has works of some dodgy quality (Symphonies 2, 3 and 12, _Song of the Forest_, et al...) but-- who else seriously contends for the title "greatest symphonist to have composed exclusively in the 20th century?"


----------



## Ephemerid

I LOVE his *Symphony No. 10*-- the mournful 1st movement (which is not mourning the death of Stalin but rather his life), the terrifying and violent 2nd movement, the tentative waltz of the 3rd movement which grows bolder (and angrier?), and the hilarious, mocking and triumphant finale, the big F*** YOU of the huge D-S-C-H near the end (being directed I think, to Stalin, who made his life, and millions of others, a hell on earth)-- that hilarious bassoon melody, the funny dotted rhythm and one solo instrument is caught "off key" and out of step with the others-- there's a sense of relief almost as if to say "Ding, dong, the witch is dead!" But the first movement is the best-- a monumental and tragic work.

And his *8th quartet*, which is one of the saddest pieces of music ever written, though it has its moments of black humour as well (the odd long sustained notes in the third movement, as if there is a glitch in the bureaucratic machinery) and a truly demonic waltz. Its a very bleak piece. I would LOVE to see this piece performed live, though I am truly afraid of how I might react to this piece (listening to this piece is almost TOO intense for me emotionally).

And the fun and delightful *Piano Concerto No. 2 *was the first piece of his I ever heard-- gosh, I must've been fourteen? fifteen? The second movement just pulls on the heartstrings so much!

I used to have the Rubio Quartet's recording of all 15 of his 4tets, which sadly, I no longer own. The very atonal *13th quartet *is really great-- all in one movement, very anguished and the high piercing ending is such a shock and leaves me in tears.

Shostakovich is defintely one of my favourites, though I have much much more of him to explore (I've heard other pieces of his, such as his cello concerto & others, but I haven't given those pieces a more thorough listening).


----------



## EricIsAPolarBear

I just got the complete symphonies of Shostakovich with Mtislav Rostropovich, I haven't listened to most of them yet, but as of now my personal favourite is number 5. Does anybody have any opinions on this set as I have not yet gotten into it. 

Ditto on the second piano concerto.


----------



## Rondo

I _love_ his 11th, though his 10th is a close second. Someone else here mentioned something about the 11th a while back-- can't recall who.

Another which cannot be omitted is the 15th...very unique and interesting compared to the others.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Rachovsky said:


> Here is the first of our Composer Guestbooks.
> 
> Dmitri Shostakovich was quite the interesting man, so hopefully this will be an interesting one.
> 
> As I may have stated before, I'm going to see his Symphony No. 14 in March in London.
> I've never been to a live performance and I might be going alone. I'm only 16, so does anyone have some suggestions? Some etiquette or anything?
> 
> Anyways, lets hear it. What do you find interesting about Shostakovich? He outlived Joseph Stalin by a few decades, unlike poor Prokofiev who only lived one day after Stalin died.


Nice! Good to see another teenager on here- I'm 17.

As for etiquette, dress nicely and only clap at the end of the symphony, not between movements. Other than that, enjoy the show!


----------



## Rachovsky

I downloaded his Festive Overture, Op. 96 today and its a nice change from his usual revolutionary themed music. 
I also listened to Movement 2 of Symphony No. 10 and it is so unique and exhilarating. Haven't listened to any other movements of it. No money right now to buy on iTunes, none on Youtube, and Limewire doesn't have any, lol.

I'll go through some more later.


----------



## Cyclops

There something about his Symphonies I really like!Can't put my finger on it! I'm currently listening to his Symphony #10,(Eugene Ormandy's,Philadelphia Orchestra. )
Stirring stuff!


----------



## Edward Elgar

I think his symphonies have a unique raw Russian quality about them. The harmonies he uses are different from anyone elses and his music stronly suggests he's trying to tell us something about the political climate he lived through. 

That's why I like his music!


----------



## Cyclops

Now I hate politics,nothing could bore me more yet I love his music! Well actually I love russian composers,the grand russian sound they give,the power. I think Prokofiev is very similar but I'm not familiar with his symphonies yet.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> think his symphonies have a unique raw Russian quality about them. The harmonies he uses are different from anyone elses and his music stronly suggests he's trying to tell us something about the political climate he lived through.
> 
> That's why I like his music!


There is absolutely no evidence of that. His son (who was trying to make money out of his fathers music) told us certain things so that Dmitri's music would appease to anti-communist US (etc.). Some guy who possibly never met him is the holy grail of evidence that you use to _prove_ that Dmitri hated Stalin. On the same line, how stupid would Dmitri have to be to tell someone he's rarely or only once met all his anti regime secrets? And what a waste of money and effort by Stalin to actually round up composers... no government would do that. The hole issue is US propaganda influenced. Every aspect of his music considered anti-Stalin could be taken either way.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

Maybe you should re-read what he said..


> he's trying to tell us something about the political climate he lived through.


 Where is the mention of the fact he hated Stalin.. ok so I believe he did, and certain things in his music I would use as evidence.. but that is my opinion. And he has never claimed these things you accuse him of.


----------



## Artemis

In my estimation, Shostakovich was the last great composer (he died after Prokofiev, Stravinsky and Ralph Vaughan Williams). Personally, some of Shostakovich's music appeals quite a lot but some doesn't.

It is certainly true that his music was always under suspicion by the Soviet authorities, and it was criticised heavily at one stage in the pre-War era. Whether or not he later adjusted it in order to gain favour with the Soviet Authorities is not clear. At any rate, I've always found it odd that anyone should profess to like Shostakovich's music all the more because of the way it is alleged to poke fun at the Soviet regime, or by virtue of any adjustment he had to make in order to gain political acceptance. I just listen to the music and couldn't care less what may have motivated it in terms of the political background.

For a summary of Shostakovich's life and music (and more information on the political aspects), this is useful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12736785


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Where is the mention of the fact he hated Stalin.. ok so I believe he did, and certain things in his music I would use as evidence.. but that is my opinion. And he has never claimed these things you accuse him of.


Yeh... okay.... and what is this political climate? Oh yes, what I was talking about.


----------



## oisfetz

Everybody hated Stalin. Including Stalin himself.


----------



## Cyclops

Edward Elgar above never even mentioned Stalin! I have no idea who Stalin is politically or what the difference between him and Lenin, i dont care, I like Shostakovich's music regardelss of the politics involved!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I don't care what you think, this started off with you defending Elgar, and suddenly it is you that meatters? He mentioned politics in Shostakovitch's music, well, there is only one theorized (z or s?) political aspect of Shosta's music. Since he mentioned it, there is no need for him to mention Stalin, because inherent in what he said IS stalin.

Jeez what's your point exactly?


----------



## Cyclops

Yagan Kiely said:


> I don't care what you think, this started off with you defending Elgar, and suddenly it is you that meatters? He mentioned politics in Shostakovitch's music, well, there is only one theorized (z or s?) political aspect of Shosta's music. Since he mentioned it, there is no need for him to mention Stalin, because inherent in what he said IS stalin.
> 
> Jeez what's your point exactly?


Excuse me?? _I_ started this off with me defending Elgar? How'd you work that one out?
Jeez whats my point?, well I wasnt making one,just saying that ITS THE MUSIC THATS IMPORTANT! Thats all I care about,not politics!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Good'o. Why did you defend Elgar then?


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> Good'o. Why did you defend Elgar then?


He didn't, as is perfectly clear.

Nor did Edward Elgar say anything that needs defending. You made all manner of highly dubious inferences about his perfectly innocuous statement.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I'm glad to see my relatively small post has caused so much controversy!

May I add fuel to the fire?

When I listen to Shozzy's music, I instantly relate it to the Soviet regime (this is probably a rare psychological disease - could someone please recomend a suitable psychotherapist?) All music is made up of a collection of many factors, one of the most common being the social/political climate. 

At the end of the day, we will never truly know exactly what was going through his mind when he wrote his compositions, but I like to think he put some of his disgust for this ridiculous regime into his music.


----------



## Cyclops

Artemis said:


> He didn't, as is perfectly clear.
> 
> Nor did Edward Elgar say anything that needs defending. You made all manner of highly dubious inferences about his perfectly innocuous statement.


Thank you,sums it up nicely!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I suppose it means (for example) that by proving the existance of a god, you also disprove the absence of a god, and that if you prove "humans can walk on the sun" you disprove "humans can not walk on the sun".

Which of course would mean that according to Yagan Kiely's rendition of Gödel's theorem you also can't prove anything (since a prove is equivalent to the disprove of its negative).



> Maybe you should re-read what he said..
> Where is the mention of the fact he hated Stalin.. ok so I believe he did, and certain things in his music I would use as evidence.. but that is my opinion. And he has never claimed these things you accuse him of.


What was that? Were defending Elgar's statement by saying he didn't say what I said he said?



> Nor did Edward Elgar say anything that needs defending. You made all manner of highly dubious inferences about his perfectly innocuous statement.


I know it doesn't need defending, it is a statement that needs to be attacked. And as which is proved in his most recent post, my "inferences" were correct as to what he meant by "political".



> When I listen to Shozzy's music, I instantly relate it to the Soviet regime (this is probably a rare psychological disease - could someone please recomend a suitable psychotherapist?) All music is made up of a collection of many factors, one of the most common being the social/political climate.
> 
> At the end of the day, we will never truly know exactly what was going through his mind when he wrote his compositions, but I like to think he put some of his disgust for this ridiculous regime into his music.


I don't see any reason in believing something that has no evidence. If you want to that's fine. I'm merely addressing the point that there are illogical arguments and inconclusive and/or unsubstantiated evidence to corroborate the excepted maxim of his political motivations.


----------



## Cyclops

For gods sake is it worth arguing over something so meaningless? Bloody hell just enjoy the music!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I do. And it isn't meaningless. Maybe you prefer being indifferent or ignorant to everything relating to the music, but I am not, neither are most serious listeners.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Edward Elgar said:


> ... his music strongly suggests he's trying to tell us something about the political climate he lived through.


I'll come out in defense of this statement- and amplify it. Sometimes, he's not merely "trying to" tell us something about the political climate he lived through, sometimes he speaks directly to the political climate he lived through. Maybe I disagree with you more than I agree with you, _Edoo_, but I'll back you on this one.

Submitted for your consideration... the final movement of the _Babi Yar_ symphony.


----------



## Artemis

Yagan Kiely said:


> I don't see any reason in believing something that has no evidence. If you want to that's fine. I'm merely addressing the point that there are illogical arguments and inconclusive and/or unsubstantiated evidence to corroborate the excepted maxim of his political motivations.


I agree that it is not settled doctrine that Shostakovich was trying to tell us something about the political climate he lived through in his music. Most parties to that debate, however, agree that Shostakovich disliked the Soviet regime but that he reluctantly had to put up with it. Whether or not this led to any tangible protest in his music is debateable. Edward Elgar's view that it did lead to protest is not silly or in any way completely unjustified, as you seem to allege, as it has support from various academics, musicians and former friends/family of Shostakovich.

That Stalin was a hateful character is undeniable and in all probability most ordinary Soviet folk hated him, including Shostakovich. It is well documented that Shostakovich was not best pleased about the severe criticism he faced in the 1936 Pravda articles, and some musicologists have detected a change in style after that date. In this sense at least, his music was possibly affected by the regime under which he had to work.


----------



## Edward Elgar

My god! I love this forum!

Yes I'm ignorant! And proud of it!

If I could choose infinate knowledge or absolute love of music, I would choose the later!


----------



## SamGuss

On my list to buy this month is: An Introduction to Dmitri Shostakovich

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=140043

This includes:

Symphony #5
"Tea for Two"
Festive Overture
Concerto for Piano #2

Any thoughts on this particular recording? Any thoughts on other works that might be considered better?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Cyclops

Yagan Kiely said:


> I do. And it isn't meaningless. Maybe you prefer being indifferent or ignorant to everything relating to the music, but I am not, neither are most serious listeners.


No,I prefer to be ignorant of pointless waffling on and arguemongering of the sort you insist on doing. I care about the music,not the political climate of the time. Its what comes out of my speakers that interests me! And don't you dare imply I'm not a serious music listener!


----------



## Edward Elgar

Cyclops said:


> No,I prefer to be ignorant of pointless waffling on and arguemongering of the sort you insist on doing. I care about the music,not the political climate of the time. Its what comes out of my speakers that interests me! And don't you dare imply I'm not a serious music listener!


I am of completly the same mindset.

We all have to be pretty serious listeners to post on this thread! Wowa wiwa!


----------



## Artemis

Cyclops said:


> No,I prefer to be ignorant of pointless waffling on and arguemongering of the sort you insist on doing. I care about the music,not the political climate of the time. Its what comes out of my speakers that interests me! And don't you dare imply I'm not a serious music listener!


I certainly agree with you about pointless waffling on and argument mongering.

That aside, I prefer to be as informed as I possibly can be on all aspects of the composer's life and times. I am particularly interested in all the main Classical and Romantic composers from Haydn through to Brahms. I find that by understanding their social background, and the kind of lives they led, gives me an extra feel for their music. I admit that for many years, none of this seemed important, but after a while, once I had discovered those composers whose work I really admired, I wanted to know more about them.

Especially if anyone intends to spend time on classical music message Boards, I think it is as well to acquire some knowledge about these historical issues, since topics like those above quite frequently crop up. Even if one does not wish to participate, it is useful to know what others are talking about. For example, it is as well to know that the one great composer whose work remains controversial in respect of how it may have been subject to political influence/parody is Shostakovich. In addition, it is worth being aware that Wagner is the great composer whose works themselves are sometimes subject to heated debate in terms of whether or not they contain any covert anti-Semitic subtext.

All sorts of other purely historical issues come up on Boards frequently. One infamous one is the matter of alleged fakery by Haydn and Mozart. This topic had become such a hot potato on some Boards that the subject itself as well as the chief proponent was banned. It still rumbles on one Board. Another old chestnut which often comes up (but which is of much more minor importance) is whether or not Beethoven and Mozart ever met each other. Another is whether Beethoven and Schubert met. Did Schubert know he was dying and did it affect the type of music he wrote? Was Schumann compus mentis when he wrote some of later works? Is it true that Liszt was the best pianist ever, and why was he both liked and disliked intensely according to audience. Why did Brahms concentrate in later life on small-scale piano works? Of all the composers who died young which caused the biggest loss to music? Is there any correlation between a composer's psychological outlook and the type of music they wrote, e.g. it's been said that Janacek looked miserable and wrote miserable music.

The list of such issues is almost endless, and these are mere examples. None of this to suggest that knowledge of such matters is in any way necessary to appreciate the music. It comes in usefully when occasional know-alls turn up laying down the law on some topic they reckon they know, but in fact do not.


----------



## Rmac58

Not a fan of politics myself, yet the surrounding atmosphere has a definite bearing, especially if your future is on the line!
I'm a fan of Shostokovich, among others.


----------



## Kezza

I recently discovered Shosta and I must I'm very impressed.
So far I've only listened to about 5 (1,2,5,8 and 15) of his symphonies and some concertos and I absolutely love em.

My fave is the 3rd movement of his 8th symphony the low strings and the big brassy sound. So powerful I love it!


----------



## Lisztfreak

Cyclops said:


> I have no idea who Stalin is politically or what the difference between him and Lenin, i dont care...


Sorry to say this, but that's very sad.



Cyclops said:


> I care about the music,not the political climate of the time. Its what comes out of my speakers that interests me!


You simply cannot separate those. You just can't.



> And don't you dare imply I'm not a serious music listener!


That's a matter of debate...


----------



## Lisztfreak

Artemis said:


> Is there any correlation between a composer's psychological outlook and the type of music they wrote, e.g. it's been said that Janacek looked miserable and wrote miserable music.


Janáček and his music miserable? First time I hear something like that...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> You simply cannot separate those. You just can't.


You might find "LYDIA GOEHR - Political Music and the Politics of Music" interesting. It mentions a marxist view that if art is apolitical or autonomous, then it is inherently political as being apolitical is a political stance.



> Edward Elgar's view that it did lead to protest is not silly or in any way completely unjustified, as you seem to allege, as it has support from various academics, musicians and former friends/family of Shostakovich.


Support from Shostakovich's family can be justified by trying to make money out of Dmitri's amazing output in the anticommunist USA. And there still is a huge outpooring of anticommunist Russia. I am not defending Russia, while I will say that Russia was far from communist. It is unjustified. The "evidence" is so tenuous and thin that it just not hold up credibly. Yes it can't be thrown out, but to hold it as evidence that it certainly happened _is_ silly.



> That Stalin was a hateful character is undeniable and in all probability most ordinary Soviet folk hated him, including Shostakovich. It is well documented that Shostakovich was not best pleased about the severe criticism he faced in the 1936 Pravda articles, and some musicologists have detected a change in style after that date. In this sense at least, his music was possibly affected by the regime under which he had to work.


Indeed. What I also find interesting is that there is so many attacks on the USSR's "oppression", yet US oppression is unmentioned - Hanns Eisler.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Yagan Kiely said:


> What I also find interesting is that there is so many attacks on the USSR's "oppression", yet US oppression is unmentioned - Hanns Eisler.


Stalin's "Blood Purge" body count has been estimated at c. 30 million. I think that is sufficient to remove the quotation marks from around the work _oppression_. The reason why no one (other than you) has yet opined on their politico-philosophical stance on America here is that no one else (other than you) perceives it to have any relevance on a Shostakovich appreciation thread.

As an interesting historical aside, did you know that, during WWII, the MS version of _Symphony #5_ by Shostakovich's countryman Prokofiev was written on staff paper that came to the Soviet Union by way of the Port of Boston?!

American oppression... _please_.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Stalin's "Blood Purge" body count has been estimated at c. 30 million. I think that is sufficient to remove the quotation marks from around the work _oppression_. The reason why no one (other than you) has yet opined on their politico-philosophical stance on America here is that no one else (other than you) perceives it to have any relevance on a Shostakovich appreciation thread.


You cannot separate politics from art.

Stalin's Blood Purge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_purge get your info right.

And the 30 million includes deaths from war and famine FYI.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Yagan Kiely said:


> Stalin's Blood Purge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_purge get your info right.
> 
> And the 30 million includes deaths from war and famine FYI.


Do not resort to Wikipedia as a safe reference. It is no doubt a very good project, but for such matters as are numbers and various interpretations of disputable ''facts'', I wouldn't trust it. Remember that anyone can add whatever one likes. And the administrators cannot see everything.
And also, I think Stalin's negativity and his role of one of the greatest criminals in the history of man is beyond debate. Milions of Russians (and not only Russians) have testified it. And the famine? Well, why such a famine at all? It was in greater part Stalin's guilt, wasn't it, with his industrialisation and economic revolution.



Chi_town/Philly said:


> American oppression... _please_.


That said, I want to make it clear that USA certainly did its best to opress as much as possible. US politics were always somewhat annoying. Take Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait and Iraq, for example.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I apologize to our Gentle Readers (does this turn of phrase wound familiar, *Sam?) *for our digression.


Yagan Kiely said:


> You cannot separate politics from art.


I understand this... but in order for _your_ politics to be relevant in a Shostakovich appreciation thread, it is necessary to show how _your_ support of them is pertinent to your appreciation of Shostakovich. If you find yourself unable to make the appropriate ties, *please* limit the advocacy of your pre-determined positions (and the proselytism for atheism, too), to the "Members Chat" section.

As for me, I've enjoyed Shostakovich symphonies from my time as a high-schooler. I probably have less that 20 study scores, total... but two of them are *Symphony #5* and *Symphony #10*. Shostakovich is not exceeded by any other compositional master by his ability to his ability to pen master-works, and survive, under the heavy boot of a totalitarian government. History may not see a like achievement ever again.

There. An *ON-TOPIC* paragraph. Your turn.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> There. An *ON-TOPIC* paragraph.


Everything I have been saying IS on topic as it is directly related to Shostakovich.



> Do not resort to Wikipedia as a safe reference. It is no doubt a very good project, but for such matters as are numbers and various interpretations of disputable ''facts'', I wouldn't trust it. Remember that anyone can add whatever one likes. And the administrators cannot see everything.


Don't use that pathetic excuse, Wikipedia is 98% as accurate as Britannica except IT gets fixed quickly, Britannica has to wait until the next Print.


> And also, I think Stalin's negativity and his role of one of the greatest criminals in the history of man is beyond debate. Milions of Russians (and not only Russians) have testified it. And the famine? Well, why such a famine at all? It was in greater part Stalin's guilt, wasn't it, with his industrialisation and economic revolution.


Clearly you didn't even read it. You saw it was Wikipedia and ignored it. The "Blood Purge" isn't Stalin. I was using it as a reference to common knowledge.



> And the famine? Well, why such a famine at all? It was in greater part Stalin's guilt, wasn't it, with his industrialisation and economic revolution.


Well, there are natural aspects to take into account, and international influence. Yes it was a negligent decision, but it isn't Murder. Manslaughter at most. But even at that you have to ignore the rest of the causes.



> Milions of Russians


Millions? lol



> I understand this... but in order for _your_ politics to be relevant in a Shostakovich appreciation thread, it is necessary to show how _your_ support of them is pertinent to your appreciation of Shostakovich. If you find yourself unable to make the appropriate ties, *please* limit the advocacy of your pre-determined positions (and the proselytism for atheism, too), to the "Members Chat" section.


It is actually stupendously obvious the connection. Shostakovich's music is accused of being Anti-communist. There are accounts of his supposed life that are unverified and very questionable. These anti-communist accusation come from anti-communists as Propaganda for Shostakovich's music to be popular in the west. If the truth about Shostakovich's political life and the country he lived and worked and reacted to isn't to do with Shostakovich, what the hell is?



> American oppression... _please_.


So the fact that the US arrested and deported people based on Political views _isn't_ oppression? Where planet are you on?



> Shostakovich is not exceeded by any other compositional master by his ability to his ability to pen master-works, and survive, under the heavy boot of a totalitarian government. History may not see a like achievement ever again.


Heavy boot? Why add this little tid bit of propaganda? It serves no purpose.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

At this point, I think I'll just let the Gentle Readers judge for themselves which one of us can be more accurately described as a propagandist.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Yes it is propaganda, because propaganda does not need to be untruthful, nor is it negative.

The difference between the "political side" (for lack of a better word... or words as it were) is that my "side" has no money or power (etc.) to gain from being right or lose from being wrong, the other side as everything to lose from if it is found that I am correct.


----------



## Lisztfreak

(Hell, I may be a Marxist, but a Stalinist I luckily ain't...  )


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Lisztfreak said:


> (Hell, I may be a Marxist, but a Stalinist I luckily ain't...  )


Thanks! Good time for a belly-laugh! Yeah, I pretty much figured out that orientation myself... or (to paraphrase part of Churchill's famous epigram), you're under 25 and you have a heart.


Yagan Kiely said:


> ... propaganda does not need to be untruthful, nor is it negative.


I believe, however, that we have to concede that over the last century or so, the word "propaganda" has accumulated some baggage that doesn't easily fit into our overhead compartment. 
I'll tell you what... it's luggage that _I_ wouldn't want to haul around the airport.


----------



## Rondo

Chi_town/Philly said:


> I believe, however, that we have to concede that over the last century or so, the word "propaganda" has accumulated some baggage that doesn't easily fit into our overhead compartment.
> I'll tell you what... it's luggage that _I_ wouldn't want to haul around the airport.


It's actually changed a bit. The more "PC" eek: ) term is "advertising." Of course, more to your point, I'm sure what the Catholic church had in mind centuries ago is veeeeeerrry far removed from many of its subsequent uses (ie...totalitarian regimes). Hence, the extra baggage the word holds.


----------



## World Violist

I've been getting a lot into Shostakovich lately; I became addicted to the first cello concerto, and I've been finding Youtube video after Youtube video of Shostakovich symphonies.

I'll be ordering the complete string quartets soon, I think, and I'm wondering where the best place to start is. It's certainly very daunting stuff; they're practically all masterpieces, all written post-fifth symphony, aren't they?


----------



## Zombo

try the quartet no. 8, anything with the DSCH motif has got to be good.


----------



## kiwipolish

Lisztfreak said:


> (Hell, I may be a Marxist, but a Stalinist I luckily ain't...  )


I am a Shostakovist! I absolutely love his music.

Mind you, I shouldn't, because I was born in Warsaw, and most of my ancestors have suffered from communist oppression, whereas Shostakovich's music glorifies communism.

Or does it?

No, precisely not. This is the great strength of Shostakovich. He had always managed to compose music that sounded in line with the Party's policy, but which carried a hidden message, that of showing the sad truth. He managed to express sad joy, or joyful sadness!

When you listen to Shostakovich, it's a good idea to watch one of these pictures, all exuberant, glorious, ugly, so ugly that they are beautiful:

1) Stalinian gothic architecture:



2) A Volga - the regular taxi and government car in the Soviet Union in the 1960ies:



3) A typical sculpture found at all street corners in the Soviet Union:


----------



## World Violist

Thanks Zombo! That's got quite a viola solo in it too, hasn't it?

I wonder if anyone is familiar with Bernard Haitink's symphony cycle? It seems really good so far; I have the 5th and 9th symphonies.


----------



## Moldyoldie

World Violist said:


> I wonder if anyone is familiar with Bernard Haitink's symphony cycle? It seems really good so far; I have the 5th and 9th symphonies.


I've not heard Haitink's 5th and 9th, but can certainly recommend his take on my personal favorite, the 8th. Even so, I prefer Mravinsky on Philips and Previn on EMI as superior interpretations.

A conductor not often mentioned in these discussions is Kurt Sanderling. I've found his Shostakovich to be quite outstanding, especially his 10th with the Berlin Symphony (f. East Berlin) and 15th, either with Berlin or Cleveland.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 5th conducted by Rostropovich on either DG or Teldec is a "must hear", especially the finale!


----------



## phoenixshade

*5th, 7th, and Stalin*

OK, I'm coming in late to this discussion, but as Shostakovich's output in the Soviet Union of Stalin is a fascinating subject to me, I feel I must add my own opinions.

In my own listening, I have found that the political climate surrounding the symphonies is not only helpful, but is *vital* in understanding them. In the end of the fifth, for example, how can anyone fail to recognize the oppressive nature of the repeated high A's over the "triumphal" brass theme? One of the most apt observations I've read on this passage comes from Rostropovich, who said, "Stretched on the rack of the inquisition, the victim still tries to smile in his pain. Anyone who thinks the finale is glorification is an idiot." It seems so obvious that it's a wonder Shostakovich himself didn't fall victim to the Great Purge. Despite one poster's insistance that this interpretation of the fifth is somehow "western propaganda," it seems on the contrary self-evident to me. (Note to that individual: Since you're so keen on using Wikipedia to correct people's facts, I suggest you go there yourself. Hypocrisy isn't pretty.)

Likewise how can the seventh be separated from the seige of Leningrad? Without it, some parts of it seem decidedly "anti-musical," but by placing it in its historical context, it comes into focus: The first movement depicts a city preparing for the siege in its opening theme, followed by the famous repetitive "war-machine" theme- one can almost envision the advancing Finnish and German armies approaching the city, rolling over the countryside. The second movement invokes sketches of life within the city during the early part of the seige. For me it evokes imagery of children, still oblivious to their peril, while their elders await relief that isn't forthcoming. By the end of the movement, even the playful first theme has evolved into a much darker entity, foreshadowing images of famine and starvation in the third movement, where the faint echo of the opening theme is a glimmer of hope amid the stark reality... the city is still able to resist, but perhaps not for much longer. The final movement seems to depict a winter arriving on a city that is ill-prepared for it, but a winter that brings with it a hope for the end of the seige, in the form of the "Road of Life" over the now-frozen Lake Ladoga- supplies could get in and civilians could get out. In the finale, like in the fifth, there is a repetitive, oppressive phrase over a variation on the opening theme- the city will survive, but under a stifling regime.

Of course, the above is merely my opinion and rather amateurish interpretation. I'm always open to the possibility that I could be wrong.


----------



## Atabey

Lisztfreak said:


> You simply cannot separate those. You just can't.


You can,you simply can.
Show any references to politics in Mahler's music...
I guess you blame Furtwangler for not leaving Germany...


----------



## World Violist

Atabey said:


> You can,you simply can.
> Show any references to politics in Mahler's music...
> I guess you blame Furtwangler for not leaving Germany...


I think maybe what Lisztfreak is speaking of is that Shostakovich was writing his music as it was purely because of the political climate. There is the quote by Shostakovich about the end of his Fifth symphony about being stretched out on a rack and being beaten while being told "Your business is to rejoice, your business is to rejoice," and the tormented one staggers away, mumbling, "Our business is to rejoice, our business is to rejoice." The political climate can't always be separated from Shostakovich's works because they spoke out primarily for the oppressed people. However, the message in itself becomes completely universal in that regard as it resonates in so many others' hearts and minds... I don't know. Think what you will of this matter, I won't condemn it. And even if I did it wouldn't do this discussion any good.


----------



## Atabey

World Violist said:


> I think maybe what Lisztfreak is speaking of is that Shostakovich was writing his music as it was purely because of the political climate. There is the quote by Shostakovich about the end of his Fifth symphony about being stretched out on a rack and being beaten while being told "Your business is to rejoice, your business is to rejoice," and the tormented one staggers away, mumbling, "Our business is to rejoice, our business is to rejoice." The political climate can't always be separated from Shostakovich's works because they spoke out primarily for the oppressed people. However, the message in itself becomes completely universal in that regard as it resonates in so many others' hearts and minds... I don't know. Think what you will of this matter, I won't condemn it. And even if I did it wouldn't do this discussion any good.


OK,i thought that the last post was too short to state my point completely but it was late in the night and i was tired.Now i can argue...

First of all i think we should remember that Shostakovich's programmes for symphonies are not certain.12th symphony "The Year of 1917" is said to be a work that is pure communist and propagandist,as its name and programme suggests but people say that Shostakovich gave that programme and name just in the morning of its premiere.Mariss Jansons for instance suggests that he did not have this programme in mind but he gave it to avoid any doubts about his commitment to regime.Likewise Symphony No.8 was told for may years to describe horrors of war but nowadays it is also thought to describe horrors of Stalin era.

We think we know what inspired Shostakovich to compose his music because he made remarks about that here and there and they happened to be about politics.Do we know anything about intentions of say Mahler or Prokofiev?No,we do not.We just read about their lives,learn in which period of their lives they composed a particular piece which tells us a bit about their mood and enjoy the music.I think we must do the same for Shostakovich.His life and mood was affected by political incidents,surely,but we are not able to say corretly to what extent.So why digging for political messages rather than enjoying the expressive power this extraordinary genius?

I believe what Shostakovich desired to possess most throughout his life was being free of political oppression as an artist.After the death of Stalin,death of the composer and the fall of the Soviet Union,he ,in my opininon,is still unable to get that as his art is approached and evaluated politically rather than artistically.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> In the end of the fifth, for example, how can anyone fail to recognize the oppressive nature of the repeated high A's over the "triumphal" brass theme?


You must be really desperate to cite abstract musical ideas as evidence.



> It seems so obvious that it's a wonder Shostakovich himself didn't fall victim to the Great Purge


I'll say, Stalin just like killing people (because he is EVIL!!!11!), and Shosta was CLEARLY (HE WROTE A PIECE WITH TRUMPET OMFG!!!!) ripping apart Stalin's DARTH VADER LIKE EVIL EMPIRE to shredds BLATANTLY and OBVIOUSLY in EVERY ONE of his pieces.

Jesus Christ.... Why don't you try to _not_ formulate ideas based on a over stimulated imagination. Apart from your apparent lack of knowledge of the Stalinist 'regime' you also show that you based all you evidence on the one argument that it sounds like that's what it means... Come on....



> under a stifling regime.


So, Alma Bernstein being on a blacklist not unlike Shosta was supposedly on (equivalent) is _not_ a stifling regime?

*All* evidence to support his closet anti-communist ideas comes only from Testimony and anecdotal evidence of a similar kind. Testimony is proven false anyway.

Read 'Shostakovich Vs. Volkov: Whose Testimony?' by LAUREL E. FAY


----------



## World Violist

Yagan Kiely said:


> *All* evidence to support his closet anti-communist ideas comes only from Testimony and anecdotal evidence of a similar kind. Testimony is proven false anyway.
> 
> Read 'Shostakovich Vs. Volkov: Whose Testimony?' by LAUREL E. FAY


All I can say to that is to read "Shostakovich Reconsidered by Allan B. Ho. That proves Testimony at least not necessarily incorrect, if not proving it firmly correct.


----------



## phoenixshade

Yagan, at least I clearly stated in my post that my views are my _opinion_, rather than blanket statements that masquerade my opinion as _fact_.

As for _Testimony_, Maxim Shostakovich had publically stated that the book is essentially correct, despite some flaws in the details. Several other authors have likewise defended the book (and World Violinist has provided an excellent example).



Yagan Keily said:


> I'll say, Stalin just like killing people (because he is EVIL!!!11!), and Shosta was CLEARLY (HE WROTE A PIECE WITH TRUMPET OMFG!!!!) ripping apart Stalin's DARTH VADER LIKE EVIL EMPIRE to shredds BLATANTLY and OBVIOUSLY in EVERY ONE of his pieces.


"Jesus Christ...." why don't YOU try posting something that isn't filled with _ad hominem_ attacks and oversimplifications of opposing viewpoints into something you can easily ridicule?



> So, Alma Bernstein being on a blacklist not unlike Shosta was supposedly on (equivalent) is not a stifling regime?


Do you perhaps mean _Walter_ Bernstein? I would in no way defend the actions of the House Committee on Un-American Activities; in fact they are a blight on this nation's history. But there's a big difference between a Hollywood blacklist and death by firing squad. (Even the most conservative estimates place the number of executions in 1937 and 1938 at nearly 1,000 per day.) In fact you might be surprised to learn that my favorite treatise on American history is Howard Zinn's _A People's History of the United States_. Nice attempt at diversion, though; I'll give you that.

I would have more to say on the matter, but if your earlier posts in this thread are any indicator, I'll be met with more straw-man distortions and ridicule. So instead I shall take my leave and wish you a good day.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Shostakovich Reconsidered by Allan B. Ho. That proves Testimony at least not necessarily incorrect, if not proving it firmly correct.


Most of Testimony (the bits that are not controversial in it) are just plagiarised directly from Shosta early in his life with dates removed.



> As for _Testimony_, Maxim Shostakovich had publically stated that the book is essentially correct, despite some flaws in the details. Several other authors have likewise defended the book


So someone who needs Shosta to be popular (to make money) is promoting his fathers works in ways that keeps it popular? Amazing. And how come Shostakovich's wife's accusations on Testimony are irrelevant? There is no evidence that Volkov met (at _least_ more than once) Shostakovich apart from Volkov's own admission, How come Volkov has refused to answer any questions about the plagiarism or the huge amounts of inconsistencies in it?



> oversimplifications of opposing viewpoints into something you can easily ridicule?


I agree, they were simplified - I used simpler words! Also, try looking up the actual deffinition of ad hominem, because none of that quote of yours (of me) had any argument to the man - at all!



> But there's a big difference between a Hollywood blacklist and death by firing squad.


I agree, and when there is any evidence that Shosta of under any threat of that I will come to your side. Please note, that Testimony is not evidence. It is completely unverified anecdotal evidence - it could be true, but like existence of a god, until there is actual evidence I am not going to believe it.

Also please pardon my spelling (I think I got confused with Mahler's wife), I mean Elmer Bernstein - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Bernstein#Politics



> (Even the most conservative estimates place the number of executions in 1937 and 1938 at nearly 1,000 per day.)


Well, the most conservative of the extreme right at any-rate. 

" six prominent Soviet composers, all former students and friends of Shostakovich, declare that Solomon Volkov" - of course, by default, if they are Soviet composers, they are lying - so clearly this means nothing.

"Volkov saw Dmitrich three or maybe four times. ... He was never an intimate friend of the family-he never had dinner with us here, for instance.... I don't see how he could have gathered enough material from Dmitrich for such a thick book" - But is wife is also clearly biased, we should believe his son who has ulterior motives.

"Simon Karlinsky has pointed out two passages in Testimony which are verbatim or near-verbatim reproductions of memoirs previously published by Shostakovich" and " I have identified, so far, five additional extensive passages in the book which, likewise, are taken from previous- ly published Soviet sources."

"Careful comparison of the original passages with their counterparts in Testimony indicate that some significant alterations have been made. In several instances, sentences which would date the reminiscences have been altered or removed from the variants in the book."

"I wrote my Seventh Symphony, the "Leningrad," very quickly. I couldn't not write it. War was all around. I had to be together with the people. I wanted to create the image of our country at war, to engrave it in music. *From the first days of the war I sat down at the piano and began to work*. I worked intensely. I wanted to write a work about are days, about my contemporaries who spared neither stregnth nor life in the name of victory over the enemy" - Testimony pp. 154-155 (Apparently Shosta has an unbelievable memory) - _AND_ "Kak rozhdaetsia muzyka" pp. 36

Yes two pages later:

"The Seventh Symphony had been planned before the war and con- sequently it simply cannot be seen as a reaction to Hitler's attack. The "invasion theme" has nothing to do with the attack. I was thinking of other enemies of humanity when I composed the theme." - Let's all just believe Shosta was senile maybe?

" Indeed, Volkov states explicitly, "This is how we worked. We sat down at a table ... then I began asking questions, which he answered briefly, and, at first, reluctantly. ... I divided up the collected material into sustained sections . . . then I showed these sections to Shostakovich, who approved my work" - Yet they are word for word from published soviet writings.

"...the first pages of seven out of the eight chapters of Testimony, the pages on which Shostakovich's inscription "Read. D. Shostakovich" is alleged to appear, consist substantially, if not totally of material which had already appeared in print under Shostakovich's name at the time of signing."

Amazing also how, when he talked with Shosta, it was... "...usually early in the morning, when the office was still empty" (p. xvii). In other words, there were no witnesses.

The book is too full of holes and other problems to be regarded as anything NEAR the memoirs of Shosta, and until ANY evidence is found that proves Testimony correct, it is merely Western propaganda.


----------



## phoenixshade

Yagan Kiely said:


> Also, try looking up the actual deffinition [sic] of ad hominem...


You previously accused _me_ of...


> a[n] over stimulated imagination...


and


> [an] apparent lack of knowledge of the Stalinist 'regime'


_Ad hominem_, against _me_. Your cute little reduction (accompanied by extreme distortion) of my earlier post into "1337speak" in order to accentuate your straw-man argument on my ignorance of Stalin was a further example.

Whether you meant Elmer Bernstein or Walter Bernstein really makes little difference. The fact that my own country has a blot on its history - be it the HCUA or Joe McCarthy or *George W. Bush* - in no way excuses Stalin's Great Purge. (At least when McCarthy & friends held sway, we weren't executing our own citizens in droves...)



> Well, the most conservative of the extreme right at any-rate.


Really? I wasn't aware that the Soviet authorities were in the business of writing western propaganda... my figure is based on the number of executions according to declassified Soviet documents: 681,692 shot during 1937 and 38. That's 934 per day on average- and a good many historians believe that the evidence released from Soviet archives is grossly understated. Oh, but let me guess; those historians are "propagandists," too?



> "six prominent Soviet composers, all former students and friends of Shostakovich, declare that Solomon Volkov" - of course, by default, if they are Soviet composers, they are lying - so clearly this means nothing.


Where did I ever say that any Soviet source is necessarily lying? Again, you are constructing a straw-man argument. Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth, OK?

In any case, I tire of this argument. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind. You are obviously an apologist/revisionist for Stalin. I get that. Stalin was a great man and Shostakovich worshipped the very ground he walked on. And I'm some brainwashed buffoon of American anti-communist reactionism.

I will hear what I hear in the music, and you will hear what you hear. Does it really even matter if one of us is "right" or "wrong?"


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> a[n] over stimulated imagination...


Your argument was based purely on your imagination of what it sounds like, how else do you wish me to counter your imagination than associating it with you?



> "1337speak"


What the hell? 7|-|1$ 1$ 1337 $p34|<...



> Where did I ever say that any Soviet source is necessarily lying? Again, you are constructing a straw-man argument. Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth, OK?


I'm not, but that is one of the arguments in favour of Testimony, I covered it. Don't complain to me, complain to those who agree with you.



> Does it really even matter if one of us is "right" or "wrong?"


WTF?! Why do you read history books (or ANYTHING for that matter), if you don't actually care if it is correct or not?



> You are obviously an apologist/revisionist for Stalin.


No I'm not. Stalin wasn't a communist, he was an oppressive oaf (understatement) and a murderer, my only claim is that the situation in Soviet Russia is greatly exaggerated by the west, as is Shostakovich's closed anti-communist tendencies.



> I will hear what I hear in the music, and you will hear what you hear.


You know, I don't hear anything; ergo I can't hear what I hear when their is nothing to hear.

What you are hearing in his music is very understandable (I can hear it if I try)! Corporations work on stuff like that all the time. Humans are very suggestible. Strawberry milk drinks taste 'like strawberry' because they are pink - we are merely tricking ourselves. When we are already tense, seeing a shadow of upright plank of wood can look like a murderer (I'm a assuming you see where this is going by now). When you already believe how evil (for the lack of a better word, read: laziness) Stalin is, it is very easy for someone to suggest how a dissonant repeditive section of Shostakovich's music sounds like Stalin's oppression.

Ergo, you hearing Stalin's oppression in his music is so far removed from any form or any science and it's relative scientific methods it's ridiculous. Testimony (Notice how you failed to actually address anything about Testimony?) is still way to inconsistent any full of provable errors to be of any use in addressing Shostakovich's anti-communist tendencies. I am not saying that Shostakovich is _not_ anti-Stalin, but I _am_ saying that Testimony and oppressive 'sounding' music is not evidence in any sense of the more.


----------



## phoenixshade

Yagan Kiely said:


> (Notice how you failed to actually address anything about Testimony?)


Notice how you failed to acknowledge anything I posted about the Great Purge (and the very real threat faced by EVERYONE who fell out of favor- including Stostakovich in 1936 after his denunciation for _Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk_, or do you deny this too?), or the significant differences between the situation there and that in the US during the "Red Scare?" Nor did you retract your statement that my figures were based on "far-right conservative estimates," even after I identified the source.

You should also note that I never said Shostakovich was anti-_communist_. I said that he was anti-_Stalin_. Nor did I use the word "evil" to describe Stalin. Such words are useless in the realm of history; they are oversimplifications that only serve to demonize... look at the US treatment of Saddam Hussein, for example: first we supported him, then we killed him- shades of Ngo Dinh Diem.



> WTF?! Why do you read history books (or ANYTHING for that matter), if you don't actually care if it is correct or not?


Nice. "Quote mining: the act of searching literature or speech for short passages that when stripped of their context have an apparent meaning that strongly contrasts with the author's intent." Let me try:



> You know, I don't hear anything; ergo I can't hear what I hear


WTF?! Why do you listen to Shostakovich (or ANYTHING for that matter), if you don't actually hear anything?

Whee, that was fun. :/

Musical interpretation will _always_ be subjective and therefore a matter of opinion. On completely subjective matters, there _is_ no absolute "right" or "wrong," which is why I put the words in quotes. We can only inform our opinion with facts that we _subjectivley_ deem important.

Seriously, for someone who pretends to take the scientific method _very_ seriously, you sure fill your arguments with logical fallacies. You sound like a creationist in an evolution forum... or at least, you use their tactics.

That's all I care to address. I disagree with you about the interpretation of Shostakovich's symphonies (your analysis of _Testimony_ notwithstanding), and we are hardly the first to tread this path. Nor will we be the last.

My disagreements with you are far too fundamental to limit the discussion to Shostakovich, so in the interest of returning the thread to its original topic, I am ending this discussion here.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> WTF?! Why do you listen to Shostakovich (or ANYTHING for that matter), if you don't actually hear anything?
> 
> Whee, that was fun. :/


Try again, your quote of me was out of it's context, my quote of you wasn't. It does matter who is right and wrong, and if you don't think it does matter then there is no point in you reading history books or anything.



> Musical interpretation will _always_ be subjective and therefore a matter of opinion. On completely subjective matters, there _is_ no absolute "right" or "wrong," which is why I put the words in quotes. We can only inform our opinion with facts that we _subjectivley_ deem important.


This isn't and never will be about musical interpretation. Sorry. I agree however.



> (and the very real threat faced by EVERYONE who fell out of favor- including Stostakovich in 1936 after his denunciation for _Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk_, or do you deny this too?)


I concede that I do not know as much about the purge as the rest of soviet history. However, Shostakovich was never under any threat of his life. That is why I stopped arguing over it. You however have no excuse for avoiding what I said.



> Nor did I use the word "evil" to describe Stalin. Such words are useless in the realm of history; they are oversimplifications that only serve to demonize... look at the US treatment of Saddam Hussein, for example: first we supported him, then we killed him- shades of Ngo Dinh Diem.


Dear god! Don't you read!? I said I used that for because I was too lazy to find another word....



> You should also note that I never said Shostakovich was anti-_communist_. I said that he was anti-_Stalin_.


Stalin was part of the communist party, and the communist party was following Stalin's view was Communism, thus Shosta was both (though not the real communism)



> logical fallacies.


Please point out one. Your accusation of an ad hominem... sadly wasn't 



> My disagreements with you are far too fundamental to limit the discussion to Shostakovich


Strange, I agree with everything else you have said.


----------



## phoenixshade

*And now, for something Completely Different*

Back on topic here...

Is it just me, or does Shostakovich seem to be much more harmonically adventurous in his quartets when compared to his symphonies?

I find myself preferring the quartets lately...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Yes, without doubt.


----------



## tahnak

*The last of the Great Symphonists*

The first thing that I would say about Dmitri Shostakovich is that he was the last of the great symphonist messengers. Music writing with discipline and form and spirit died with him. He has closed the ages. Now we are living in decadence with splashes of chaotic random splurges as modern art and electronic spitzba that passes as musik or should say Musack!


----------



## Edward Elgar

I agree that Shozzy is the last great symphonist, but the contemporary music environment is still healthy. What is composed nowardays isn't going to be Gershwin melodies and it's true that there is a lot of crap being composed at the moment, but at least some of it will inspire and perhaps move. Try James MacMillan and Salvatore Sciarrino. Shozzy did have a lot of discipline and created beautiful symphonies, so good that they can't possibly be used as templates to judge modern day composers.


----------



## Habib

I think he wrote two types of music - propaganda that was meant to please the authorities (like Symphony No.5 subtitled "A Soviet artist's reply to just criticism" and the Leningrad Symphony) and music that was from the heart (like the Violin Concerto No. 1 which could not be performed until after Stalin's death; and Symphony No. 10 and the 8th string quartet). Alot of his best music was written 'for the drawer' (to be taken out later, like the above concerto) during the Stalin years. After 1953, when Stalin died, he had more artistic freedom, but still composed some rather propagandistic works like Symphony No. 12 'The Year 1917.' A very mixed bag indeed. But a comment on this came from Bartok, who in his Concerto for Orchestra poked fun at and sent up the march from the Leningrad Symphony. I wonder what Shostakovich would have thought about this?


----------



## World Violist

Habib said:


> I think he wrote two types of music - propaganda that was meant to please the authorities (like Symphony No.5 subtitled "A Soviet artist's reply to just criticism" and the Leningrad Symphony) and music that was from the heart (like the Violin Concerto No. 1 which could not be performed until after Stalin's death; and Symphony No. 10 and the 8th string quartet). Alot of his best music was written 'for the drawer' (to be taken out later, like the above concerto) during the Stalin years. After 1953, when Stalin died, he had more artistic freedom, but still composed some rather propagandistic works like Symphony No. 12 'The Year 1917.' A very mixed bag indeed. But a comment on this came from Bartok, who in his Concerto for Orchestra poked fun at and sent up the march from the Leningrad Symphony. I wonder what Shostakovich would have thought about this?


Hey, Shosty poked fun at Beethoven's and Mahler's Ninth symphonies in his own Ninth. He probably would have been very practical about it: Well, I put it out there, everyone's got their own opinions about it.


----------



## Habib

*Shostakovich's quotes*

I'm not familiar with Shostakovich's 9th yet but I do know that he quoted from other composers in his symphonies. I've just bought a recording of the 4th and on Wikipedia it says that in the final movement he quotes from Stravinsky's Oedipus Rex and the Firebird. Although I am familiar with those two pieces, I can't really hear them come through in the music. Maybe Shostakovich distorted them beyond recognition, and perhaps it is only decipherable if you can read music and actually compare the scores. Does anyone else know about the Symphony No.4 and these quotes? Is Wikipedia right?


----------



## ErFurtwanglert

Habib said:


> I think he wrote two types of music - propaganda that was meant to please the authorities (like Symphony No.5 subtitled "A Soviet artist's reply to just criticism" and the Leningrad Symphony) and music that was from the heart (like the Violin Concerto No. 1 which could not be performed until after Stalin's death; and Symphony No. 10 and the 8th string quartet). Alot of his best music was written 'for the drawer' (to be taken out later, like the above concerto) during the Stalin years. After 1953, when Stalin died, he had more artistic freedom, but still composed some rather propagandistic works like Symphony No. 12 'The Year 1917.' A very mixed bag indeed. But a comment on this came from Bartok, who in his Concerto for Orchestra poked fun at and sent up the march from the Leningrad Symphony. I wonder what Shostakovich would have thought about this?


Symphony no. 5 is propaganda???? Listen to the finale with those high As...it's meant to be a satire of Stalin's regime, cleverly disguised as propaganda. The 7th I'd say is closer to propaganda than any of his other symphonies.


----------



## Habib

*Shostakovich Symphony No. 5*



ErFurtwanglert said:


> Symphony no. 5 is propaganda???? Listen to the finale with those high As...it's meant to be a satire of Stalin's regime, cleverly disguised as propaganda. The 7th I'd say is closer to propaganda than any of his other symphonies.


Maybe I shouldn't have said the 5th was propaganda (although the 7th and 12th definitely were). I mean we must not forget that he became a communist party member after Stalin's death. But the 5th was definitely written in a more conventional style and more approachable content than the 4th, and this was no accident. He simply wanted to avoid the controversy caused by some of his earlier works, and withdrawing the more ambigious and complex Symphony No. 4 and writing the more conservative, heroic No. 5 was definitely a shrewd move, calculated to attract more favourable reviews, which the latter symphony got.


----------



## JTech82

I LOVE Shostakovich! I just bought the Decca box set of his complete symphonies conducted by Bernard Haitink. I'm going to get his violin and cello concertos at some point.

Beautiful and powerful music!


----------



## Weston

World Violist said:


> Hey, Shosty poked fun at Beethoven's and Mahler's Ninth symphonies in his own Ninth.


I confess I have only skim read this thread to try ensuring this is not a repeat observation.

Has anyone asked about or mentioned an apparent quote of Beethoven's 7th in the Shostakovich 5th? Is this common knowledge or coincidence? I could not find any literature to back up my claim, but listen to this mp3 I posted. You hear the opening of Shotakovich's 5th first, and then an excerpt from the development of Beethoven's 7th, the scherzo I think:

http://home.comcast.net/~alienart/Classical music/shostakovich_beethoven quote.mp3


----------



## Rondo

Here's an excerpt of an old video of Shostakovich performing his First Piano Concerto (if someone has already posted this, disregard).


----------



## nickgray

I got all of Kondrashin's performances of Dmitri's Symphonies. Now, where do I start? Go one by one or anything in particular? I'm already a bit familiar with his fifth and ninth (Bernstein's), so... Any advice?


----------



## JTech82

Here is what I own by Shostakovich:

































I LOVE SHOSTAKOVICH!!!


----------



## World Violist

Gosh, how much did the Brilliant box set you back???

I'm looking at getting the quartets (from the Borodin quartet) and the symphonies (Kondrashin) someday or another... Russian to the core. They aren't as expensive as some sets out there!


----------



## JTech82

World Violist said:


> Gosh, how much did the Brilliant box set you back???
> 
> I'm looking at getting the quartets (from the Borodin quartet) and the symphonies (Kondrashin) someday or another... Russian to the core. They aren't as expensive as some sets out there!


As I told somebody on this forum in the "Latest Purchases" thread. It's none of your business what I paid for it.

What I will tell you is I got it on sale and for quite an attractive price.

DISCLAIMER: IT IS NOBODY'S BUSINES HOW MUCH I PAID FOR SOMETHING OR HOW MANY CDS I BUY A WEEK. I'm getting sick and tired of this.

I'm detecting some animosity everytime I post something in regards to what I bought or own. I'd like to hear comments made about what I buy, but the comments I'm looking for is whether or not you like what I just bought. NOT HOW MUCH MONEY IT COSTS.

If you want to ask me a personal question like that, World Violinist, then private message me. I'd be more than happy to discuss personal matters with you, but not out in public. Thank you.


----------



## Daniel

JTech82:

Calm down! Noone wants to know anything special about your private life or the size of your pocket. Maybe someone just wants to caculate for the own new purchases. Letting people know how much a CD-box costs is really not a violation of your personal rights. Please do not exaggerate the situation! Thank you.

Daniel


----------



## JTech82

Daniel said:


> JTech82:
> 
> Calm down! Noone wants to know anything special about your private life or the size of your pocket. Maybe someone just wants to caculate for the own new purchases. Letting people know how much a CD-box costs is really not a violation of your personal rights. Please do not exaggerate the situation! Thank you.
> 
> Daniel


Sorry Daniel.

To World Violinist:

That 27-disc Shostakovich box set cost me $75. I got a special deal through an Amazon seller that I know and she cut me the deal.


----------



## World Violist

well this is rather exciting: Paavo Järvi has made his recording of Shostakovich's 10th symphony (with some rather large shoes to fill, I think, from his father!), to be released on the 24th of this month: http://www.amazon.com/Dmitri-Shosta...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1237131722&sr=1-1

The filler looks somewhat interesting also... possibly.


----------



## kg4fxg

*Always looking deeper.....*

Shostakovich,

Such an amazing man. It seems to me that some composers I like right off the bat and other take longer to grow on me. I would say that Shostakovich took awhile for me to appreciate.

I don't know why but Symphony 7 "Leningrad" really captivates me. Shostakovich received his first official denunciation from Pravda. Pravda was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991. Basically it was an attack on his Lady Macbeth that is suppose to have started with Stalin.

Of course this was not the first time he was denounced. In 1948 Shostakovich, along with many other composers, was again denounced for formalism in the Zhdanov decree. Most of his works were banned, he was forced to publicly repent, and his family had privileges withdrawn.

It just really fascinates me to no end what he had to put up with. Remember, if he did not please the authorities his music career was over.

Something about the 7th and the attack on Leningrad is intriguing. I am more interested in history then politics but how can you separate the two? Remember I grew up during the time of the end of the cold war.

There is much mystery behind the 7th, did he begin this work before Hitler took Leningrad? Was he writing the attack theme for Hitler or Stalin? Of course there is plenty one can read but it is understood that Shostakovich had to be careful what he said and so I am sure great reflections into his work had to be said very carefully - sort of like the book of Revelation in the Bible.

Oh, such an amazing man and such an amazing time in history.

He was also a bit of what we would call an activist. Don't get me started as I have a degree in philosophy but he was in with Jean-Paul Sartre. So much could be evaluated here. Yes, you can just listen to the music - but after much study oh the appreciation.


----------



## JoeGreen

Shostakovich's life is very interesting, and there evidence to support that he started the 7th before the Germans got to Leningrad.


----------



## Mirror Image

kg4fxg said:


> Shostakovich,
> 
> Such an amazing man. It seems to me that some composers I like right off the bat and other take longer to grow on me. I would say that Shostakovich took awhile for me to appreciate.
> 
> I don't know why but Symphony 7 "Leningrad" really captivates me. Shostakovich received his first official denunciation from Pravda. Pravda was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991. Basically it was an attack on his Lady Macbeth that is suppose to have started with Stalin.
> 
> Of course this was not the first time he was denounced. In 1948 Shostakovich, along with many other composers, was again denounced for formalism in the Zhdanov decree. Most of his works were banned, he was forced to publicly repent, and his family had privileges withdrawn.
> 
> It just really fascinates me to no end what he had to put up with. Remember, if he did not please the authorities his music career was over.
> 
> Something about the 7th and the attack on Leningrad is intriguing. I am more interested in history then politics but how can you separate the two? Remember I grew up during the time of the end of the cold war.
> 
> There is much mystery behind the 7th, did he begin this work before Hitler took Leningrad? Was he writing the attack theme for Hitler or Stalin? Of course there is plenty one can read but it is understood that Shostakovich had to be careful what he said and so I am sure great reflections into his work had to be said very carefully - sort of like the book of Revelation in the Bible.
> 
> Oh, such an amazing man and such an amazing time in history.
> 
> He was also a bit of what we would call an activist. Don't get me started as I have a degree in philosophy but he was in with Jean-Paul Sartre. So much could be evaluated here. Yes, you can just listen to the music - but after much study oh the appreciation.


Shostakovich is a very interesting composer, but what I find interesting is he stayed in the Soviet Union during those Stalin years. Imagine what would have happened had he done what Rachmaninov had done, which was stay out of Russia.

Shostakovich's music is amazing as it is, but I wonder how much of it is him and how much of it is him trying to please the government.


----------



## Bach

My trouble with Shostakovich is that he's simply not very clever with music.. his music rarely deviates from utilitarianism and is quite colourless and characterless - and bordering on miserable. And that's not the sublime misery of great art, it's the mundane misery of a grey day in London. 

His best pieces are the 8th String Quartet, Cello concerto and Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. The rest of it can drown in the toilet.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> My trouble with Shostakovich is that he's simply not very clever with music.. his music rarely deviates from utilitarianism and is quite colourless and characterless - and bordering on miserable. And that's not the sublime misery of great art, it's the mundane misery of a grey day in London.
> 
> His best pieces are the 8th String Quartet, Cello concerto and Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. The rest of it can drown in the toilet.


You're not entirely wrong, Bach, but I would love to know what you've by him.

I personally love his music. I dig that utilitarianism and grim style he wrote in. I think it was fascinating and exciting.


----------



## Bach

I know all of his major works.

The Piano Concerto No. 2 is rather charming - I've performed it (took just a week to perfect - not a difficult piano part) but it's not _good_ in the same way Rachmaninov's or Prokofiev's are.. it's just a bit of fun.

His symphonies are incredibly boring - huge chunks are in two parts! Meandering around with no musical direction (see the first movement of Symphony No. 10 for reference) the only symphonic movement of his that I've been impressed with is the second movement of the same symphony (no. 10). That's quite succinct at least..


----------



## bdelykleon

I agree the (first) Cello Concerto and Katerina Izmailova are his greatest works, but must add his early opera The Nose which is even better than Lady Macbeth.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I know all of his major works.
> 
> The Piano Concerto No. 2 is rather charming - I've performed it (took just a week to perfect - not a difficult piano part) but it's not _good_ in the same way Rachmaninov's or Prokofiev's are.. it's just a bit of fun.
> 
> His symphonies are incredibly boring - huge chunks are in two parts! Meandering around with no musical direction (see the first movement of Symphony No. 10 for reference) the only symphonic movement of his that I've been impressed with is the second movement of the same symphony (no. 10). That's quite succinct at least..




I doubt you've spent any kind of time listening to his music at all. You write-off composers who have intense emotions pretty quickly just like you've done with Bruckner, Mahler, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, etc.

What's the most interesting aspect to all of this is you like Wagner. I hate opera, but Wagner was one of the most emotionally intense composers of all-time. Bombastic, over-the-top, loud brass sections that can blow your ears off, etc.

The bottom line of this whole argument I'm making is simple: you think what you like is better than what everybody else likes. Grow up, Bach.


----------



## Bach

Mirror Image said:


> I doubt you've spent any kind of time listening to his music at all. You write-off composers who have intense emotions pretty quickly just like you've done with Bruckner, Mahler, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, etc.
> 
> What's the most interesting aspect to all of this is you like Wagner. I hate opera, but Wagner was one of the most emotionally intense composers of all-time. Bombastic, over-the-top, loud brass sections that can blow your eyes off, etc.
> 
> The bottom line of this whole argument I'm making is simple: you think what you like is better than what everybody else likes. Grow up, Bach.


It is. And Wagner is different because he does it better than anyone else, and I love the power of the human voice!

And when did I say I disliked Rachmaninov or Prokofiev? I love virtuosic piano music.


----------



## Aramis

Mirror Image said:


> loud brass sections that can blow your eyes off


Or ears. I can't understand how people enjoy this terrible romantic brass noise.


----------



## Mirror Image

Aramis said:


> Or ears. I can't understand how people enjoy this terrible romantic brass noise.


I meant ears. I corrected it.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> It is. And Wagner is different because he does it better than anyone else, and I love the power of the human voice!
> 
> And when did I say I disliked Rachmaninov or Prokofiev? I love virtuosic piano music.


You never said you disliked one of Prokofiev's or Rachmaninov's symphonies or orchestral pieces?

About Wagner, I think you're missing my point. You have said repeatedly throughout this forum that you dislike over-emotional, bombastic for the sake of it music, but all of sudden you pop up many weeks ago praising Wagner who represents everything you said you disliked in music, but now all of sudden you like this overly emotional, long-winded music?

Make up your mind, Bach. Pick an opinion and stand by it or is this a case of you making a rush to judgement before allowing the music to move you instead of your own prejudice towards it?


----------



## Bach

I like bloody Wagner okay? And Rachmaninov's symphonic music is crap. One criticism doesn't have to apply to every composer.. they do these things in different ways..


----------



## Bach

Wagner excels in opera - I love opera..


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I like bloody Wagner okay? And Rachmaninov's symphonic music is crap. One criticism doesn't have to apply to every composer.. they do these things in different ways..


That's fine, Bach, but I think I made my point and it's a very good point, because you seem to be a little mad now.

I also like the descriptive word you chose "crap." That's quite an argument right there.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Wagner excels in opera - I love opera..


Good for you.


----------



## JoeGreen

Bach said:


> It is. And Wagner is different because he does it better than anyone else, and I love the power of the human voice!
> 
> And when did I say I disliked Rachmaninov or Prokofiev? I love virtuosic piano music.


Bach your right, I can see him not writing off Wagner so easily, because he did do it so much better, Mahler mention how symphonies had to be all encompassing-worlds, well talk about a world Wagner created in his works! He was bombastic and loud, at times, but never banal. He build up to those moments in such sublime and subtle ways, take Siegfred's funeral march for example, that it's enough to send you hallucinating.

But enough of Wagner, It's that grim and austere, coupled with moments of sheer madness, style of Shostakovich that I actually find very intriguing.


----------



## bdelykleon

JoeGreen said:


> But enough of Wagner, It's that grim and austere, coupled with moments of sheer madness, style of Shostakovich that I actually find very intriguing.


Shostakovich himself was grim, austere, and with moments of sheer madness, have you seen videos of him. What a nervous little man...


----------



## Mirror Image

JoeGreen said:


> But enough of Wagner, It's that grim and austere, coupled with moments of sheer madness, style of Shostakovich that I actually find very intriguing.


That's why I enjoy him. He's actually quite delightful for me.


----------



## JoeGreen

bdelykleon said:


> Shostakovich himself was grim, austere, and with moments of sheer madness, have you seen videos of him. What a nervous little man...


Heh, and those large rounded glasses just fed that image even more.


----------



## Sid James

I'd like to mention his *film music*.

The other day I got a cd of the film score to _Odna_ (Alone), composed around the early '30's. You can hear moments that are similar to his symphonies in there, and quite innovative things, like the use of Eurasian overtone singing, a barrel-organ and a theremin (an electronic instrument of that time).

I think that with Shostakovich, this repertoire is often neglected, in comparison to his other works in the classical genres. Has anyone else heard some of his film music, notably _The Gadfly _and _Hamlet_? Naxos has now made all of these available, which is a good thing, I think...


----------



## bassClef

I have some of his film music yes - I've always liked The Gadfly.

I'm reading about Dmitri now in Alex Ross's "The Rest is Noise". Interesting to say the least! One wonders how different his compositions may have been if he'd been given free rein ...


----------



## Taneyev

Shosta and friends. Gilels, Kogan, Boris Golshtein and others.


----------



## Sid James

^bump^

I've just acquainted myself with Shostakovich's _String Quartets 14 & 15 _(the Naxos recording with the Eder Quartet). There is an interesting story behind these two works (so it's an appropriate coupling). Shostakovich wrote the 14th quartet for a cellist friend who was part of the Beethoven Quartet, which had premiered many of his sq's up till that time. But the cellist died before the premiere. Then in his final quartet, Shostakovich payed homage to friends like the cellist, who had died recently. Upon first listening to this work, I found the first movement very repetitive, kind of like a slightly less boring version of something by Vaughan Williams. This is not surprising, it was a deliberate conceit by the composer. According to Wikipedia:



> Shostakovich told the Beethoven Quartet to play the first movement "so that flies drop dead in mid-air, and the audience start leaving the hall from sheer boredom".


These two quartets are highly contrasting works. The 14th quite vigorous and almost youthful, the 15th consisting solely of adagios, and quite melancholic and dark. Both works are scored rather sparely, there's none of the lushness of say the Romantics here. I enjoy the Eder Quartet's performances. So far I have also collected his famous 8th quartet, which is much grimmer than these, but it is bound together by the motto DSCH theme (but Shostakovich also returns to the initial themes in these two works, although he goes off on other tangents before coming back "home," so to speak)...


----------



## Earthling

Andre said:


> Upon first listening to this work, I found the first movement very repetitive, kind of like a slightly less boring version of something by Vaughan Williams. This is not surprising, it was a deliberate conceit by the composer.


I love the 15th quartet, especially the utter "flatness" of the opening movement.

The 13th is definitely worth checking out too, Andre-- its borderline "atonal," in one movement. The ending gives me goosebumps (left me in shock the first time I heard it-- I couldn't believe it was over!). The 13th quartet is my personal favourite after the 8th.


----------



## Sid James

Yes, I've read that in his final string quartets, Shostakovich used some 12 note melodies, thus borrowing from guys like Schoenberg. These are fascinating works. I will definitely get more of them, but I want to aborb each fully before I move on. I bought the last two because I am always interested in listening to composer's final works in a particular genre. They seem to sum up so much about their previous works. The fellow Australian member of TC Conor has recommended me an EMI 2-cd set of Shostakovich's chamber works, which includes two of his quartets & I'm sure that the 13th was one of them (?). Anyway, that set is on my radar now, especially since I want to hear his piano trios, which are also on it...


----------



## elp

*shostakovich modernist?*

i reciently was looking around wikipedia and i found this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/9452bcfac2f1b41cbb374d98b636005f.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/8ef99c2286e8af7fbffd8f09ba605740.png

i dont know if you can see the images but well, in both pictures shostakovich is classified as modernist

this is something really interesting, when you listen to shostakovich you dont thing in modernism, but from my point of view shostakavich was a modernist in a spiritual way not a technical way, is hard to explain deeper

discuss


----------



## Sid James

I think that the chart you posted is better used as a guide in regards to the chronological order of where composers sat in relation to one another (rather than style). Guys like Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ravel, de Falla, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Messiaen and Britten were all active at the same time (although some of them died toward the end of the c20th). It is indeed sometimes hard to draw a line between the labels Romantic, Modern and Post-Modern. Some composers inhabited say two of those styles at different times in their lives. One composer who can be said to have been all three was Russian-American Leo Ornstein (& no wonder, because he lived from the 1890's to the early 2000's - he was about 110 when he died - but he was consistently inconsistent, going back and forth between the styles). How would such a chart classify people like him?...


----------



## Weston

The same question could be asked of Sibelius. I can't see him as modern except chronologically. Shostakovich is as modern as Brahms is Romantic.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Shostakovich was most definitely a modernist in his early compositions. If you look at works like the opera _The Nose_, the _Aphorisms_ for piano, the _Two Pieces for String Octet_ Op 11, the Second Symphony, the incidental music _Hypothetically Murdered_, the _Five Fragments_ Op 42 and his masterpiece, the opera _The Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk_, you will find works as 'modernist' as anything else going on in Europe in the late 1920s and early 1930s. It was with the savage attack on him by Stalin in 1936 that forced Shostakovich to rein-in his more modernist tendencies. It is remarkable that his Fifth Symphony of 1937 is as good a piece as it is, considering it was written in the immediate wake of this attack and subtitled 'A Soviet Artist's Response to Just Criticism'. I wouldn't be able to contend what any of Shostakovich's works after 1935 could really be considered 'modernist'.


----------



## elp

Andre said:


> I think that the chart you posted is better used as a guide in regards to the chronological order of where composers sat in relation to one another (rather than style).


i wasnt thinking like that when i saw the chart



> Guys like Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ravel, de Falla, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Messiaen and Britten were all active at the same time (although some of them died toward the end of the c20th). It is indeed sometimes hard to draw a line between the labels Romantic, Modern and Post-Modern.


srlsy



> Some composers inhabited say two of those styles at different times in their lives. One composer who can be said to have been all three was Russian-American Leo Ornstein (& no wonder, because he lived from the 1890's to the early 2000's - he was about 110 when he died - but he was consistently inconsistent, going back and forth between the styles). How would such a chart classify people like him?...


polystylism


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

"spiritually" Modern?

Like...

"Death isn't a beginning, it's the real end, there will be nothing afterwards, nothing."- Dimitri Shostakovich

Yes, there's your proof.


----------



## elp

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "spiritually" Modern?
> 
> Like...
> 
> "Death isn't a beginning, it's the real end, there will be nothing afterwards, nothing."- Dimitri Shostakovich
> 
> Yes, there's your proof.


that only rises question


----------



## Sid James

^^ bump, again. I thought I'd revive this thread, esp. since myself and some other memebers here (esp. Samurai) have been listening to Shosty's music quite a bit lately. So here's a review I did a few days back on a recording of his cello concertos, from the "current listening" thread -

*Shostakovich*
_Cello Concertos -
# 1 in E Flat Major, Op. 107
# 2 in G Major, Op. 126_
Maria Kliegel, cello / Polish National Radio SO (Katowice) / Antoni Wit, cond.
(Naxos)

Both concertos were written for Mstislav Rostropovich during the 1960's, who actually taught the cellist on this recording.

The first concerto includes the DSCH motto theme, it esp. predominates the first movement and comes back right at the end. The slow movt. and cadenza are heart wrenching. In the final movement, there's a mechanical feel, quotation at length of two of Stalin's favourite songs, topped off by DSCH.

The second concerto is more ambigious and cryptic. It has two outer slow movements sandwiching a fast one in the middle. I feel bleakness in the first, then the middle quick one is based on an Odessa street song tune (was this in reference to Khruschev who like to go to the Crimea for holiday, and he actually gave the Crimea back to Ukraine), then the final movt. starts with a cadenza initiated by a fanfare that seems almost absurd in this context, like a puffed up thing that leads to an anticlimax, then the final movt. which on the whole has kind of romantic, wistful and lyrical elements.

On another website, Kliegel's peformance was criticised by some as lacking emotion and being too detatched. I disagree in terms of the slow movts. or cadenzas, she is very emotional (but not over the top), but as far at the last movt. of the first concerto is concerned, her mechanistic delivery is exactly in line with the composer's irony and sarcasm, I mean why the hell would he quote two songs loved by the dictator Stalin? It was more a sad reflection on what Stalin had done, made people dance his tunes, it wasn't a glorification of the despot by any means. So Kliegel's deadpan delivery is spot-on, imo.


----------



## samurai

After reading through these very interesting--and often heated--Shostakovich posts, I am quite glad that I invested in the complete box set of his SQS by the Emerson String Quartet. After reading what Sid James and some of the other posters had to say, I fully intend to give a closer listen to SQS # 13-15. I've already really gotten to like SQS 7-10, especially 7 and 8. SQS 2 and 4 have also left lasting impressions on me due to their effective uses of thematic development and dynamics.


----------



## robert

samurai said:


> After reading through these very interesting--and often heated--Shostakovich posts, I am quite glad that I invested in the complete box set of his SQS by the Emerson String Quartet. After reading what Sid James and some of the other posters had to say, I fully intend to give a closer listen to SQS # 13-15. I've already really gotten to like SQS 7-10, especially 7 and 8. SQS 2 and 4 have also left lasting impressions on me due to their effective uses of thematic development and dynamics.


Don"t forget the third.........


----------



## samurai

@ Robert, I will most definitely not forget the third either!


----------



## Sid James

samurai said:


> After reading through these very interesting--and often heated--Shostakovich posts, I am quite glad that I invested in the complete box set of his SQS by the Emerson String Quartet...


I'm glad that you're enjoying Shostakovich's music. Some of the earlier posts say many things about Shostakovich which has more to do with politics than music (me inlcuded, I jumped on this dubious bandwagon at some stage as well, but I'm over that phase). I think one of the reasons is that people mistake his kind of greyness and dryness to be for lack of musical inspiration or something like that. Closer to the truth is that his music mirrors his times, which were basically horrible when he was in his prime, and there are a fair amount of things going on under the surface - eg. irony, sarcasm, a kind of bitter/sardonic humour or wit, a questioning of the "system," reflections & memories of political events, etc.

I'm kind of glad that former members like Bach are now gone, all they gave a **** about (seemingly) was either the more academic & technically/formally focussed kind of things like by his namesake, or orchestration & expression/emotion on steroids like R. Strauss or Wagner. How unbalanced is that? Where's the middle ground in that opinion, that's what I'm interested in more, not whether you've got all of Shostakovich's or whoever's works on disc or have played them yourself, etc. Seems like some people's heads get so bloated with all their knowledge & jargon or whatever that they lose touch of basic commonsense...


----------



## bumtz

samurai said:


> After reading through these very interesting--and often heated--Shostakovich posts, I am quite glad that I invested in the complete box set of his SQS by the Emerson String Quartet.


If you want to hear these works performed really well you will probably have to make a further investment in Borodon Quartet set (or Taneev Quartet set, if you can find it).


----------



## samurai

bumtz said:


> If you want to hear these works performed really well you will probably have to make a further investment in Borodon Quartet set (or Taneev Quartet set, if you can find it).


What difference would you say that there is between the two groups you recommend and the Emersons? I take it from your comment that you really notice a far superior quality in the Borodin and Tanyev Quartets in their renditions of these works as compared to the Emerson String Quartet. Could you be a little more specific as to why you feel this way? Thanks for your time and interest in this matter.


----------



## starthrower

This is a wonderful set of chamber music I picked up a couple of years ago.
http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1316309929&sr=1-1


----------



## Sid James

samurai said:


> What difference would you say that there is between the two groups you recommend and the Emersons?...


& I'd add, it makes little or no difference to people like me who are more interested in the works themselves, not who plays them, all that stuff. We can argue until the cows come home which recorded performance is "finer," "better," "more idiomatic" or whatever, but at the end of the day, it's the works that really count, they are the common ground between us here, not who plays them. Is it the singer that people are interested in, or the song? Or both? If it's one or the other I try to make it clear, if it's both then you have to be kind of more specific in saying why/how/what you think. A quick "one liner" doesn't do these things proper justice, imo...


----------



## bumtz

Emersons sound very mechanical to me with this horrible squeaky metallic sound. Borodins sound much more emotional and human to me. The difference is painfully obvious in more slow meditative passages, but even in the fast ones (where Emersons' note-perfect approach and dexterity should shine) the results are disappointing, IMO.

Of additional interest might be that Borodins worked closely with Shostakovich himself.

There are a lot of clips on youtube to compare, and make a judgement for yourself.

Q8-II - Allegro Molto by Borodins: 



Q8-II - Allegro Molto by Emersons:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Artemis said:


> In my estimation, Shostakovich was the last great composer (he died after Prokofiev, Stravinsky and Ralph Vaughan Williams). Personally, some of Shostakovich's music appeals quite a lot but some doesn't.
> 
> It is certainly true that his music was always under suspicion by the Soviet authorities, and it was criticised heavily at one stage in the pre-War era. Whether or not he later adjusted it in order to gain favour with the Soviet Authorities is not clear. At any rate, I've always found it odd that anyone should profess to like Shostakovich's music all the more because of the way it is alleged to poke fun at the Soviet regime, or by virtue of any adjustment he had to make in order to gain political acceptance. I just listen to the music and couldn't care less what may have motivated it in terms of the political background.
> 
> For a summary of Shostakovich's life and music (and more information on the political aspects), this is useful:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12736785


mmm...Do you know Nikolai Myaskovsky? He's considered in Russia as great as Prokofief and Shostakovich. He composed 27 symphonies..






Martin


----------



## Lunasong

A lovely poem written by Anna Akhmatova (1958) and dedicated to "D.D.S."

"Music"

A flame burns within her, miraculously,
While you look, her edges crystallize.
She alone will draw near and speak to me
When others are afraid to meet my eyes.
She was with me even in my grave
When the last of my friends turned away,
And she sang like the first storm heaven gave,
Or as if flowers were having their say.


----------



## clavichorder

I have a question for y'all. Did Shostakovich right any great piano music? Say, on par with Prokofiev's best piano music?


----------



## joen_cph

The most ambitious work is the set of 24 Preludes & Fugues, opus 87.

I´ve always felt moved by the recordings he himself made of some of them, such as









Richter recorded some of the pieces as well.

Complete sets exist by, among others, Nikolayeva,





and the more eccentric but interesting Mustonen, 





whereas Jarrett is too neutral in his playing.

There are 2 Piano Sonatas, a set of 24 Preludes and of Three Fantastic Dances also, as well as a Concertino for 2 Pianos, but IMHO they seem of less importance. Perhaps I just haven´t heard the suitable recording of the sonatas and preludes yet.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Marc-Andre Hamelin's recoridng of Shostakovich' First Piano Concerto is a very good one. The piece is very funny, grotesque, so typical of young Shostakovich. I must admit that I sometimes prefer his early works. I even like the 3rd symphony (the "First May"), because it is very grotesque and funny.

Prokofiev said some harmful things about Shostakovich' First Piano Concerto ("bad taste, stylistically eclectical", during the party at Alexey Tolstoy's apartment. Shostkovich was very upset. I agree with Prokofiev in some ways but this Piano concerto is a great piece anyway. This remark says more about the difference between Prokofiev and Shostakovich.


----------



## Oskaar

oskaar

Dmitri Shostakovich

Work
Shostakovich: Op. 20: Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major

Artists
Royal Philharmonic orchestra
Ashkenazy




 http://www.allmusic.com/album/shosta...s-3-12-w238713

Fantastic Symphony! The delightful musical landscapes, and great excitement. Things happen quickly, and the symphony is full of rapid changes in mood and atmosphere.
Very nice performance, and good sound.

Today, 19:27
oskaar

Dmitri Shostakovich

Work
Shostakovich: Op. 126: Cello Concerto No. 2 in G major

Artists
Noras, A and Norwegian Radio Orchestra and Rasilainen, Ari




 http://mp3.platekompaniet.no/site/we...oductId=201657

A rather dark and gloomy concert, but I think it is magical. Very strong and beautiful moments, shades, moods and colors.
Excellent performance and very good sound! Recommended.


----------



## Sid James

My "take" on a less discussed work by Shostakovich, copied from a recent post on current listening thread -

*Shostakovich*
_Cheryomushki - operetta _(1958)
Cast & orch. of Pimlico Opera / Wasfi Kani, cond.
Cd premiere, English version by David Pountney & re-orchestration for small orch. by Gerard McBurney, studio recording, 1995.
(BBC music cd)

This is a mix of things, traditional operetta worlds of Vienna and France are not far away, a bit of cabaret & jazz vibe, heaps of Russian folk and popular song (eg. the use of balalaika in the ballet sequence) and also quotes from Shostakovich's own things (eg. a famous polka from some orchestral work is given a treatment with vocals).

This took post-Stalin Russia by storm, people wanted to forget the bad times and have some fun. The leader then, Premier Khrushchev, I think had a hand in commissioning the film which was drawn from it later in the 1960's. This was basically Shostakovich's equivalent of Bernstein's _WEst Side Story_, hugely popular during his lifetime.

The story is the usual agit-prop, some shady dealings by a corrupt party guy who is in charge of running a housing estate in Moscow of the title. Anyway, all ends well, when the "heroic comrade tenants unite to try and restore perfection to this post-Stalinist paradise" as the conductor's notes say.

All in all a lot of fun, a bit of hamming it up and a fair deal of what could be called rehash (or just very eclectic?), it shows this the most serious and deep of composers could let his hair down when called to do that...


----------



## elgar's ghost

Glad you reminded me of this, Sid - both this and The Nose are glaring gaps in my collection of Shostakovich stage works. A pity that the allegedly-definitive Melodiya recording of The Nose is without text or translation but I gather that Gergiev's recording is quite good enough and comes with a libretto in English. The Chandos recording of Cheryomushki was the one which I had my eye on before totally forgetting about it.


EDIT: Glad you like no. 3, Oskaar - both this and the no. 2 are usually dismissed as little more than inconsequential agitprop works. Shostakovich himself didn't really rate them either, but when he composed them the Soviet Union did seem to be on the threshold of a bright new era and Shostakovich, being young and idealistic, caught the prevailing mood of this false optimism quite well.


----------



## Stroopwafel

Ok, just saying, I absolutely adore adore adore...
Symphony No. 5
Symphony No. 10
Symphony No. 11
String Quartet No. 8
Cello Concerto No. 1 (ok the best 20th century cello work, ever to have been written!!!)
Violin Concerto No. 1 - the Passacaglia theme in the 3rd movement, is so beautiful


----------



## violadude

Why does everyone only pay attention to string quartet 8?


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

I think it's just the most popular. I've heard only 3,7,8 in original and 4 in "chamber symphony" version. My favourite among them is the Third and I'd like to hear the 4th in original. I also love his late violin sonata.


----------



## Stroopwafel

Hehe, I love the other string quartets especially number 5, but no. 8 is my fave! 


violadude said:


> Why does everyone only pay attention to string quartet 8?


----------



## skalpel

3,7,8 and 9 are my favourites of his string quartets. Eight gets so much attention because it really is _that_ good.


----------



## violadude

I guess I'm weird. My favorite Shosty string quartets are 5, 10 and 12.


----------



## clavichorder

I just got acquainted with the Violin Concerto. Its a really fun piece!


----------



## Vaneyes

clavichorder said:


> I just got acquainted with the Violin Concerto. Its a really fun piece!


Which one?


----------



## RussicheCello

I love all his string quartets. Have you heard String Quartet 1 Mvt. 4?


----------



## Mesa

The Jazz Suite has been on heavy rotation recently.


----------



## spiring

I saw (and heard) the Brodsky Quartet play the whole cycle of Shosta's string quartets last weekend. Wonderful, truly wonderful. I know that there are recordings by other ensembles that are held in higher esteem, but enjoying the quartets live definitely gave me a deeper understanding of them. And the Brodskys do know their Shostakovich... 

Highlights for me were #3, 8, 10 and 11.


----------



## sharik

*Shostakovitch*

just love his 7th and 8th - the greatest of 20th century symphonies!


----------



## sharik

avoid by all means this documentary that says not a word of truth -


----------



## Kieran

sharik said:


> avoid by all means this documentary that says not a word of truth -


:lol: You're hilarious. I loved _A Dog's Heart_ by Bulgakov too, but the least sympathetic character in it was the dog, formerly Sharik, then Polygraf Polygrafovich. Of course, communism under Stalin was nice, so long as you were already dead... :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

A lot of fans, then!!


----------



## Kieran

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> A lot of fans, then!!


A lot of 'fans' who found peace - or had 'peace' forced on them...


----------



## sharik

Kieran said:


> communism under Stalin was nice, so long as you were already dead


dead?.. like, everyone? Russia's population increased during Stalin's rule despite the huge losses in WWII.


----------



## Kieran

sharik said:


> dead?.. like, everyone? Russia's population increased during Stalin's rule despite the huge losses in WWII.


Yes, the population increased when he dragged the intelligentsia from surrounding Soviet satellite states off to cold Siberia, my Lithuanian father in law's family being one of them. And populations elsewhere decreased under his murderous regime.

It's one thing to be silly and refer to yourself as a character in an anti-Stalinist book, but there are moral issues involved in supporting men like Stalin. You shouldn't really joke about these things...


----------



## sharik

Kieran said:


> Yes, the population increased when he dragged the intelligentsia from surrounding Soviet satellite states off to cold Siberia, my Lithuanian father in law's family being one of them


those were not counted, the census concerned only Russians.


----------



## KenOC

Seems to me that bringing up political and historical characters in discussions of DSCH's music is less and less ueful (if it ever really was useful). All that is ancient history now. It will always be of some interest, but of less interest than the music itself.


----------



## Kieran

Well, I don't think of it as ancient history, but you're correct, Ken: this isn't the place for it... :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> just love his 7th and 8th - the greatest of 20th century symphonies!


Hmmm, I enjoy Shostakovich's symphonies, but given that Mahler's symphonies from Number 4 onward were debuted in the 20th century, I'm going to have to put those ahead of DSCH - particularly the 6th, 9th, 10th, and Das Lied von der Erde.


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> Hmmm, I enjoy Shostakovich's symphonies, but given that Mahler's symphonies from Number 4 onward were debuted in the 20th century, I'm going to have to put those ahead of DSCH - particularly the 6th, 9th, 10th, and Das Lied von der Erde.


Hmmm... I think Sharik meant *real* 20th century symphonies.


----------



## quack

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... I think Sharik meant *real* 20th century symphonies.


Well that would be Hartmann or Schnittke then, Shosty is still rather 19thC sounding in comparison.


----------



## sharik

DrMike said:


> I enjoy Shostakovich's symphonies, but given that Mahler's symphonies from Number 4 onward were debuted in the 20th century, I'm going to have to put those ahead of DSCH


even though Mahler wrote a lot during the 20th century, he can not be cosidered a 20th century composer, he belongs entirely to the 19th century, while Shost expressed through his works the very spirit of the 20th century and its events such as WWI, the so-called Russian Revolution, the Civil War, WWII.


----------



## Krummhorn

Temporarily closed for repairs  ... and now, reopened.

Ok, here's the deal ... We have deleted the off topic postings.

*Stick to the thread topic please.*

If you have nothing positive to add, or don't care for the thread subject, then just don't participate in the thread. It's quite simple, really ... and let those who really want to discuss this composer do so in peace and harmony.


----------



## sharik

lest not forget the guy also wrote operas for example -


----------



## worov

let's not forget the guy also wrote string quartets :






and piano music :


----------



## ptr

I have a great affinity to DDS music! For me the fourth eight and thirteenth are the best one's!

Especially in the hands of Kirill Kondrashin, the greatest Russian Conductor bar none!!!






/ptr


----------



## sharik

worov said:


> lest not forget


well, English is not my native language, so it fails me.


----------



## sharik

ptr said:


> For me the fourth eight and thirteenth are the best one's!


what about the 7th that most consider the best?



ptr said:


> Kirill Kondrashin, the greatest Russian Conductor bar none!!!


hmm, i thought this was Mravinsky...


----------



## worov

sharik said:


> well, English is not my native language, so it fails me.


Well, in fact I took the words of the post above mine, which was written by you.



> Kirill Kondrashin, the greatest Russian Conductor bar none!!!


I must say that his complete Shostakovich symphonies set is my favorite.


----------



## ptr

sharik said:


> what about the 7th that most consider the best?


I'm not sure that "most" really do that, for me its fine but mostly a haul between upbeat and downbeat! I think "most" think that the fifth is the best BTW



> hmm, i thought this was Mravinsky...


JM is is absolutely one of the best, but for me, KK is better! (Atleast once a week I lament that he died before being able to set his mark on the Concertgebouw orkest (the Decca cycle of Shostakovich Symphonies that Mr Haitink got to make, only got to do so because the grim reaper fetched KK prematurely..) I weep!) ..

Remember, this is just an opinion, but a strong one!

/ptr


----------



## sharik

worov said:


> in fact I took the words of the post above mine


yes that is what i meant.


----------



## worov

I don't blame you. I'm not a native speaker either. And my english isn't that good.


----------



## sharik

worov said:


> I'm not a native speaker either


ah i thought you kind of mocked my awkward misspelling...


----------



## worov

Then you misundersood my post and I apologize. It was not my intention. Where are you from ? I'm French.


----------



## MichaelSolo

Schostakovich, in my opinion, was able to reach Bach-like proficiency in blending melody and counterpoint, while keeping your heart at his disposal.

I have almost physical reaction to some of his work - especially some quartets and particular movements of 13th. 

In the last viola sonata his depth is unsurpassed, bar Bach..


----------



## Alydon

sharik said:


> just love his 7th and 8th - the greatest of 20th century symphonies!


I'm not a great listener of this composer, but have to agree the 8th_ is _one of the greatest 20th symphonys.


----------



## sharik

worov said:


> Then I misundersood my post and I apologize


oh there's no need to, i didn't mind anyway.



worov said:


> Where are you from ?


according to my profile info.


----------



## sharik

Alydon said:


> the 8th_ is _one of the greatest 20th symphonies.


still no one seems to appreciate the 7th much enough...


----------



## Feathers

His violin concertos make me feel like the solo violin's strings are replaced by my heartstrings. I know this sounds incredibly cheesy , but I don't know how else to describe it.


----------



## MichaelSolo

sharik said:


> still no one seems to appreciate the 7th much enough...


The 7th is a great symphony. However, his later works, in my opinion, show more finesse, more variety of emotions and are somehow richer. The 7th was too influenced by terrors of war and communism..


----------



## sharik

MichaelSolo said:


> The 7th was too influenced by terrors of war


that of the 1st World War of course, even though the symphony itself was used to instil courage in the Soviet people during the 2nd World War, but the 'terrors' of the latter came about only in his 8th, and it is only in the 15th that he traces back the heyday of Communism and foresees its 'götterdämmerung'.


----------



## Bone

10 is so good that I am surprised by its power every time I hear it. 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 15 are pretty strong, too - but 10 does it for me. I was not a fan for quite a while and 10 turned me around.


----------



## ptr

Bone said:


> - but 10 does it for me. Snips


It is interesting that quite many cite the Tenth as their favourite when I ask about their favourite DDS symphony, I've always found it a bit lukewarm... Can not put my finger on why, we just don't click the tenner and I... 

/ptr


----------



## worov

I love all of them. There are so rich. Every time I listen to them, I'm still amazed. The 8, 11 and 13 are my favorites. 

What about the string quartets ? Again I love all of them. My favorite are 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15.


----------



## Alydon

sharik said:


> still no one seems to appreciate the 7th much enough...


It is one I don't know - will search out and listen.


----------



## TheVioletKing

Symphony No.7 is my favorite symphony of all time because it was one of the pieces that got me into classical music. All his other symphonies, concertos and chamber works are phenomenal.


----------



## Sid James

Reviving this thread with some thoughts on *Shosty's Babi Yar symphony* which I just heard after a break of many years (just got the following recording).

*Shostakovich* _Symphony #13 in B flat minor, Op. 113 'Babi Yar'_
- Sir Anthony Hopkins, reading poems by Yevgeny Yevtushenko ; Sergei Aleksashkin, bass ; Men of the Chicago Sym. Chorus ; Chicago SO under Sir Georg Solti (Eloquence)

Have been listening to this for the past week now. Words are inadequate to describe it. In any case, it speaks well for itself, especially with the poems being read so well by Sir Anthony Hopkins. .

It's a miracle this work was actually performed, given that the massacre of 150,000 just outside Kiev in 1941 was still very fresh on people's minds in 1962 when Shostakovich wrote it. The poems which form the text of the work (and here read before each movement) are full of anger, grief, dark humour and I can go on. The fourth movement _Largo (Fears)_ is the one that grabs me most, with the typical pared down and spare textures of strings, brass/woodwinds, timpani and celesta, tubulars and the human voice. Its very dark and there is this kind of psychopathic 'whirlpool' or vortex effect in a bit of it which is just chilling. The text here, as in all the work, is a powerful indictment of all types of anti-Semitism (whether its Russian, Ukranian, German or whatever it doesn't matter, its all the same) and of all dictatorships.

& its really as if this poetry was just written for Shostakovich to set. Eg. the final poem, _A Career,_ uses Galileo as an example who was, in the long term right, the Vatican who put him under house arrest where wrong as regards trying to suppress his scientific observations. The poet says that Galileo, and those like him, had a "genuine career" implying that those who know better and despite that serve these regimes are not men of career but merely _careerists._

Ultimately I think though that these situations are indictments of civilization itself, we can blame one person or a few people or an institution/political party but ultimately all you can do is not forget - the saying that those who forget history end up repeating it - and actually the relevance of this poetry regarding what goes on in today's world is something that I feel very strongly about as well.


----------



## Sonata

Just recently delving into Shostakovich. I am liking him more than I expected. His work really intruiges me. So far I've had one listen to the 7th symphony, two to the 8th. His piano quintet is really something too. I'm just scratching the surface of his work right now, and plan to get more seriously into his work in a year or so once I've absorbed my current music collection. I'd like to get a book about his life/works as well. 

I feel he has just enough of a dissonance and modern edge to his works to bring something new to the table for me, while still holding onto enough melody to keep me coming back.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Shostakovich was one of those composers that took me awhile to appreciate. I took to Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and even Myaskovsky rather quickly, but enjoying Shostakovich was a slow process. I think one of the recordings that could considered my 'breakthrough' in his music was Leonard Bernstein's 1979 Live in Japan recording of _Symphony No. 5_. I can't think of any other performance of this masterwork that had me in complete captivation from start to finish. The _Largo_ alone is worth the price of admission. Bernstein really pounded out all of the emotion he could muster in this movement. Such burning intensity! It was at this point that I dove back into my Shostakovich collection and bought many more new recordings and box sets. Now, he's my absolute favorite composer.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Of Shostakovich's symphonic cycle my favorites are the 2nd (I know it's an ugly hairball but I love it anyway ), 4th-8th, 10th, 11th, and the 15th. I never cared much for the 1st, 3rd, 12th, 13th, or 14th. I also love his piano concerti, _Violin Concerto No. 1_, the _Jazz Suites_, and the ballets _The Age of Gold_ and _The Bolt_. I haven't really explored his SQs in depth, but this isn't a favorite genre of mine anyway.


----------



## apricissimus

Shostakovich is one of my favorite composers, and I feel like I have almost a personal connection to him. I was introduced to his music through my Greek professor my senior year of college (at Boston University, 12 years ago now). One day during class he told us he was taking us all to the Tsai Performance Center to see Yevgeny Yevtushenko speak. I'd never heard of him before, but he was in town because the BU orchestra was performing Shostokovich's 13th Symphony (which was set to the texts of five of Yevtushenko's poems).

Anyway, I was so impressed by Yevtushenko that I decided to go to the performance of Shostakovich's 13th Symphony (which was at Symphony Hall). That's what really began my love for Shostakovich. His 13th is still my favorite of his symphonies, though I also love his 5th, 10th, and 12th.

Like others have mentioned here, not all of his work is gold (honestly, some of his "lighter" pieces are cringe-worthy), but when he's good he's great. His first cello concerto is also very high on my list of favorite pieces of music, and I go to concerts that feature it on the program whenever I can.

(I also want to commend my Greek professor for his commitment to the ideals of a liberal arts education by bringing us to something that was important, but not strictly part of his responsibilities to our class.)


----------



## Vaneyes

"Morality is a sister of conscience. And perhaps God is with Yevtushenko when he speaks of conscience. Every morning, in place of prayers, I reread or repeat by memory two poems by Yevtushenko: 'Career' or 'Boots.'"

[SUP] - D. Shostakovich
A bit much, but nice sentiment anyway.[/SUP]


----------



## robersaxo

String Quartet Nº8, II Mov, D. Shostakovich for Saxophone Quartet
A small sample of transcription for saxophone quartet:




Soprano Sax: Antonio Sola
Alto Sax: Roberto Manjavacas
Tenor Sax: Alejandro Oliván
Baritone Sax: Alberto Chaves
Cuarteto Êgaré, Salamanca, Spain.
Hope you like!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Well, at long last I've plugged probably the most glaring gap in my Shostakovich collection and bought the Melodiya recording of The Nose (which comes with his unfinished 'Gamblers'). Prices for used copies in VG condition on the Amazon marketplace have dipped recently so I went for it as I also managed to find a link for the libretto which wasn't included with the recording. 

My anticipation was matched by my joy on hearing it at last and now I recommend it to any of you DSCH fans who haven't heard it yet - a real knockabout work from a relatively more carefree time for the arts when the likes of Vsevolod Meyerhold, Daniil Kharms and Osip Mandelstam were among the driving forces of early Soviet cultural non-conformism. 

I would reiterate that having the libretto to hand is essential, especially to non-Russian speakers due to the extremely fast pace of some of the action - on the Wikipage for The Nose it refers to a dead webpage which contained the libretto but there is a link under 'notes' which takes you an archived version in English. The archive page seems bug-free so I copied and pasted the whole text onto a Word doc for easy reference.


----------



## Neo Romanza

elgars ghost reminds me that I have yet to listen to my recording of _The Nose_. This is the recording I own:










Has anyone heard this performance? Aside from Rozhdestvensky's, this may be the only game in town.


----------



## ptr

Rozhdestvensky is slightly rawer, much due to the 1975 production values and sound... If You're not a raving mad fan that needs everything close to heart I don't think it tops Gergiev!

/ptr


----------



## Nevohteeb

last Summer, on August 10th, I heard a rip-roaring interpretation, of Shostakovich's piano trio #2 in E-, Op. 67, at the Marlboro Music Festival, in Vermont. The pianist, a student of Ignat Sohlzenitsyn, pianist/teacher at Curtis, was Pallavi Mahidhara; the violinist, Soovin Kim, and the cellist was Deborah Pae. It was a performance to put the hair on your arms at attention. Emanuel Ax, Isaac Stern, Yo Yo Ma, have a version on Sony; & the Beaux Arts Trio, has a cd. also. Give it a try.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Nevohteeb said:


> last Summer, on August 10th, I heard a rip-roaring interpretation, of Shostakovich's piano trio #2 in E-, Op. 67, at the Marlboro Music Festival, in Vermont. The pianist, a student of Ignat Sohlzenitsyn, pianist/teacher at Curtis, was Pallavi Mahidhara; the violinist, Soovin Kim, and the cellist was Deborah Pae. It was a performance to put the hair on your arms at attention. Emanuel Ax, Isaac Stern, Yo Yo Ma, have a version on Sony; & the Beaux Arts Trio, has a cd. also. Give it a try.


The Ax/Stern/Ma recording of the 2nd piano trio is the one I have. To be honest, I was initially drawn to it as it was twinned with the Cello Sonata and decided to go for it as I hadn't heard either work before. Happily, it turned out to be one of my favourite DSCH purchases.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Speaking of the _Piano Trio No. 2_, I really like this recording from the Borodin Trio:










But there are many good performances of this work on CD.


----------



## Nevohteeb

There is a great performance, with Mstislav Rostropovich, on cds, but it a hefty price, about $100.00 U.S. from Arkiv.com. it has a whole pack of the greatest trios, with Sviatoslav Richter, pianist. (Doremi #7921). The Beaux Arts Trio, with Pete Wiley, cello, has it as well. Phillips #432079.


----------



## RussianIvan

I've always thought, that Shostakovich is famous primarily in my native Russian. Glad to see that in fact, he is not! Although, shouldn't you people listen Hindemith or Schoenberg?))) But I'm kidding, of course.

What amazes me, that people find something understandable in Shostakovich's music, that deals with mostly "Russian" themes: like totalitarism, labour camps, horrors of living in communal flats (the 2nd movement from 5th Symphony is obviously about that!). Which makes me think, that people all over the world are not so different after all


----------



## Neo Romanza

RussianIvan said:


> I've always thought, that Shostakovich is famous primarily in my native Russian. Glad to see that in fact, he is not! Although, shouldn't you people listen Hindemith or Schoenberg?))) But I'm kidding, of course.
> 
> What amazes me, that people find something understandable in Shostakovich's music, that deals with mostly "Russian" themes: like totalitarism, labour camps, horrors of living in communal flats (the 2nd movement from 5th Symphony is obviously about that!). Which makes me think, that people all over the world are not so different after all


There's one theme in Shostakovich that I think unites us all and that is suffering. We all have suffered in some way or another. By the way, I would listen to Shostakovich before I listened to Hindemith or Schoenberg, not because I think these are 'bad' composers, but, rather, I relate more to Shostakovich.


----------



## Bix

I love Shostakovich, my home orchestra are recording his symphonic cycle, nearly finish a beautifully done.






The second movement is amazing.


----------



## KenOC

Bix said:


> I love Shostakovich, my home orchestra are recording his symphonic cycle, nearly finish a beautifully done.


The Petrenko/Royal Liverpool DSCH symphonies are among the best recorded versions I've heard. The stunning sonics don't hurt, either!


----------



## Bix

KenOC said:


> The Petrenko/Royal Liverpool DSCH symphonies are among the best recorded versions I've heard. The stunning sonics don't hurt, either!


I'm hoping to treat my Dad to a concert in September, the 13th will be played along with Stravinsky Symphonies of Wind Instruments and Tchaikovsky's Serenade for Strings.


----------



## RussianIvan

Neo Romanza said:


> There's one theme in Shostakovich that I think unites us all and that is suffering. We all have suffered in some way or another. By the way, I would listen to Shostakovich before I listened to Hindemith or Schoenberg, not because I think these are 'bad' composers, but, rather, I relate more to Shostakovich.


I am not serioulsy comparing Shostakovich to Hindemith or Shoenberg, of course, nor to any other composer. Just happy, that his music, which I love for 10 years now, become another element in a jigsaw puzzle of world music.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

One recording of this piece that I have, the tempo is at coffee-guzzling speeds (Maxim Shostakovich conducting), will continue to look for it on youtube. But in the meantime:


----------



## Neo Romanza

Here's a Shostakovich work that hardly ever gets any attention:


----------



## KenOC

Neo Romanza said:


> Here's a Shostakovich work that hardly ever gets any attention:


"October" is Shostakovich's only tone poem! Also proof that DSCH could write great music even when they were patriotic commissions.


----------



## hreichgott

Nevohteeb said:


> last Summer, on August 10th, I heard a rip-roaring interpretation, of Shostakovich's piano trio #2 in E-, Op. 67, at the Marlboro Music Festival, in Vermont. The pianist, a student of Ignat Sohlzenitsyn, pianist/teacher at Curtis, was Pallavi Mahidhara; the violinist, Soovin Kim, and the cellist was Deborah Pae. It was a performance to put the hair on your arms at attention. Emanuel Ax, Isaac Stern, Yo Yo Ma, have a version on Sony; & the Beaux Arts Trio, has a cd. also. Give it a try.


Heard this in concert for the first time tonight. Scary and gorgeous. This piece is the opposite of everything people tell you to do with bad memories (cope, deal, get past it and be pleasant again, etc.) It was a wonderful experience. In a manner of speaking.
(performed by the Buckley Chamber Players at Amherst College -- faculty members Alissa Leiser, Volcy Pelletier and Joel Pitchon)


----------



## Vaneyes

Linked is Tom Service's comments on Shostakovich Symphony 15, and some suggested recs.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/to...23/symphony-guide-shostakovich-15-tom-service

My favorite isn't on his list.

View attachment 25684


----------



## Vaneyes

Haitink on Shostakovich...

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/06/bernard-haitink-shostakovich-london-interview


----------



## alan davis

Shotakovich is my favourite Russian composer. When you listen to his Ist Symphony and understand it was written as a graduation piece when he was 21, it bespeaks a giant talent...... It possibly has already been mentioned here but Elizabeth Wilson's "Shotakovich... A Life Remembered" is a marvellous read. Almost definitive.


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> "October" is Shostakovich's only tone poem! Also proof that DSCH could write great music even when they were patriotic commissions


not 'even if' but *especially when* because he was a true Communist and patriot of the Soviet Union.


----------



## senza sordino

One of my favourite composers is Shostakovich, and one of my favourite of his work is the 10th symphony. So imagine my shock listening this morning when my cd of the tenth stopped working during the third movement. So I want to replace my tenth. Any suggestions? My version is a Naxos recording that I was quite happy with, Czech Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra with Ladislav Slovak conducting. Since I need to replace the tenth, I'd like someone new.


----------



## KenOC

senza sordino said:


> One of my favourite composers is Shostakovich, and one of my favourite of his work is the 10th symphony. So imagine my shock listening this morning when my cd of the tenth stopped working during the third movement. So I want to replace my tenth. Any suggestions? My version is a Naxos recording that I was quite happy with, Czech Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra with Ladislav Slovak conducting. Since I need to replace the tenth, I'd like someone new.


Three I'd rate quite highly: Karajan, Petrushenko, and Shipway. Heck, get 'em all!


----------



## senza sordino

I just found on Amazon Mariss Jansons Complete DSCH Symphonies. $60 Any thoughts anyone. I really want a new #10, but I could complete my set of symphonies.


----------



## KenOC

senza sordino said:


> I just found on Amazon Mariss Jansons Complete DSCH Symphonies. $60 Any thoughts anyone. I really want a new #10, but I could complete my set of symphonies.


You can also get the complete Barshai set for nine bucks. And Barshai ain't chopped liver! I got it, not because I needed it, but heck, I couldn't afford *not* to get it!

http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-...=1-1&keywords=shostakovich+symphonies+barshai


----------



## Blake

Is there a particular symphony that's good to start with? I've found the past couple of times I've tried getting into Shostakovich that I couldn't make it past the 1st movement. So much anxious tinkering around it seems.... I'm trying to give him a fair shot, as many people dig his output.


----------



## contra7

Vesuvius said:


> Is there a particular symphony that's good to start with? I've found the past couple of times I've tried getting into Shostakovich that I couldn't make it past the 1st movement. So much anxious tinkering around it seems.... I'm trying to give him a fair shot, as many people dig his output.


I think you should start with 5th Symphony and mayble it is best to first listen the 2nd movement. Maybe you would not get into after first listening, but after second or third time, I'm sure you'll love it!


----------



## Blake

contra7 said:


> I think you should start with 5th Symphony and mayble it is best to first listen the 2nd movement. Maybe you would not get into after first listening, but after second or third time, I'm sure you'll love it!


Thanks, c. I'll check that out. :tiphat:


----------



## spradlig

I'd recommend the 5th, 9th, 10th, and 15th. The 9th is light and witty, kind of like Prokofiev's Classical Symphony. All of these four are quite accessible. Shostakovich's first symphony is very popular but personally I do not understand it.



Vesuvius said:


> Is there a particular symphony that's good to start with? I've found the past couple of times I've tried getting into Shostakovich that I couldn't make it past the 1st movement. So much anxious tinkering around it seems.... I'm trying to give him a fair shot, as many people dig his output.


----------



## KenOC

spradlig said:


> I'd recommend the 5th, 9th, 10th, and 15th. The 9th is light and witty, kind of like Prokofiev's Classical Symphony. All of these four are quite accessible. Shostakovich's first symphony is very popular but personally I do not understand it.


A good list. A DSCH beginner might want to be careful with the 15th, since it's so...well...like it is! The 6th is a real kick in the pants once you get past that lugubrious first movement. And the 1st has always been popular.


----------



## spradlig

I also like the 6th. It's the only other dsch symphony that I've heard that I "get" that I didn't list. I don't think it's quite as good as the 5th, 9th, 10th, or 15th (I won't compare it to the other).


KenOC said:


> A good list. A DSCH beginner might want to be careful with the 15th, since it's so...well...like it is! The 6th is a real kick in the pants once you get past that lugubrious first movement. And the 1st has always been popular.


----------



## Blake

I'm making my way through the Barshai set and it's excellent. It seems I'm warming up to Shosty more and more.


----------



## Vaneyes

Vesuvius said:


> Is there a particular symphony that's good to start with? I've found the past couple of times I've tried getting into Shostakovich that I couldn't make it past the 1st movement. So much anxious tinkering around it seems.... I'm trying to give him a fair shot, as many people dig his output.


1,9, 12, 15. :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

senza sordino said:


> I just found on Amazon Mariss Jansons Complete DSCH Symphonies. $60 Any thoughts anyone. I really want a new #10, but I could complete my set of symphonies.


To me, the Haitink (Decca) set remains in front. I find Jansons' uneven, sometimes plain dull. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

Vaneyes said:


> To me, the Haitink (Decca) set remains in front. I find Jansons' uneven, sometimes plain dull. :tiphat:


I *might* prefer Petrenko's set, when it's complete. Very well played and the sound is spectacular. Meanwhile, probably Haitink... I find Barshai, also, preferable to Jansons.


----------



## Blake

Interested in hearing Petrenko's take. I'm becoming a huge fan of Shostakovich pretty rapidly. The veil has been pierced, and it's all over Betty-Boo.


----------



## Copperears

Vaneyes said:


> 1,9, 12, 15. :tiphat:


I'd actually recommend starting with the 8th; powerful stuff!


----------



## KenOC

Copperears said:


> I'd actually recommend starting with the 8th; powerful stuff!


No no no! There's always the danger that a newcomer to Shostakovich may take his music too seriously...


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> No no no! There's always the danger that a newcomer to Shostakovich may take his music too seriously...


There's definitely a seriousness to his music, but it's accompanied by a certain satirical attitude.


----------



## samurai

How about the *Seventh {"Leningrad"}, * with its almost lilting, military march-like motif starting near the middle of the opening movement?


----------



## EdwardBast

samurai said:


> How about the *Seventh {"Leningrad"}, * with its almost lilting, military march-like motif starting near the middle of the opening movement?


You mean the "march of the sausage eaters" that goes on like a bolero for ages, the one Bartók parodied in the Concerto for Orchestra?


----------



## Delicious Manager

EdwardBast said:


> You mean the "march of the sausage eaters" that goes on like a bolero for ages, the one Bartók parodied in the Concerto for Orchestra?


This is a myth. Bartók was parodying this:


----------



## samurai

EdwardBast said:


> You mean the "march of the sausage eaters" that goes on like a bolero for ages, the one Bartók parodied in the Concerto for Orchestra?


The very one! :cheers:


----------



## Mahlerian

Delicious Manager said:


> This is a myth. Bartók was parodying this:


Lehar was likely the brunt of Shostakovich's parody, but Bartók's version imitates some of Shostakovich's rhythmic features which are not in the Lehar. Also, I've always thought that the tasteless percussion was meant to lampoon Shostakovich as well.


----------



## EdwardBast

Delicious Manager said:


> This is a myth. Bartók was parodying this:


Mahlerian answered this already, but: Why on earth would he parody Lehar? Lehar was not exactly current at that moment. The Shostakovich was. And parody of the low to middle brow would have been pointless - it parodies itself and a great composer wouldn't stoop to it. But the very serious symphony the whole world was then in ecstasies over? That is a prime target. In any case, a dumb tune like that is not funny as part of an operetta or whatnot. Played incessantly in an allegedly serious symphony, it is hilarious. As I heard the tale, it was a torment to Bartok in his hospital bed, and he took his revenge.

Shostakovich was quoting Lehar, undoubtedly as a symbol of the Aryan invaders (which, in and of itself, is hilarious), in the same way Tchaikovsky quoted the Marseillaise in the 1812 Overture.

Oh, and in case this wasn't clear earlier in this thread, I love much of Shostakovich's music. He is one of my favorite composers but I recognize that his work is tremendously uneven in quality.


----------



## Flamme

Kieran said:


> Yes, the population increased when he dragged the intelligentsia from surrounding Soviet satellite states off to cold Siberia, my Lithuanian father in law's family being one of them. And populations elsewhere decreased under his murderous regime.
> 
> It's one thing to be silly and refer to yourself as a character in an anti-Stalinist book, but there are moral issues involved in supporting men like Stalin. You shouldn't really joke about these things...


Will the russkies ever drop this imperial agenda...They are not fit to rule a great country, they have shown that numerous times in the past...They have great music and culture but state organisation and volk spirit in general is...And i am a Slav and Orthodox by birth...They again ''drill'' in my country through their agents and press on Bulgaria and Romania, maybe even organise political murders and chaos, to open an ''air bridge'' so they could supply russophile national bolshevik traitors here with weapons and wreak havoc like they did in 1945 with their ''partisans''...It seems all the ''torch bearers''' somehow have their name ending on in Lenin, Stalin, Putin...Let the eastern europe out of your grip we dont want to go your way...Im sure most of good russian volk fled taht country before and immediately after the bloody revolution...We had those ladies and gentlemen here and they were teh gold in knowledge education and manners...They knew at least one foreign language fluidly in most cases the french and gave an enormous help to growth of our Kingdom of Yugoslavia as architects, scientists, teachers...Im sure Shosty was only acting his loyalty to taht unhman regime...This sharik guy is provocateur...


----------



## NightXsenator

My ranking: 8, 13, 7, 4, 10, 6, 5, 15 (Symphonies I like Very much) 
For newcomers I recommend: 10, 8, 5, 7.
Not long ago Shostakovich became my favourite composer, very quickly. Did you know that he was sometimes referred to as 'Beethoven for poor'? Just because his music is very accessible.


----------



## elgar's ghost

The only Shostakovich work I cannot really get on with is the ballet 'The Limpid Stream'. The story about dancers descending on a collective farm is deadly dull and even Dmitri, unlike Bartok, whose music for the ballet 'The Wooden Prince' rose above the insipid story, couldn't find the musical inspiration to compensate for the plot's banality (which makes it even more bizarre that this was the 'other' work that got him into big trouble in the mid-30s).


----------



## WavesOfParadox

Shostakovich may be the catchiest composer I know. I probably hum more than one Shostakovich melody multiple times to myself everyday.


----------



## Moisey

Ephemerid said:


> I LOVE his *Symphony No. 10*-- the mournful 1st movement (which is not mourning the death of Stalin but rather his life),...


You said it! His death was cause for celebration, like the end of an epidemic or the receding of pestilent flood waters. What he did with his life was live greatly, but live greatly in a loathsome way that caused so many lives to be so life-starved. The 1st mvmt of Op. 93 peers into the bone-chilling memory of the intense crushing pressures exerted by a thick and unforgiving glacier intent on lingering while dislodging and gouging the lives of every living stone in its swath.


----------



## Moisey

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I know he has works of some dodgy quality (Symphonies 2, 3 and 12, _Song of the Forest_, et al...) ...


I understand your sentiment, yet I have to say that the 12th is not lacking in quality. It's quite powerful with its interesting ostinato figures and quite mature in the way it develops these themes and rigorously imposes contrapuntal logic. Still, it does lack a certain flexibility and freedom of expression that you hear in 1, 5-11, 13-15, and especially in the 4th. I get the idea that 12 was intended for a certain audience and accomplished everything it set out to do. I'm sure Moisey Weinberg thought as much.


----------



## shangoyal

Loving his 24 preludes and fugues for piano... great music.


----------



## hpowders

Hey Dmitri. It's just you and me here, pal. Everyone else is too busy putting down Lang Lang elsewhere.

If you have some time, I find your 15th symphony puzzling. What's with the William Tell Overture quotes?


----------



## lupinix

I never found Shostakovich very catchy actually :| found his symphonies especially hard and heavy to listen to (except his 9th but that is kindoff a joke symphony at which I see a lot of little chickens), I know but few composers that have similar heaviness in their music. It took me quite a while before I began to really like him (because I came to know his cello concerto 1 and later on his 4th symphony mainly). His preludes and fugues though are really light and easy and catchy in a way, but also very great, for instance the 4th and 24th ones. 

My favorite works are his 4th symphony, 10th symphony, cello concerto 1, violin concerto 1, piano sonata 2 and 8th string quartet


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Shostakovich 8, Bychkov, WDR-Sinfonie Orchester Koln: the climax in the first movement of this performance is the most powerfully performed and superbly engineered feat I've ever heard in a Shostakovich symphony.









http://www.amazon.com/Symphony-8-D-...525893&sr=1-2&keywords=bychkov+shostakovich+8


----------



## MagneticGhost

I listened to the 13th symphony the other day and was blown away by how powerful it was. It's one of those works that seemed to pass me by in the past - I knew the subject matter was deep and dark, but I never really made time for it.
Listening to it on a long train journey, I realise now that it is one of his most powerful works. 
I was listening to the Barshai and WDR. Anyone love this work and have a favourite recording that they think I should rush out and listen to.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MagneticGhost said:


> I listened to the 13th symphony the other day and was blown away by how powerful it was. It's one of those works that seemed to pass me by in the past - I knew the subject matter was deep and dark, but I never really made time for it.
> Listening to it on a long train journey, I realise now that it is one of his most powerful works.
> I was listening to the Barshai and WDR. Anyone love this work and have a favourite recording that they think I should rush out and listen to.


Hey you know what?-- that Barshai/WDR set is underrated. A friend of mine has it and the Thirteenth IS powerful; really powerful-- and that's not something I say lightly having been around the block in heavyweight performances of the Shostakovich symphonies.


----------



## ptr

MagneticGhost said:


> I listened to the 13th symphony the other day and was blown away by how powerful it was. It's one of those works that seemed to pass me by in the past - I knew the subject matter was deep and dark, but I never really made time for it.
> Listening to it on a long train journey, I realise now that it is one of his most powerful works.
> I was listening to the Barshai and WDR. Anyone love this work and have a favourite recording that they think I should rush out and listen to.


I believe that I have professed that the 13th is third on my Shostakovich top ten symphony list! It is also my stern belief that you have not heard the Babi Yar until You've listened to Kondrashin and Vitaly Gromadsky live from the second performance in 20 December 1962 (Russian Disc 11191). It is rumoured that the gentleman in charge of the tape recorders was so in jitters about the symphonies during the première evening that he forgot or did not dear to push the recording button! (Whether an urban legend or not, a good story that tells a bit about musical life in the Soviet Union!  )
Kondrashin's studio version of this is good but not as powerful and mostly looses pace due to Arthur Eisens singing. My second favourite of the 13th is Neeme Järvi on DG with the Gothenburg Symphony and Anatolij Kotscherga, but this is a mostly nostalgic choice as I heard both of the concerts that preceded the recording sessions and it was two of the best Neeme Järvi concerts I heard during living in Gothenburg!

/ptr


----------



## Marschallin Blair

My best friend was telling the film score conductor William Stromberg about this cd-- and Bill got it and was blown away by the engineering feat of that titanic climax in the first movement as well.

If you incline to absolutely terrifyingly thrilling Shostakovich readings-- this is it.


----------



## Nevohteeb

I just got last month, the Shostakovich, Piano Trio in E-, Op. 67, and the Piano Quintet in G-, Op. 57, with the Beaux Arts Trio (Menaham Pressler, Isidore Cohen, and Peter Wiley, with Eugene Drucker, violin and Lawrence Dutton, viola (of the Emerson String Quartet, in a fantastic performance. I got it from Arkiv Music. They are a great place to get cds (especially Classical), when you live out in the boonies, and the store that sells Classical cds, has gone out of business.


----------



## hpowders

^^^I have it too!


----------



## KenOC

Just ran into this.


----------



## samurai

I wonder if he was thinking of * Animal Farm *and Napoleon? :devil:


----------



## KenOC

samurai said:


> I wonder if he was thinking of * Animal Farm *and Napoleon? :devil:


I suspect Animal Farm was far in the future when this picture was taken. Those were simpler days...


----------



## Oskaar

I have added symphony 6 to my thread CURRENTLY LISTENING REVISITED thread. If you wish,you con go there and submit your reccomended recordings. Link

For the beginning of the thread and wat it is all about, go here. Link


----------



## Marschallin Blair

samurai said:


> I wonder if he was thinking of * Animal Farm *and Napoleon? :devil:


. . . _or_ Snowball.


----------



## samurai

Or Uncle Joe....


----------



## Marschallin Blair

samurai said:


> Or Uncle Joe....


. . . or Lev Trotsky.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . or Lev Trotsky.


...or maybe dinner.


----------



## science

What books about Shostakovich would y'all recommend?


----------



## KenOC

As a listening aid:

Shostakovich Symphonies and Concertos - An Owner's Manual

http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-...401590129&sr=1-1&keywords=shostakovich+manual

For the quartets, skip Wendy Lesser's book -- there are better resources on the web.

http://www.quartets.de/

For general information, Testimony (although some will say it's all a fake).

http://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Mem...590276&sr=1-1&keywords=shostakovich+testimony


----------



## samurai

Hi, Science. I just purchased *Shostakovitch: A Life Remembered, *written by Elizabeth Wilson. I hope that helps a little in your quest.


----------



## KenOC

samurai said:


> Hi, Science. I just purchased *Shostakovitch: A Life Remembered, *written by Elizabeth Wilson. I hope that helps a little in your quest.


Samurai, can you post your impressions of that book at some future point? Thanks!


----------



## samurai

KenOC said:


> Samurai, can you post your impressions of that book at some future point? Thanks!


Hi, KenOC. Sure, I'd be glad to. Thanks for asking me. :tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast

science said:


> What books about Shostakovich would y'all recommend?


Biography
For general, accurate biography: Laurel Fay: _Shostakovich: A Life_

Accounts of colleagues, friends, performers, and acquaintances are collected in Elizabeth Wilson's _Shostakovich: A Life Remembered_ Lots of great anecdotes and insights here.

If you are going to read _Testimony_, you owe it to truth and sanity to counteract it with _A Shostakovich Case Book_, edited by Malcolm Hamrick Brown. It begins with Laurel Fay's still unanswered exposé, written the year after _Testimony_, which suggests the likelihood of fraud on its author's part.

Criticism and commentary
There is a brilliant essay by Richard Taruskin entitled "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony." It is published in Shostakovich Studies (Cambridge UP, 1995),David Fanning editor.

David Fanning's _The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich's Tenth_ (Royal Music Association Monographs 4, 1988) is a good critical study of the Tenth Symphony.


----------



## science

EdwardBast said:


> Biography
> For general, accurate biography: Laurel Fay: _Shostakovich: A Life_
> 
> Accounts of colleagues, friends, performers, and acquaintances are collected in Elizabeth Wilson's _Shostakovich: A Life Remembered_ Lots of great anecdotes and insights here.
> 
> If you are going to read _Testimony_, you owe it to truth and sanity to counteract it with _A Shostakovich Case Book_, edited by Malcolm Hamrick Brown. It begins with Laurel Fay's still unanswered exposé, written the year after _Testimony_, which suggests the likelihood of fraud on its author's part.
> 
> Criticism and commentary
> There is a brilliant essay by Richard Taruskin entitled "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony." It is published in Shostakovich Studies (Cambridge UP, 1995),David Fanning editor.
> 
> David Fanning's _The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich's Tenth_ (Royal Music Association Monographs 4, 1988) is a good critical study of the Tenth Symphony.


Thank you so much!


----------



## ptr

Wilson is good as She had first hand experience from USSR in the 60's where she actually met Shostakovich being a student of Rostropovich..

Never liked Fay's book very much, it is extremely academic and dry, she expels everything that she cannot find written sources for even if the source is Pravda and a blatant fabrication.. (  ) No matter what criticisms there are against the English version of "Testimony", its a very interesting read that gives very period colours (You should know that fx the Swedish and Finnish versions/translations of it is based on a different manuscript then the English one and there's never been any controversy about those!)

If You read Fay, which in sorts is a rebuttal of Testimony (Like most of Richard Taruskin's writings on Shostakovich) You should read Allan Ho and Dmitri Feofanov's "Shostakovich Reconsidered" which is a rebuttal the rebuttal's, loaded with facts that substantiates the actual trueness of Testimony.. There is of course not completely accurate biography of any composer, but the more You read about someone the more complex the picture get!

Two other books that has given me much pleasure are:

Ian MacDonald; The New Shostakovich, a study of Russian composer (Not as biased as Fay, Brown and Taruskin, You can get am idea of his writing style on his old site that is still maintained; Music under Soviet Rule)

*Isaak Glickman - Letters t a friend*. Reading the letter exchange maybe gives the best insights to who Shostakovich was, read excerpts here!

/ptr


----------



## EdwardBast

ptr said:


> Wilson is good as She had first hand experience from USSR in the 60's where she actually met Shostakovich being a student of Rostropovich..
> 
> Never liked Fay's book very much, it is extremely academic and dry, she expels everything that she cannot find written sources for even if the source is Pravda and a blatant fabrication.. (  ) No matter what criticisms there are against the English version of "Testimony", its a very interesting read that gives very period colours (You should know that fx the Swedish and Finnish versions/translations of it is based on a different manuscript then the English one and there's never been any controversy about those!)
> 
> If You read Fay, which in sorts is a rebuttal of Testimony (Like most of Richard Taruskin's writings on Shostakovich) You should read Allan Ho and Dmitri Feofanov's "Shostakovich Reconsidered" which is a rebuttal the rebuttal's, loaded with facts that substantiates the actual trueness of Testimony.. There is of course not completely accurate biography of any composer, but the more You read about someone the more complex the picture get!
> 
> Two other books that has given me much pleasure are:
> 
> Ian MacDonald; The New Shostakovich, a study of Russian composer (Not as biased as Fay, Brown and Taruskin, You can get am idea of his writing style on his old site that is still maintained; Music under Soviet Rule)
> 
> *Isaak Glickman - Letters t a friend*. Reading the letter exchange maybe gives the best insights to who Shostakovich was, read excerpts here!
> 
> /ptr


Thanks ptr!

The questions about _Testimony_ aren't about its trueness in the sense of whether it actually reflects some of Shostakovich's views. It _is_ interesting to read. But it is wholly unreliable; one can't assume that any particular statement attributed to Shostakovich was actually spoken by the composer. The evidence of fraud in its production is really strong. And how on earth could there be a different manuscript used for the Finnish and Swedish editions? _Testimony_ is allegedly the transcription of Shostakovich's words from a very small number of conversations. In any case, Fay repeatedly asked to examine the actual transcript of the conversations from which both versions were supposedly taken. Volkov was never willing to produce it - for reasons I take to be obvious. And many have pointed out the interesting fact that a work consisting, allegedly, of nothing but the words of Shostakovich, has a single copyright holder who is not the composer or the composer's estate.

I, personally, despise _The New Shostakovich_ by Ian MacDonald because his interpretations of the composer's works are just so absurd and ham-fisted. Every two-note or three-note motive becomes a "Stalin motive." Taruskin, in "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth," dissects his interpretive methods really well.

I haven't read the collected correspondence with Glickman - thanks for that!


----------



## ptr

I don't think that Testimony is more unreliable then fx. Fay.. Volkov was mostly a journalist and not an academic and I see Testimony i Light of this, I can also see why he disliked/dispised American academics who had little or no hands on experience of life in the Soviet Union... And I have no idea about the copyright issues, but I don't see it as an issue either.

Anyway, I have most of my hands on knowledge about the editions of Testimony comes from discussing this with Per Skans (Noted Sovietophile and Mieczysław Weinberg's biographer), and he told me that he had read the original manuscript when his friend Nils Wallin did the Swedish translation and that it differed from what Harper and Row had published in English. As Per is no longer among the living so unfortunately I can't ask him for a clarification, but if You care to dig, I have a faint memory that also wrote about this on the old DSCH mailing list.

As for Ian MacDonald, at least he writes something that is interesting, which I cant say for Fay!

/ptr


----------



## EdwardBast

ptr said:


> I don't think that Testimony is more unreliable then fx. Fay.. Volkov was mostly a journalist and not an academic and I see Testimony i Light of this, I can also see why he disliked/dispised American academics who had little or no hands on experience of life in the Soviet Union... And I have no idea about the copyright issues, but I don't see it as an issue either.
> 
> Anyway, I have most of my hands on knowledge about the editions of Testimony comes from discussing this with Per Skans (Noted Sovietophile and Mieczysław Weinberg's biographer), and he told me that he had read the original manuscript when his friend Nils Wallin did the Swedish translation and that it differed from what Harper and Row had published in English. As Per is no longer among the living so unfortunately I can't ask him for a clarification, but if You care to dig, I have a faint memory that also wrote about this on the old DSCH mailing list.
> 
> As for Ian MacDonald, at least he writes something that is interesting, which I cant say for Fay!
> 
> /ptr


I agree that Fay's biography is far from scintillating. But Taruskin's writing, on the other hand, is brilliant and insightful. His "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony," (in _Shostakovich Studies_, David Fanning editor, Cambridge UP, 1995), not only demolishes MacDonald's interpretation of the Fifth Symphony, it also offers a much better one in its place. In fact, if one connects the dots, one might even say that Taruskin's interpretation is the most convincing case for hidden, anti-regime content ever made for any work of Shostakovich! Here is what I got from Taruskin's essay:

He shows that the slow movement evokes a tradition of secular funereal and memorial pieces and suggests that it might memorialize the death of Shostakovich's friend and protector, Field Marshall Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who was executed while the work was gestating," adding: "But why limit its significance? Every member of the symphony's early audiences had lost friends and family members during the black year 1937, loved ones whose deaths they had had to endure in numb horror."

Then he cites passages in the finale that allude to Shostakovich's setting of "Rebirth," a poem by Pushkin, which he had composed just before the Fifth Symphony. The poem describes how a barbarian painter splashes paint across a canvas, obscuring that which it depicts, but suggesting that with time the defacing paint will peel away and the true work will be revealed or reborn. Taruskin doesn't say this, but I would suggest that the triumphant (or pseudo-triumphant) finale is the obscuring paint splashed across the canvas - that the true art work ends with the third movement, a funeral for all of those killed in the purges of the late 1930s, and the finale is there to disguise this. If we peel away the finale, we are left with the true meaning of the symphony - a tombstone for the victims of the purge. In short, Taruskin has done MacDonald's job for him, and has done it much better than MacDonald ever could. What delicious irony!

I haven't said anything about Feofanov and Ho's _Shostakovich Reconsidered_, which addresses the question of whether Shostakovich was a "faithful son of the communist party," or a man who bore deep hatred for Stalin and the regime he led, thus backing up the image of a "closet dissident" (what a moronically oxymoronic term!) offered in _Testimony_. IMO this whole effort is just silly and foolish because the answer to the question is so damned obvious: He was both! Shostakovich was both a faithful son of the communist party and a man who bore deep hatred for Stalin and the regime he led. (So were millions of the USSR's citizens.) After all, Stalin had ordered the brutal murder of Shostakovich's friends (Tukhachevsky, Meyerhold, Zinaida Raikh), so of course he hated Stalin and the regime under which these murders took place. How could he not? We don't need Volkov or Feofanov or Ho to tell us this. It is freaking obvious. As is Shostakovich's often slavish service to the party.

As for Testimony and the manuscript issues: Volkov could put much of the criticism of his work to rest by simply producing the original transcription of his conversations with Shostakovich, which he claims to have in his possession. I can think of only one good reason he has failed to do so. That too is obvious.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> I wonder if he was thinking of * Animal Farm *and Napoleon? :devil:


In that case, I picture DSCH as Boxer...



EdwardBast said:


> I agree that Fay's biography is far from scintillating. But Taruskin's writing, on the other hand, is brilliant and insightful. His "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony," (in _Shostakovich Studies_, David Fanning editor, Cambridge UP, 1995), not only demolishes MacDonald's interpretation of the Fifth Symphony, it also offers a much better one in its place. In fact, if one connects the dots, one might even say that Taruskin's interpretation is the most convincing case for hidden, anti-regime content ever made for any work of Shostakovich!


I have every intention of reading a book about Shostakovich, just as soon as I've fulfilled a similar intention to read a book about Prokofiev's wife I spotted in our local bookshop.

Until then, I can only say that I can already 'hear' more dissident than good communist in DSCH's symphonies more generally. I have to acknowledge I might be 'reading into' the music, the snippets of fact and speculation gleaned from CD notes, wikipedia, and the odd TV programme about 20th C music.

But as I can't 'unglean', and, as the brief exchanges above suggest that there isn't a definitive book which settles things once and for all, it's the music I'll stick to.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> ... the brief exchanges above suggest that there isn't a definitive book which settles things once and for all, it's the music I'll stick to.


I'm hoping it gets clearer....


----------



## ptr

science said:


> I'm hoping it gets clearer....


The truth or what ever we elect to call it is usually some where in the Gray zone in the middle...
As I wrote above, You have to get more then one written perspective on a composer to more or less complete jigsaw of the prospects life and deeds!

/ptr


----------



## science

ptr said:


> The truth or what ever we elect to call it is usually some where in the Gray zone in the middle...
> As I wrote above, You have to get more then one written perspective on a composer to more or less complete jigsaw of the prospects life and deeds!
> 
> /ptr


I guess this goes for anything; everything is complicated.

But some books can be pretty evenhanded, and sometimes old controversies get settled one way or another.

In the case of Shostakovich, I'll have wait for that to happen. I'm not going to become a scholar in Shostakovich studies, so there's no point in me wading through a bunch of stuff trying to make up my own mind!


----------



## ptr

Go for Wilson's book then!

/ptr


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> I have every intention of reading a book about Shostakovich, just as soon as I've fulfilled a similar intention to read a book about Prokofiev's wife I spotted in our local bookshop.
> 
> Until then, I can only say that I can already 'hear' more dissident than good communist in DSCH's symphonies more generally.


I think that starting with either idea in mind and expecting the symphonies or other instrumental works to have concrete extramusical meanings is a bad idea. That sort of thing tends to trivialize the music and turns it into some kind of coded text rather than a more abstract form of expression. I suspect there are hidden meanings in many of his works, but prefer to start with digesting them as music first and foremost.


----------



## EdwardBast

ptr said:


> The truth or what ever we elect to call it is usually some where in the Gray zone in the middle...
> As I wrote above, You have to get more then one written perspective on a composer to more or less complete jigsaw of the prospects life and deeds!
> 
> /ptr


Very true! And I am glad you filled in the picture with your suggestions, since my choices were clearly biased in a certain direction.


----------



## Blancrocher

science said:


> In the case of Shostakovich, I'll have wait for that to happen. I'm not going to become a scholar in Shostakovich studies, so there's no point in me wading through a bunch of stuff trying to make up my own mind!


Another thing to keep an eye out for is documentaries on DVD (or Youtube, if you're willing). "Shostakovich against Stalin," for example: 



.

It's not an efficient or trustworthy way to get what you could from a good book, but it's a great way to get a sense of the kind of things the scholars don't worry about so much--like why so many of Shosty's contemporaries thought him too nervous to be around! Anyways, it's fun to watch the man himself sitting at a piano or giving a speech.


----------



## science

Blancrocher said:


> Another thing to keep an eye out for is documentaries on DVD (or Youtube, if you're willing). "Shostakovich against Stalin," for example:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> It's not an efficient or trustworthy way to get what you could from a good book, but it's a great way to get a sense of the kind of things the scholars don't worry about so much--like why so many of Shosty's contemporaries thought him too nervous to be around! Anyways, it's fun to watch the man himself sitting at a piano or giving a speech.


That looks great! Thank you!


----------



## science

ptr said:


> Go for Wilson's book then!
> 
> /ptr


Yes, it looks like that is the one.


----------



## Chronochromie

The finale of the first movement of this guy's Piano Concerto #2 will be my new ringtone.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I think that starting with either idea in mind and expecting the symphonies or other instrumental works to have concrete extramusical meanings is a bad idea. That sort of thing tends to trivialize the music and turns it into some kind of coded text rather than a more abstract form of expression. I suspect there are hidden meanings in many of his works, but prefer to start with digesting them as music first and foremost.


I don't think I'm reading extra-musical content in this case. That's why I put 'hear' in scare quotes. What I hear in Shostakovich is musical uncertainty and contradiction, juxtaposition of themes that quote sources - such as peasant/folk songs - without offering anything that sounds conclusive.

However, I'm not a purist, and whilst you might think reference to the extratmusical is a 'bad' idea, that's presumably because it doesn't work for you. It works for me.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> I don't think I'm reading extra-musical content in this case. That's why I put 'hear' in scare quotes. What I hear in Shostakovich is musical uncertainty and contradiction, juxtaposition of themes that quote sources - such as peasant/folk songs - without offering anything that sounds conclusive.
> 
> However, I'm not a purist, and whilst you might think reference to the extratmusical is a 'bad' idea, that's presumably because it doesn't work for you. It works for me.


I don't think reference to the extramusical is a bad idea. In fact, I am a radical in believing that aspects of experience that are usually considered extramusical (expression, plot like sequences of moods, psychological coherence) play a determining role in the evolution of form and the organizing principals of musical structure. It is mostly ridiculously literal interpretation, like that engaged in by Ian MacDonald in _The New Shostakovich_, that I have a problem with. That was the sort of thing I was advising against. (Shostakovich, in fact, had mocking words for this kind of literalism, in a famous quotation I can't now find.) In any case, in the passage you quote from me you seem to have missed the phrase: "I suspect there are hidden meanings in many of his works." They are fun to look for and to speculate about. But taking this sort of thing too literally tends to trivialize the more universal content of Shostakovich's music.


----------



## sharik

Blancrocher said:


> Another thing to keep an eye out for is documentaries on DVD (or Youtube, if you're willing). "Shostakovich against Stalin," for example:


documentaries are not to go by, because there's too much politics involved in them these days... just enough to read the comments for that video, to see how brainwashed and bigoted with all these 'documentaries' are made peoples in the West today. Stalin and the USSR to them are nothing short of some fantasy mosters, lol.


----------



## science

sharik said:


> documentaries are not to go by, because there's too much politics involved in them these days... just enough to read the comments for that video, to see how brainwashed and bigoted with all these 'documentaries' are made peoples in the West today. Stalin and the USSR to them are nothing short of some fantasy mosters, lol.


Stalin was a pretty bad guy, after all.


----------



## sharik

science said:


> Stalin was a pretty bad guy, after all.


but how do you know? Shostakovitch wrote his best works under Stalin as a producer; and bad guys cannot be such brilliant producers.


----------



## science

sharik said:


> but how do you know? Shostakovitch wrote his best works under Stalin as a producer; and bad guys cannot be such brilliant producers.


Well, if that counts, then they evidently can.


----------



## Blake

sharik said:


> but how do you know? Shostakovitch wrote his best works under Stalin as a producer; and *bad guys cannot be such brilliant producers.*


What makes you think this? There were/are plenty of brilliant people who do bad things.


----------



## sharik

science said:


> Well, if that counts, then they evidently can.


no they evidently can't.



Vesuvius said:


> What makes you think this? There were/are plenty of brilliant people who do bad things.


who for example? Stalin was not in position to do bad things, he had to comply with public opinion; hence his support of arts and Shostakovitch & Prokofiev.


----------



## science

Ok... time to stop feeding ... this.


----------



## Blake

sharik said:


> who for example? Stalin was not in position to do bad things, he had to comply with public opinion; hence his support of arts and Shostakovitch & Prokofiev.


Umm, pretty much everyone. I'd like to hear of someone who hasn't done bad things, actually.


----------



## hpowders

"Stalin was not in position to do bad things."

As John McEnroe used to say, "You CANNOT be serious!!!!"


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> "Stalin was not in position to do bad things."
> 
> As John McEnroe used to say, "You CANNOT be serious!!!!"


I rather think he/she IS serious. That worries me!


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> I rather think he/she IS serious. That worries me!


Stalin did a lot of damage. To claim he wasn't in position to do so may only be true in the Bizarro world.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Stalin did a lot of damage. To claim he wasn't in position to do so may only be true in the Bizarro world.


We might increasingly all be living in the Bizarro world.


----------



## Vaneyes

Bulldog said:


> We might increasingly all be living in the Bizarro world.


No might about it. As the population explodes, so do the nuts.


----------



## Weston

Thanks DSCH for all those great brooding works, first introduced to me in the original Cosmos series. But why such a confusing catalog?

October, Op. 131 
Piano Sonata No. 1 "October Symphony," Op. 12 
Symphony No. 2 in B, Op. 14, "October" - Need?

I just realized I may not have the Symphony No. 2 because of its name. Or do I?


----------



## hreichgott

Wow, the piano quintet has a gorgeous slow movement (the intermezzo.) Been listening to this somewhat obsessively the last 3 weeks or so.


----------



## KenOC

hreichgott said:


> Wow, the piano quintet has a gorgeous slow movement (the intermezzo.) Been listening to this somewhat obsessively the last 3 weeks or so.


From a 1942 Time magazine: "The Quintet, which harks back to 18th-Century simplicity, was shrewdly judged so good by Soviet officials that in March 1941 they awarded Shostakovich a Stalin prize of 100,000 rubles for it (about 19,000 U.S. dollars), the biggest coin ever paid for a piece of chamber music."

I understand he donated the cash prize to "impoverished Muscovites."


----------



## deprofundis

Im lisening to shostakovich 14 symphony, brilliant, very bleek very doomy, what can i say... i recommended it if you are into doom but open to choral and soprano.Defenetly one of is more avant-garde works, scream genieous to my ears.


----------



## EdwardBast

deprofundis said:


> Im lisening to shostakovich 14 symphony, brilliant, very bleek very doomy, what can i say... i recommended it if you are into doom but open to choral and soprano.Defenetly one of is more avant-garde works, scream genieous to my ears.


I think I will join you and put it on right now.


----------



## hpowders

I prefer his 5th and 15th symphony over all the others. Is there something wrong with me?


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> I prefer his 5th and 15th symphony over all the others. Is there something wrong with me?


Nothing wrong at all - those are fine choices.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> Nothing wrong at all - those are fine choices.


Okay, thanks. I will cancel my next therapist appointment.


----------



## Avey

---Duplicate---


----------



## Avey

hpowders said:


> I prefer his 5th and 15th symphony over all the others. Is there something wrong with me?


Yes, but not because of this. These actually may be positive signs.


----------



## hpowders

Avey said:


> Yes, but not because of this. These actually may be positive signs.


The non-classical 99% would say just the fact that I listen to Bach proves that I must be deeply disturbed.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> Stalin was not in position to do bad things, he had to comply with public opinion; hence his support of arts and Shostakovitch & Prokofiev.


How true! And his support of the arts is well-documented. For example, by putting a bullet in the back of Isaac Babel's head, he surely prevented the inevitable decline of this eminent writer's prose that would have occurred had he been allowed to live through middle and old age. And he furthered the careers of Vsevolod Meyerhold and Zinaida Raikh with similarly generous support. I'm sure the support his friend Meyerhold received from the great leader was an inspiration to Shostakovich, who was thereby released from a couple of time-consuming collaborations.


----------



## elgar's ghost

EdwardBast said:


> How true! And his support of the arts is well-documented. For example, by putting a bullet in the back of Isaac Babel's head, he surely prevented the inevitable decline of this eminent writer's prose that would have occurred had he been allowed to live through middle and old age. And he furthered the careers of Vsevolod Meyerhold and Zinaida Raikh with similarly generous support. I'm sure the support his friend Meyerhold received from the great leader was an inspiration to Shostakovich, who was thereby released from a couple of time-consuming collaborations.


Be fair, Ed - who needs the self-indulgent fripperies of DSCH and Prokofiev when instead we can marvel at the awesomely all-embracing talent of Tikhon Khrennikov.


----------



## Guest

*Putting the Stalin in Shostakovich: pro-Soviet cantatas cause outrage* 
Here's the link to this recent article for all to chew on: 
http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...stakovichs-pro-stalin-cantatas-causes-outrage


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^^ Saw it yesterday. Read it. Was disturbed by what I read.

Have just put on his String Quartet No 12 to enjoy (and will keep on enjoying his music)


----------



## manyene

Significantly, the disc in question lacks the actual texts, or indeed any texts... presumably forbidden by the DSCH estate?


----------



## dzc4627

just got into your stuff recently... i have been listening to your symphonies one by one tonight, on the fourth at the moment. i had listened to the 10th and 11th prior. very cool stuff and much different than i would have expected. might be some of the most emotional music i have heard. i can see where schnittke really came from now. : - ) thanks


----------



## KenOC

TalkingHead said:


> *Putting the Stalin in Shostakovich: pro-Soviet cantatas cause outrage*
> Here's the link to this recent article for all to chew on:
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...stakovichs-pro-stalin-cantatas-causes-outrage


Very interesting article. Thanks!


----------



## joen_cph

The texts in "The Sun Shines ..." and "Song of the Forest" is by _Evgeny Dolmatovsky_; Shostakovich used texts by him in several works: 
(cf. http://home.online.nl/ovar/shosopus/dap.htm) 
_
Five romances on his verses for bass and piano opus 98
Four songs to his words for voice and piano opus 86
Loyalty, eight ballads for unaccompanied male chorus opus 136
Patriotic song for voice(s) opus 63D
Song of the forests, oratorio for tenor, basssoli, mixed & boys'chorus and orchestra opus 81
"The sun shines on our motherland", cantata for mixed & boys' chorus and orchestra opus 90
"The sun shines on our motherland", reduction of the accompaniment for piano opus 90B
"There were kisses", song for voice and piano opus 98B_

There´s an interesting article on this poet & Shostakovich on the web, 
"[PDF]Yevgeny Dolmatovsky - DSCH Journal dschjournal.com/wordpress/.../dsch35_silverman.pdf " 
(sorry, but I can´t provide the direct link on my computer system),

and it differentiates the picture a lot, especially at the end (p.12= p.35), stating - among other things - that it was a common practice to "compartmentalize" one´s life under Stalin, and giving examples of Dolmatovsky being persecuted himself.


----------



## clavichorder

hpowders said:


> I prefer his 5th and 15th symphony over all the others. Is there something wrong with me?


Add the 6th to that list and we are in agreement.


----------



## Birdsong88

Shostakovich is a composer I plan to listen to every one of his works. . Has anyone else listened to the complete works?


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

It's not really possible. There is still quite a bit of film and incidental music currently unavailable (in fact, some of it is alleged to be lost) and Shostakovich also made many arrangements and reductions of various works which are unlikely to see the light of day on record as they were presumably transcribed with certain performers in mind who are probably now dead. 

Shostakovich's available output is huge enough as it is (it would run to well over 50 discs by my reckoning), so I wouldn't worry about anything which lies on the outer limits when a representative cross-section of his core repertoire should keep you occupied for a considerable amount of time.


----------



## brotagonist

Good luck, Birdsong88!

I am only moderately familiar with a few of the pieces I have collected, which are the 15 Symphonies, all of the Concerti, his String Quartets, the Violin and Viola Sonatas, the Preludes and Fugues and a few miscellaneous pieces included on albums to fill out the discs. I got all of these in a relatively short time—a couple of years, so it is a big bite to chew on and will take me quite a long time to become really familiar with. I am very impressed with nearly all of it; only the early symphonies and, perhaps, the Twelfth, are not quite up to snuff  in my opinion.


----------



## Birdsong88

I will probably at least try to listen to his complete works within the classical music genre and skip his film music. Here is a question. Did his life circumstances dealing with the constant scrutiny of the Stalinist regime shape his music?


----------



## brotagonist

Birdsong88 said:


> Did his life circumstances dealing with the constant scrutiny of the Stalinist regime shape his music?


I'm sure you're being sarcastic


----------



## Aggelos

Guys, what do you have to say on Shostakovich's Overture on Russian and Kyrgyz Folk Themes, Op. 115?
It's a good thing that Shostakovich went to create an exotic sound world (with the aforesaid oeuvre) that features a parade of energetic folk colour combined with brilliant and (hyper-)coloured orchestration (a penchant that various Russian and Soviet composers exhibited : Rimsky-Korsakov, Gliere, Khachaturian, Ippolitov-Ivanov, Balakirev, etc...)


----------



## KenOC

Aggelos said:


> Guys, what do you have to say on Shostakovich's Overture on Russian and Kyrgyz Folk Themes, Op. 115?)


A very nice work. Of his shorter orchestral works, I also like his Festive Overture (of course) and his only tone poem October, Op. 131. The latter was written for a party commemoration and is quite good, but never seems to have gotten much traction. It's on YouTube.


----------



## AnotherSpin

Birdsong88 said:


> Shostakovich is a composer I plan to listen to every one of his works. . Has anyone else listened to the complete works?


 Pretty well ok, if you want to read all Gulags protocols as well.


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> Okay, thanks. I will cancel my next therapist appointment.


No, no, don't cancel...I think you are severely retarded. Okay, excuse me, mentally challenged. :tiphat:


----------



## MoonlightSonata

hpowders said:


> I prefer his 5th and 15th symphony over all the others. Is there something wrong with me?


No, certainly not - the fifteenth is probably my favourite.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Question to Shostakovich experts: how would you order his 10th symphony into his symphonic oeuvre? Recently acquired it and enjoyed it - heard some Bruckner, Tchaikovsky and maybe even Rimsky-Korsakov influences in it. The symphony seems pretty 'accessible', whereas I remember his 7th and 8th being a bit difficult to me (this was a few years ago, though, maybe my impressions would be different now).


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

I'm no expert but it is one of my favourites of his. Although published after Stalin's death most of it was probably composed while he was still alive so I don't see it as a symphony of relief, despite the fight to the finish in the final movement when the DSCH theme eventually comes out on top. 

For personal reference I usually refer to the work as the final part of the 'cycle within a cycle' comprising of symphonies 4-10, which covers the period from 1936 when he first got into trouble to 1952-53 when the clouds hadn't totally cleared after the 'Zhdanov' conference of 1948.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> I'm no expert but it is one of my favourites of his. Although published after Stalin's death most of it was probably composed while he was still alive so I don't see it as a symphony of relief, despite the fight to the finish in the final movement when the DSCH theme eventually comes out on top.
> 
> For personal reference I usually refer to the work as the final part of the 'cycle within a cycle' comprising of symphonies 4-10, which covers the period from 1936 when he first got into trouble to 1952-53 when the clouds hadn't totally cleared after the 'Zhdanov' conference of 1948.


Shostakovich is almost inseparable from historical commentary in all critical work I've read on him.  I think sometimes it's more important to listen to the music (I'm not referring to your comment, just critical work on Shostakovich in general).


----------



## EdwardBast

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Question to Shostakovich experts: how would you order his 10th symphony into his symphonic oeuvre? Recently acquired it and enjoyed it - heard some Bruckner, Tchaikovsky and maybe even Rimsky-Korsakov influences in it. The symphony seems pretty 'accessible', whereas I remember his 7th and 8th being a bit difficult to me (this was a few years ago, though, maybe my impressions would be different now).


The Tenth is the most traditional in several respects and there is a consensus that it is one of the best of the fifteen. Structurally and in terms of narrative design, the first movement is in a direct line with those of Tchaikovsky (the Fourth and Sixth particularly) and Rachmaninoff, especially the Second Symphony, with which it shares its key and a number of other features. All of these movements begin with a dark introductory statement or motto theme that sounds like an external or extra-personal force. Tchaikovsky associated his opening mottoes with "Fate," while that of Rachmaninoff's First represents divine retribution. Shostakovich left no credible and verifiable hint about what the opening of the Tenth might signify, although those accepting Testimony at face value might hear it as the oppressive sense of impending doom before WWII. In any case, the principal theme proper, the clarinet melody after the introduction, is the first personal, lyrical statement to emerge onto the darkened stage set by the introduction. Throughout the movement it is flayed alive and pushed to expressions of extreme distress, ground between the opposing forces of the other themes. In the coda it is left disembodied as from a world beyond, the piccolo that revisits it hanging four octaves above the motto in the low strings. (perhaps a memory of the dead?) The balletic second theme in G major David Fanning described as "the ghost of a Tchaikovskian waltz" (think of the waltz second theme in the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Fourth) but in this case, "dance" takes on the more sinister meaning of a ritual with forced steps, as in dancing with the devil or cooperation with an irresistible force.

As for the overall design, it exactly follows the model of Beethoven's Fifth in several crucial ways: A theme of the scherzo, the principal theme in Shostakovich's case, derives from the symphony's opening motto, returns as a threat in the middle of the finale, and is subsequently overcome. In Shostakovich's Tenth it seems to be gaining the upper hand until the composer's signature motive is sounded fff by the whole orchestra, effectively writing it out of existence. Galina Vishnevskaya, a friend of the composer, described this as "Shostakovich's indictment of the tyrant [Stalin] which he signed with his musical monogram" (I am quoting from memory and might have gotten the wording a little off.)

Anyway, the Tenth distills a century and a half long dramatic symphonic tradition beginning with Beethoven's Fifth and carried on by Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Myaskovsky and others. Whether or not one consciously hears all of the connections to the earlier works detailed above, the familiarity of the patterns probably sinks in and makes the work more accessible than some of the others.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

EdwardBast said:


> The Tenth is the most traditional in several respects and there is a consensus that it is one of the best of the fifteen. Structurally and in terms of narrative design, the first movement is in a direct line with those of Tchaikovsky (the Fourth and Sixth particularly) and Rachmaninoff, especially the Second Symphony, with which it shares its key and a number of other features. All of these movements begin with a dark introductory statement or motto theme that sounds like an external or extra-personal force. Tchaikovsky associated his opening mottoes with "Fate," while that of Rachmaninoff's First represents divine retribution. Shostakovich left no credible and verifiable hint about what the opening of the Tenth might signify, although those accepting Testimony at face value might hear it as the oppressive sense of impending doom before WWII. In any case, the principal theme proper, the clarinet melody after the introduction, is the first personal, lyrical statement to emerge onto the darkened stage set by the introduction. Throughout the movement it is flayed alive and pushed to expressions of extreme distress, ground between the opposing forces of the other themes. In the coda it is left disembodied as from a world beyond, the piccolo that revisits it hanging four octaves above the motto in the low strings. (perhaps a memory of the dead?) The balletic second theme in G major David Fanning described as "the ghost of a Tchaikovskian waltz" (think of the waltz second theme in the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Fourth) but in this case, "dance" takes on the more sinister meaning of a ritual with forced steps, as in dancing with the devil or cooperation with an irresistible force.
> 
> As for the overall design, it exactly follows the model of Beethoven's Fifth in several crucial ways: A theme of the scherzo, the principal theme in Shostakovich's case, derives from the symphony's opening motto, returns as a threat in the middle of the finale, and is subsequently overcome. In Shostakovich's Tenth it seems to be gaining the upper hand until the composer's signature motive is sounded fff by the whole orchestra, effectively writing it out of existence. Galina Vishnevskaya, a friend of the composer, described this as "Shostakovich's indictment of the tyrant [Stalin] which he signed with his musical monogram" (I am quoting from memory and might have gotten the wording a little off.)
> 
> Anyway, the Tenth distills a century and a half long dramatic symphonic tradition beginning with Beethoven's Fifth and carried on by Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Myaskovsky and others. Whether or not one consciously hears all of the connections to the earlier works detailed above, the familiarity of the patterns probably sinks in and makes the work more accessible than some of the others.


A very nice review, thank you. I also heard Tchaikovsky in the army-like drum beats, which he used in the Nutcracker Suite ('Battle Scene' for eg.). The Finale also has very accessible and beautiful solos for winds. Ormandy's recording brings these details out very well, imo. Which symphonies would you guys recommend next?

As regards the whole politics issue, I'm not a huge fan of anti-Russian hysteria, although Stalin was a horrible person who did murder many innocent people, so I guess it's justified in this case (even though he was not actually a 'Russian', per se).


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Tthe principal theme proper, the clarinet melody after the introduction, is the first personal, lyrical statement to emerge onto the darkened stage set by the introduction. Throughout the movement it is flayed alive and pushed to expressions of extreme distress, ground between the opposing forces of the other themes. In the coda it is left disembodied as from a world beyond, the piccolo that revisits it hanging four octaves above the motto in the low strings. (perhaps a memory of the dead?)


Some vivid and rather grisly imagery, EB. I'm not sure how I hear a clarinet melody 'flayed alive'. Do you mean (rather more prosaically) that the melody first played by the clarinet is handed round the orchestra and replayed in various permutations?


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> Some vivid and rather grisly imagery, EB. I'm not sure how I hear a clarinet melody 'flayed alive'. Do you mean (rather more prosaically) that the melody first played by the clarinet is handed round the orchestra and replayed in various permutations?


Sorry for the late response; I was traveling. Yes, I mean that the clarinet theme is transformed over the development section in ever more distressed and distressing ways, until it is quite literally being flayed by the brass and deafening percussion. But before that happens it is just as literally ground between the other two themes. Here is a chart of these events as cued to the timings in this performance:






Development mapped:

8:50 -- Bassoon 1 plays clarinet theme (beg. 8:56), the motto beneath on bsn 2 and contra. (This is thick with foreboding)
10:17 --Clarinet theme (first bit) and (deadly) Dance theme fused.
10:33 -- The motto enters so that the clarinet theme is literally ground between it and the dance.
10:40 -- Motto vs. Dance
11:04 -- Clarinet theme painfully shrieks in the winds
11:33 -- Trumpets then blare it out
12:33 -- Strings play phrases of clarinet theme between violent assaults from the brass, timpani, and tam tam. This is the "flaying alive" part

Recap (part 1) (which is dovetailed with and really the climax of the development:
13:22 -- The motto returns in the low strings
13:50 -- The brass does a final tortured transformation of the clarinet theme (instead of an actual recap of it).

Recap (part 2) -- Waltz theme

This all takes on special meaning if one hears the motto as a malevolent external force, the dance theme as another malevolent force, but one with which our protagonist (the clarinet theme) is forced to cooperate, and the clarinet theme as the plaintive voice of the hapless masses caught between them. The pianissimo final statement on the piccolo is a disembodied remembrance of these masses, of the twenty million who perished, hanging like smoke over a darkened wasteland (the motto five octaves below). If one were to take Testimony at face value, there are some fairly obvious real world associations one could make …


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

EdwardBast said:


> Sorry for the late response; I was traveling. Yes, I mean that the clarinet theme is transformed over the development section in ever more distressed and distressing ways, until it is quite literally being flayed by the brass and deafening percussion. But before that happens it is just as literally ground between the other two themes. Here is a chart of these events as cued to the timings in this performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Development mapped:
> 
> 8:50 -- Bassoon 1 plays clarinet theme (beg. 8:56), the motto beneath on bsn 2 and contra. (This is thick with foreboding)
> 10:17 --Clarinet theme (first bit) and (deadly) Dance theme fused.
> 10:33 -- The motto enters so that the clarinet theme is literally ground between it and the dance.
> 10:40 -- Motto vs. Dance
> 11:04 -- Clarinet theme painfully shrieks in the winds
> 11:33 -- Trumpets then blare it out
> 12:33 -- Strings play phrases of clarinet theme between violent assaults from the brass, timpani, and tam tam. This is the "flaying alive" part
> 
> Recap (part 1) (which is dovetailed with and really the climax of the development:
> 13:22 -- The motto returns in the low strings
> 13:50 -- The brass does a final tortured transformation of the clarinet theme (instead of an actual recap of it).
> 
> Recap (part 2) -- Waltz theme
> 
> This all takes on special meaning if one hears the motto as a malevolent external force, the dance theme as another malevolent force, but one with which our protagonist (the clarinet theme) is forced to cooperate, and the clarinet theme as the plaintive voice of the hapless masses caught between them. The pianissimo final statement on the piccolo is a disembodied remembrance of these masses, of the twenty million who perished, hanging like smoke over a darkened wasteland (the motto five octaves below). If one were to take Testimony at face value, there are some fairly obvious real world associations one could make …


Hm, I guess you can see it that way, but I can't imagine that Shostakovich wanted to show exclusively history or his view of happenings in the USSR through his music.


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

Not exclusively, perhaps, but music was the only real outlet for private protest available to him and he had to let it out somehow.


----------



## EdwardBast

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Hm, I guess you can see it that way, but I can't imagine that Shostakovich wanted to show exclusively history or his view of happenings in the USSR through his music.


No, of course not. It is more universal than that. To "get the movement," I think, requires only feeling on a gut level the horrible, inexorable power of the motto, the extreme ordeal through which the principal theme is put, and the utter desolation of the coda. It is not necessary to link these themes and events with anything specific in the outside world. But I can't believe the striking and highly stressful way Shostakovich transformed the narrative paradigm he inherited from his predecessors is unrelated to the horrors of the times through which he had lived.

Edit: The paragraph after my map of the development (#333) isn't offered as some sort of attempt at a definitive interpretation or to establish the movement's "true meaning." I was just demonstrating that the pattern of Shostakovich's thematic processes nicely accommodates a program about the war years in Stalin's USSR, which, as it happens, is also consistent with what is said about the Tenth Symphony in Testimony. What, if anything, one should make of this correspondence is an exceedingly complex subject which would take a small book to unravel. So I stop.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

EdwardBast said:


> No, of course not. It is more universal than that. To "get the movement," I think, requires only feeling on a gut level the horrible, inexorable power of the motto, the extreme ordeal through which the principal theme is put, and the utter desolation of the coda. It is not necessary to link these themes and events with anything specific in the outside world. But I can't believe the striking and highly stressful way Shostakovich transformed the narrative paradigm he inherited from his predecessors is unrelated to the horrors of the times through which he had lived.
> 
> Edit: The paragraph after my map of the development (#333) isn't offered as some sort of attempt at a definitive interpretation or to establish the movement's "true meaning." I was just demonstrating that the pattern of Shostakovich's thematic processes nicely accommodates a program about the war years in Stalin's USSR, which, as it happens, is also consistent with what is said about the Tenth Symphony in Testimony. What, if anything, one should make of this correspondence is an exceedingly complex subject which would take a small book to unravel. So I stop.


I find it somewhat unfortunate, as a person born in the former USSR, that Shostakovich's music is inexorably mashed up in the whole 'the USSR was so horrible, and we're so much better' perspective and that politics inevitably pop up in every discussion of his music. As of late, the degree of anti-Russian propaganda is being spun out of proportion, imo - it turns out Shostakovich, who could serve as an example of a great master capable of dispelling myths about the 'primitive', 'evil' and 'inhuman' nature of Russian people, falls into the cateogry of an artist who continues to consolidate negative images of Russia, perhaps despite himself. I do not deny, however, that the Stalin regime is the actual blame for Shostakovich's attitude towards it. But whatever, I guess this is an entirely different (and pretty complex) topic by itself.


----------



## Avey

Excuse me, but how _insane_ is *The Nose*? Well, not literally insane, but figuratively --

-- as in, WILD. Terrifically and absurdly wild.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Avey said:


> Excuse me, but how _insane_ is *The Nose*? Well, not literally insane, but figuratively --
> 
> -- as in, WILD. Terrifically and absurdly wild.


I love it - the Gogol story itself is fast-paced so Shosty's music has to keep up.


----------



## EdwardBast

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> As of late, the degree of anti-Russian propaganda is being spun out of proportion, imo - it turns out Shostakovich, who could serve as an example of a great master capable of dispelling myths about the 'primitive', 'evil' and 'inhuman' nature of Russian people, falls into the cateogry of an artist who continues to consolidate negative images of Russia, perhaps despite himself. I do not deny, however, that the Stalin regime is the actual blame for Shostakovich's attitude towards it. But whatever, I guess this is an entirely different (and pretty complex) topic by itself.


Yes, better for a politics forum no doubt. But no one I have ever heard discussing Shostakovich's music has ever promoted "myths about the 'primitive', 'evil' and 'inhuman' nature of Russian people," unless you are referring to a few sociopathic murderers in the higher echelons of the Stalin regime - and, of course, the primitive, inhuman and evil character of these few is not myth, but historical fact judging by death tolls alone.


----------



## science

EdwardBast said:


> Anyway, the Tenth distills a century and a half long dramatic symphonic tradition beginning with Beethoven's Fifth and carried on by Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Myaskovsky and others. Whether or not one consciously hears all of the connections to the earlier works detailed above, the familiarity of the patterns probably sinks in and makes the work more accessible than some of the others.


I really appreciated this post. When you get more time, can you say more about the connection with Myaskovsky's symphonies?


----------



## KenOC

For those interested, I have posted the 1936 Pravda article _Muddle Instead of Music _on my site.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/muddle-instead-of-music


----------



## Fugue Meister

KenOC said:


> For those interested, I have posted the 1936 Pravda article _Muddle Instead of Music _on my site.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/muddle-instead-of-music


Traitor!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## Zhdanov

elgars ghost said:


> music was the only real outlet for private protest available to him and he had to let it out somehow.


protest is resorted to by mediocre persons, while Shosty was a genius, he wouldn't waste his life and talent on anything of the sort.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> But I can't believe the striking and highly stressful way Shostakovich transformed the narrative paradigm he inherited from his predecessors is unrelated to the horrors of the times through which he had lived.


if so, then he would have told someone about this, like Sibelius did in his diary - _"Isolation and loneliness are driving me to despair. in order to survive I have alcohol .. am abused, alone, and all my real friends are dead… if only there were a way out"_ - but Shosty said no word about 'horrors' etc.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> a few sociopathic murderers in the higher echelons of the Stalin regime - and, of course, the primitive, inhuman and evil character of these few is not myth, but historical fact judging by death tolls alone.


it is a myth, not a historical fact. Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Khatchaturan and many others life and work have proven that the society they lived in was mostly well-off and happy, although not devoid of problems, as any society at the time.


----------



## KenOC

Zhdanov said:


> it is a myth, not a historical fact. Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Khatchaturan and many others life and work have proven that the society they lived in was mostly well-off and happy, although not devoid of problems, as any society at the time.


Without disagreeing, I'd still feel better if these sentiments were coming from somebody not named "Zhdanov"! :lol:


----------



## Zhdanov

KenOC said:


> Without disagreeing, I'd still feel better if these sentiments were coming from somebody not named "Zhdanov"!


why demonise? Zhdanov did a lot of good for culture back then and even to these days, it still works.


----------



## KenOC

Zhdanov said:


> why demonise? Zhdanov did a lot of good for culture back then and even to these days, it still works.


"1936 marked the beginning of the Great Terror, in which many of [Shostakovich's] friends and relatives were imprisoned or killed. These included his patron Marshal Tukhachevsky (shot months after his arrest); his brother-in-law Vsevolod Frederiks (a distinguished physicist, who was eventually released but died before he got home); his close friend Nikolai Zhilyayev (a musicologist who had taught Tukhachevsky; shot shortly after his arrest); his mother-in-law, the astronomer Sofiya Mikhaylovna Varzar (sent to a camp in Karaganda); his friend the Marxist writer Galina Serebryakova (20 years in camps); his uncle Maxim Kostrykin (died); and his colleagues Boris Kornilov and Adrian Piotrovsky (executed)." (Wiki)

"Zhdanov was a major perpetrator of the Great Terror and personally approved 176 documented execution lists." (Wiki)

And here I thought he was just a music critic! Yes indeed, a merry time was had by all back in those days...


----------



## Zhdanov

KenOC said:


> "1936 marked the beginning of the Great Terror,


sounds like a Cold War propaganda piece the both sides were hurling at one another a plenty.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> sounds like a Cold War propaganda piece the both sides were hurling at one another a plenty.


A bullet in the back of Isaac Babel's head put an end to a great Soviet writer. Vsevelod Meyerhold, a collaborator on several music-theatrical projects with Shostakovich also got a bullet in the back of the head. His wife, actress Zinaida Raikh, a friend of Shostakovich, was brutally murdered in her apartment the day after her husband's execution.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> A bullet in the back of Isaac Babel's head put an end to a great Soviet writer. Vsevelod Meyerhold, a collaborator on several music-theatrical projects with Shostakovich also got a bullet in the back of the head. His wife, actress Zinaida Raikh, a friend of Shostakovich, was brutally murdered in her apartment the day after her husband's execution.


none of the above mentioned were angels.

they were bedfellows with the nascent bureaucracy and fighting each other.

it isn't fair to use their example as an argument here.


----------



## Blancrocher

Zhdanov said:


> none of the above mentioned were angels.
> 
> they were bedfellows with the nascent bureaucracy and fighting each other.
> 
> it isn't fair to use their example as an argument here.


It wasn't Isaac Babel's being a bedfellow with a bureaucracy that got him into trouble.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> none of the above mentioned were angels.
> 
> they were bedfellows with the nascent bureaucracy and fighting each other.
> 
> it isn't fair to use their example as an argument here.


They were artists who harmed no one. Babel's mistakes wre not changing the name of a general portrayed in an unflattering light in his Red Cavalry Stories, a general who later rose high under Stalin - after Stalin executed the best of the Soviet Union's military elite, thus assuring the greater success of the German invasion - and having an affair with N. I. Yezhov's wife.

Meyerhold's crime was resisting censorship.

Zinaida Raikh's crime was circulating a petition supporting her husband after he was arrested, a petition Shostakovich might have signed. For this she was gang raped, stabbed through the eyes, and dispatched with 15 other knife wounds. Are you seriously justifying this brutality?

Have you considered the effect the murder of his friends had on Shostakovich's life and work? Have you considered that some of the best Soviet writers, Mikhail Bulgakov, for example, could not publish their major works in the Soviet Union? That we have been denied works of Shostakovich because his collaborator was murdered? Are you actually advocating the murder of artists, musicians and actors for the crime of being less than angelic?


----------



## elgar's ghost

It's like Sharik has never been away...


----------



## Zhdanov

Blancrocher said:


> It wasn't Isaac Babel's being a bedfellow with a bureaucracy that got him into trouble.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Babel#Relationship_with_the_Yezhovs


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> Stalin executed the best of the Soviet Union's military elite,


there was no such before the WWII. Zhukov and Rokossovsky came later.



EdwardBast said:


> Meyerhold's crime was resisting censorship.


no, in fact he was eavesdropping on his friends and reporting them to the NKVD, which everyone got fed up with, finally.



EdwardBast said:


> Have you considered that some of the best Soviet writers, Mikhail Bulgakov, for example, could not publish their major works in the Soviet Union?


there's more to Soviet literature then him. Maxim Gorky, Alexei Tolstoy, Mikhail Sholokhov - much better writers than Bulgakov.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> Are you actually advocating the murder of artists, musicians and actors for the crime of being less than angelic?


no really, but neither am i inclined to weep crocodile tears and malign the country and its peoples for what they had nothing to do with.


----------



## Zhdanov

i mean, to drag politics and history events into discussions on Shostakovitch would be completely tactless and boorish.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> there was no such before the WWII. Zhukov and Rokossovsky came later.


Field Marshal Tukhachevsky and numerous other high officers were killed in 1937.



Zhdanov said:


> no, in fact he was eavesdropping on his friends and reporting them to the NKVD, which everyone got fed up with, finally.


His friends didn't murder him.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> no really, but neither am i inclined to weep crocodile tears and malign the country and its peoples for what they had nothing to do with.


As I said earlier, I am only criticizing a small cadre of sociopaths in the Stalin regime. I am not maligning the country or its people! All of my favorite composers are Russian. I read Russian history. I have read most of the major literature by Russian writers for two centuries. I am the most ardent Russophile! I just find it scary that people on the streets of Moscow are now using the cry "37" to threaten the current political opposition. Do you not find that disturbing?


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> Field Marshal Tukhachevsky and numerous other high officers were killed in 1937.


hardly an elite military commander - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky#During_the_Polish-Soviet_War - other than at suppressions of revolts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Suppression_of_the_revolt , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion#Timeline



EdwardBast said:


> His friends didn't murder him.


well, they got the NKVD to handle him, thats true.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> I am only criticizing a small cadre of sociopaths in the Stalin regime. I am not maligning the country or its people!


the Stalin regime is an integral part of Russia and its history, same as its culture, without which there would be no Shostakovitch or others like him whatsoever.


----------



## mmsbls

The discussion has turned political here. Please refrain from purely political posts and discuss Shostakovih instead.


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

Agreed, mmsbls - but in the case of someone like Shostakovich it's never easy to distil one from the other.


----------



## hpowders

I play the Symphonies 4 and 8, find them profound expressions of a great musical genius, and that's enough for me.

I don't need all the "words".


----------



## mmsbls

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> Agreed, mmsbls - but in the case of someone like Shostakovich it's never easy to distil one from the other.


That's true, but discussions which _only involve politics_ and have no relation to Shostakovich should be absent from the thread.


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> I play the Symphonies 4 and 8, find them profound expressions of a great musical genius, and that's enough for me.
> 
> I don't need all the "words".


If you want to give his vocal music another chance, Gerald Finley has a pretty good album where he sings Shostakovich in English and Italian. It's handy for those of us who don't have any Russian.

A sample:


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> If you want to give his vocal music another chance, Gerald Finley has a pretty good album where he sings Shostakovich in English and Italian. It's handy for those of us who don't have any Russian.
> 
> A sample:


Thanks for your help, Blancrocher!

The Fourteenth Symphony has a lot of vocal Russian. When I first listened to it, I followed along with the translation. After that, I just let the orchestral/vocal music move me on its own. One of his greatest works, IMO.

Once again I must apologize for the non-confrontational post. Sorry, but I've always been a non-conformist.


----------



## Notorious JWB

Rachovsky said:


> Here is the first of our Composer Guestbooks.
> 
> As I may have stated before, I'm going to see his Symphony No. 14 in March in London.


I'm new here, just catching up. So Shostakovich was actually the first guestbook created? How cool is THAT?

Also, I hope you realize how lucky you were to actually catch a live performance of the 14th - that doesn't happen often. Hope it was a good one.


----------



## clavichorder

hpowders said:


> I play the Symphonies 4 and 8, find them profound expressions of a great musical genius, and that's enough for me.
> 
> I don't need all the "words".


I haven't yet warmed up to number 8. I prefer 5 and 6, and 9 and 15, along with 4.


----------



## dieter

hpowders said:


> I play the Symphonies 4 and 8, find them profound expressions of a great musical genius, and that's enough for me.
> 
> I don't need all the "words".


Dear H
Re Shostakovich 4, watch the Thopmas Sanderling you-tube performance. It's with a Ger,man orchestra and it's magnificent...


----------



## KenOC

I wonder if anybody's heard the Shostakovich symphony cycle by Oleg Caetani conducting the Orchestra Sinfonica di Milano Giuseppe Verdi. Yes, this sounds a bit weird. Oleg Caetani is in fact the son of Igor Markevitch, who chose to use his mother's maiden name for professional purposes. The recordings, which came out in the Shostakovich centenary year of 2006, have only a few reviews on Amazon but they're quite favorable.

So, if you've heard this cycle, any opinions on it?

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Symp...63029482&sr=1-2&keywords=shostakovich+caetani


----------



## JosefinaHW

KenOC said:


> I wonder if anybody's heard the Shostakovich symphony cycle by Oleg Caetani conducting the Orchestra Sinfonica di Milano Giuseppe Verdi. Yes, this sounds a bit weird. Oleg Caetani is in fact the son of Igor Markevitch, who chose to use his mother's maiden name for professional purposes. The recordings, which came out in the Shostakovich centenary year of 2006, have only a few reviews on Amazon but they're quite favorable.
> 
> So, if you've heard this cycle, any opinions on it?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Symp...63029482&sr=1-2&keywords=shostakovich+caetani


:KenOC: Are you ultimately looking to purchase or listen to this cycle? The entire cycle is available on ClassicsOnline. I am going to start to listen to it now.


----------



## KenOC

JosefinaHW said:


> :KenOC: Are you ultimately looking to purchase or listen to this cycle? The entire cycle is available on ClassicsOnline. I am going to start to listen to it now.


Thanks, I'll see if I can find it. Please give a report here!


----------



## JosefinaHW

KenOC said:


> Thanks, I'll see if I can find it. Please give a report here!


The following is a link to the info page (yes, you can get a 28-day free trial, etc.), the best way to listen is to download the app onto your PC, not go via a browser.... well, you'll read it all.

http://www.classicsonline.com/classical-music-download/


----------



## JosefinaHW

JosefinaHW said:


> The following is a link to the info page (yes, you can get a 28-day free trial, etc.), the best way to listen is to download the app onto your PC, not go via a browser.... well, you'll read it all.
> 
> http://www.classicsonline.com/classical-music-download/


I started with the free trial, then went to monthly, but very quickly went to annual: cheaper and you get a lot of great bonuses. They don't have every recording but they have a large number and they make it so easy to search because they are designed for us. The only negative is that they do not have the liner notes for many recordings--I can usually find them somewhere else. (I know I'm not the best person to give you a review, KenOC. I am listening and will contribute what I can but I highly recommend at least going for the free-trial.


----------



## Blancrocher

Julian Barnes has a new novel about Shostakovich, "The Noise of Time," that some may be interested in reading. A review by Jeremy Denk in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/books/review/the-noise-of-time-by-julian-barnes.html?_r=0


----------



## JosefinaHW

The new Nelsons' _Shostakovich: Under Stalin's Shadow Symp. 5, 8 & 9_ arrived today. 'just about to play it.


----------



## Vaneyes

Blancrocher said:


> Julian Barnes has a new novel about Shostakovich, "The Noise of Time," that some may be interested in reading. A review by Jeremy Denk in the NY Times:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/books/review/the-noise-of-time-by-julian-barnes.html?_r=0


Now this...

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/julian-barnes-and-the-shostakovich-wars


----------



## KenOC

Tomorrow is DSCH's 110th birthday. Hope all those cakes are baked and the candles counted out. And we did remember to send those cards, right?


----------



## Zhdanov

Blancrocher said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/books/review/the-noise-of-time-by-julian-barnes.html?_r=0





Vaneyes said:


> http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/julian-barnes-and-the-shostakovich-wars


wonder how they even attempt taking on such subject while obviously knowing nothing on it?

how is it possible that such unprofessional and amateurish publications find there way into the media?


----------



## Merl

JosefinaHW said:


> The new Nelsons' _Shostakovich: Under Stalin's Shadow Symp. 5, 8 & 9_ arrived today. 'just about to play it.


It's very good. Nice choice Josefina.


----------



## Zhdanov

one might get impression it is these two scribes are projecting their own fear and despair upon the composer and his environment with its history while having never listened to his music especially the opera in question of which they give a completely incorrect account... they simply have no idea yet think themselves able to speak out.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> wonder how they even attempt taking on such subject while obviously knowing nothing on it?
> 
> how is it possible that such unprofessional and amateurish publications find there way into the media?


You are objecting to the book reviews? Do you think they misread the Barnes novel? I'm curious about what your objections are if you'd care to explain. I read the Barnes novel and was not impressed with it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

:lol: :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Huilunsoittaja said:


> View attachment 89020
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol:


I doubt that poor Shostakovich was amused. He was representing the USSR at a major cultural conference at the behest of Comrade Stalin. This, and other embarrassing attacks, made his visit a nightmare. He wanted never to return to the US, and didn't.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> You are objecting to the book reviews?


i resent the reviews, and as concerns the book, i have no doubt its even worse then reviews; my point was, that every time there's a publication on the composer, its never better than the original 'muddle in place of music' one.


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> one might get impression it is these two scribes are projecting their own fear and despair upon the composer and his environment with its history while having never listened to his music especially the opera in question of which they give a completely incorrect account... they simply have no idea yet think themselves able to speak out.


It's not clear from your post whether you're complaining about the reviewers or the author whose work they are reviewing.

[edit]Apologies - slow reading on my part - you've made it clear. However, you might elaborate for the uninitiated. Where does the reviewer describing the opera get it wrong?

I wonder too whether Barnes was writing a biography, aiming at fact, or something else, in which artistic license is permitted. In another article in The Guardian, Barnes is quoted, and the book too:



> _The Noise of Time_ tells the story of Dmitri Shostakovich, the Russian composer both feted and condemned by the Soviet state during his lifetime; but it does so not in aridly "truthful" fashion, but in full, delighted knowledge of how little use facts are in determining the essence of human experience, let alone its intersection with history and politics. "Shostakovich was a multiple narrator of his own life," Barnes points out in his author's note to the novel, with details varying across different versions. "All this is highly frustrating to any biographer," Barnes goes on to write, "but most welcome to any novelist."
> But even though _The Noise of Time _runs to fewer than 200 pages, Barnes broadens his narrative from the life of an individual artist - even one so replete with false starts and handbrake turns, and so thoroughly shaped by the accommodations and abiding terrors that characterise life under authoritarian rule - to create a complex meditation on the power, limitations and likely endurance of art. "Art belongs to everybody and nobody," he writes, seemingly from inside Shostakovich's consciousness. "Art belongs to all time and no time… Art is the whisper of history, heard above the noise of time. Art does not exist for art's sake: it exists for people's sake. But which people and who defines them?"


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/03/profile-julian-barnes-new-novel-out-noise-of-time


----------



## TxllxT

25 september: 110th birthday of Dmitri Shostakovich

http://rbth.com/arts/2016/09/25/7-facts-about-dmitri-shostakovich-composer-of-the-leningrad-symphony_632721


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> I doubt that poor Shostakovich was amused. He was representing the USSR at a major cultural conference at the behest of Comrade Stalin. This, and other embarrassing attacks, made his visit a nightmare. He wanted never to return to the US, and didn't.


Do you think he wanted to visit the U.S. in the first place? That visit was inevitably going to be a nightmare, no matter how you cut it. The idiots who thought he might defect by diving from a window are just a comic vignette in the larger farce.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> The idiots who thought he might defect by diving from a window are just a comic vignette in the larger farce.


news to me his defection was even considered by anyone... but where does it say this was the case?


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> news to me his defection was even considered by anyone... but where does it say this was the case?


See the photo posted in #386. Those idiots with the signs were encouraging Shostakovich to jump from his hotel window on the assumption he might like to seek asylum and live in the U.S. They were encouraging him to defect. To my knowledge, no one except the people with the signs thought about Shostakovich's defection. Certainly he didn't.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, it seems that Shostakovich had no intention of leaving Russia, because he obviously loved it so much. Can't you tell by all those photos in which he is smiling?


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> See the photo posted in #386. Those idiots with the signs were encouraging Shostakovich to jump from his hotel window on the assumption he might like to seek asylum and live in the U.S. They were encouraging him to defect. To my knowledge, no one except the people with the signs thought about Shostakovich's defection. Certainly he didn't.


My view has been that they wanted him to jump from his hotel window simply because it was a long way down! Defections were not a thing in those days, and a defector from our good wartime ally might not have been welcome. The cold war and McCarthy were still ahead.

Defections of Russians to the US were almost unknown through the 1950s and most of the 1960s. The first noteworthy defection of that type, aside from the occasional intelligence operative, was Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva in 1967.


----------



## millionrainbows

They should have gotten Kate Smith to sing "God Bless America," and that would have done the trick.

P.S. Be sure to burn all your Beatle trash.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> My view has been that they wanted him to jump from his hotel window simply because it was a long way down! Defections were not a thing in those days, and a defector from our good wartime ally might not have been welcome. The cold war and McCarthy were still ahead.
> 
> Defections of Russians to the US were almost unknown through the 1950s and most of the 1960s. The first noteworthy defection of that type, aside from the occasional intelligence operative, was Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva in 1967.


By Jove, I think you're right Ken!


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it seems that Shostakovich had no intention of leaving Russia, because he obviously loved it so much. Can't you tell by all those photos in which he is smiling?


----------



## Zhdanov




----------



## Zhdanov

at 15:25 -


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich? The guy was born with a smile on his face!


----------



## violadude

I have a question about Shostakovich's 1st symphony.

I was doing a bit of light research on this symphony and I discovered this quote on Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know..but...)

"The work begins with an introductory Allegretto section, which is developed from a duet between solo trumpet and bassoon. This leads into the first subject proper, a lively march-like Allegro reminiscent of the vaudeville and theatre music Shostakovich would have encountered during his time as a cinema pianist. The second subject is ostensibly a waltz, with the flute melody finding its way around several sections of the orchestra. The development section features a return to mock-comic grotesqueries, although the sonata-form structure of this movement is entirely conventional".

Is this how everyone else interprets the symphony's structure? Because I perceived it in a completely different light. Unlike the author of this wikipedia article, I thought the sonata form in this movement was quite unconventional and, in fact, interpreted it as a parody of a sonata form structure (which would fit the expressive quality of the piece anyway).

I don't see the point of calling the opening an introduction when it is fully integrated into the movement. I interpreted the movement as a sonata form with three themes/key areas (the opening/the march/the waltz). This idea appealed to me especially as it related to my sonata form-parody idea, because it would make it so that the first theme starts away from the main key area (f minor) and goes toward it leading into the second theme (which is in the main key), the exact opposite harmonic motion of a traditional sonata form. 

Also, it always seemed apparent to me that the recapitulation presents all three themes in backwards order from which they were represented in the exposition. Hardly what I would call "entirely conventional". Did they miss that? Or do I just suck at interpreting forms?

What are your thoughts?


----------



## EdwardBast

Hi Violadude, ^ ^ ^

The structure is unconventional in a number of ways, although, at a superficial glance, there are aspects that look quite conventional. The structure of the exposition, cued to rehearsal numbers, looks conventional:

1-7 - Introduction
8-11 - Theme One, tonic
12-17 - Second Theme, mediant

You are right to point out, however, that the introduction is fully integrated into the movement. Its opening motive is the basis of Theme One and, less obviously, the contour and rhythm of Theme Two's main motive. In this respect its role is like that of a motto, as in Beethoven 5, Franck's D minor or Rachmaninoff's Second. The "point of calling the opening an introduction," however, has more to do with its role in the symphony as a whole, on which scale it is the most important element of all. So, not part of the exposition in the first movement, but _the_ essential exposition for the overall structure.

One thing that makes the introduction seem unconventional to me is how nebulous and wandering it is, almost as if the movement began in the middle of an unstable development. It seems more like Shostakovich's finale introductions than a traditional opening-movement introduction.

Where I think both your reading and Wiki get into trouble is the recap, which is truncated and entirely devoted to Theme Two. It begins in the tonic major at 32 and runs through 37. But note that in the end of the development we had a climactic statement of the motto as the climax (29), just as we do in Tchaikovsky 4, Rachmaninoff 2, and Shostakovich 10, and then a version of Theme One at 30. Thus all of the themes are reviewed in their original order, but in a way that is conventional only in the "Russian variant" of sonata form. The real recap is unconventional except in its key.

The movement ends with an extended coda, 38-45, which includes a reprise and intensification of a loud passage from the development, and variants of Theme One and the motto which do indeed sound in reverse order. This kind of extended developmental coda isn't conventional, but has been used by composers with their eyes on cyclic unity since Beethoven.


----------



## violadude

EdwardBast said:


> Hi Violadude, ^ ^ ^
> 
> The structure is unconventional in a number of ways, although, at a superficial glance, there are aspects that look quite conventional. The structure of the exposition, cued to rehearsal numbers, looks conventional:
> 
> 1-7 - Introduction
> 8-11 - Theme One, tonic
> 12-17 - Second Theme, mediant
> 
> You are right to point out, however, that the introduction is fully integrated into the movement. Its opening motive is the basis of Theme One and, less obviously, the contour and rhythm of Theme Two's main motive. In this respect its role is like that of a motto, as in Beethoven 5, Franck's D minor or Rachmaninoff's Second. The "point of calling the opening an introduction," however, has more to do with its role in the symphony as a whole, on which scale it is the most important element of all. So, not part of the exposition in the first movement, but _the_ essential exposition for the overall structure.
> 
> One thing that makes the introduction seem unconventional to me is how nebulous and wandering it is, almost as if the movement began in the middle of an unstable development. It seems more like Shostakovich's finale introductions than a traditional opening-movement introduction.
> 
> Where I think both your reading and Wiki get into trouble is the recap, which is truncated and entirely devoted to Theme Two. It begins in the tonic major at 32 and runs through 37. But note that in the end of the development we had a climactic statement of the motto as the climax (29), just as we do in Tchaikovsky 4, Rachmaninoff 2, and Shostakovich 10, and then a version of Theme One at 30. Thus all of the themes are reviewed in their original order, but in a way that is conventional only in the "Russian variant" of sonata form. The real recap is unconventional except in its key.
> 
> The movement ends with an extended coda, 38-45, which includes a reprise and intensification of a loud passage from the development, and variants of Theme One and the motto which do indeed sound in reverse order. This kind of extended developmental coda isn't conventional, but has been used by composers with their eyes on cyclic unity since Beethoven.


Thank you for the detailed explanation. That makes sense. Is the section at 38-45 considered a coda and not part of the recap because of the key relationships? Or is it something you just have to have a feel for?


----------



## EdwardBast

violadude said:


> Thank you for the detailed explanation. That makes sense. Is the section at 38-45 considered a coda and not part of the recap because of the key relationships? Or is it something you just have to have a feel for?


The key change and double bar are a clue, but the primary basis for this kind of decision is parallelism with the music of the exposition and/or development. If it is paralleling the exposition, it is (usually) part of the recap; if it is paralleling the development, it is (usually) part of the coda. If there is an independent introduction, as in this case, some of the intro will often appear in the coda as well.

The exposition in this movement ends immediately after the full statement of the second theme, so one would expect the coda to begin right after the full statement of the second theme in the recap. Sure enough, from 32-36 the second theme gets its full treatment, with just a few bars from the intro rounding it out at 37. From 38 on we parallel events from the development. First comes phrases of theme one foreshortened, then a fortissimo arpeggiated passage, the same sequence of events heard in 22-27. The last part of the coda, 43-45 parallels the end of the introduction, which gives it a rounding or quasi-recapitulatory function.

Other helpful information comes from general stylistic Knowledge, in this case, the tradition within which Shostakovich was working and the models he drew on for his conception of sonata form. The lineage here is middle period Beethoven filtered through and reinterpreted by Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and Miaskovsky. This is seen most clearly in the way Shostakovich crams a climactic statement of the motto and a truncated version of the principal theme into the end of the development, at 29 and 30 respectively, right before the recap begins with the second theme. The first movements of Tchaikovsky's 4th, Rachmanonoff's 2nd and Shostakovich's 10th all do this and recognizing such general patterns helps to interpret what is going on in related works.


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich's solo piano repertoire is a bit thin - the Op. 87 Preludes and Fugues, and (maybe) the Op. 34 Preludes and the 2nd Piano Sonata. The rest is seldom heard.

That may change. Boris Giltburg has transcribed the 8th String Quartet for piano, and it's a barn-burner. I was on the edge of my chair from beginning to end. It's rare, in my experience, that a transcription can be so effective. I hope those who enjoy Dmitri's music have a chance to hear this.

The two piano concerti on the CD are also very good.

https://www.amazon.com/Dmitri-Shost...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1487560650&sr=1-1


----------



## Janspe

^ I recently purchased that CD and I found the concerto performances magnificent - which isn't really a surprise, given the great enthusiasm that both Giltburg and Petrenko (who just finished recording the complete symphonies) have for this music. Haven't gotten around to listening to the transcriptions yet, as I want to refresh my memory of the originals first. Can't wait...

I have a Shostakovich-related question. Am I correct to assume that he finished *three* operas, as follows:

- Op. 15, _Нос/The Nose_
- Op. 29, _Леди Макбет Мценского уезда/Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_
- Op. 105, _Москва, Черемушки/Moscow, Cheryomushki_

... and the rest stayed unfinished?


----------



## lextune

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich's solo piano repertoire is a bit thin - the Op. 87 Preludes and Fugues, and (maybe) the Op. 34 Preludes and the 2nd Piano Sonata. The rest is seldom heard.


Opps. 34 and 87 alone are enough to secure his place in the piano literature. Both towering masterpieces.

It is surprising that he didn't turn to solo piano writing more though. In light of his considerable pianistic powers, both as a composer and a virtuoso.


----------



## millionrainbows

Let's face it, Shostakovich would not interest us nearly as much unless he had been miserable. A large part of the appeal is trying to detect the nature of this angst, and feeling sympathy for it, while at the same time reveling in the fact that we live in a free country, wherever that may be. Anyway, artists are supposed to suffer, right?










Yet another picture of Shostakovich smiling...


----------



## chromatic owl

I fell in love with Shostakovich long before I knew anything about him as a person, let alone his miserable circumstances. It was the music which made the life and personality of Shostakovich interesting to me, not the other way around.


----------



## Heliogabo

chromatic owl said:


> I fell in love with Shostakovich long before I knew anything about him as a person, let alone his miserable circumstances. It was the music which made the life and personality of Shostakovich interesting to me, not the other way around.


My case too. I was atracted by his intriguing music and didn't knew anything about composers life.
Now I started reading Julian Barnes novel about him. Very promising...


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Let's face it, Shostakovich would not interest us nearly as much unless he had been miserable.


For most of Shostakovich's career he was on top of the world, with two very rough periods -- about 1936-1939 and again from 1948 to 1953. I think that as a person, he was just misery-prone.

Where's member Zhdanov when we need him?


----------



## Atrahasis

One of the greatest...


----------



## Pugg

Not really fond of the symphonies, his piano works are great.


----------



## Richard8655

Yeah, I hardly ever saw Shosty crack a smile in films and documentaries about him. But then I ask myself, who would while living under Stalin where your neighbors are randomly dragged away in the middle of the night to a gulag.


----------



## EdwardBast

Richard8655 said:


> Yeah, I hardly ever saw Shosty crack a smile in films and documentaries about him. But then I ask myself, who would while living under Stalin where your neighbors are randomly dragged away in the middle of the night to a gulag.


See Sharik's - oops, I mean Zhdanov's - post #398. Plenty of pictures of Shostakovich smiling.


----------



## Richard8655

EdwardBast said:


> See Sharik's - oops, I mean Zhdanov's - post #398. Plenty of pictures of Shostakovich smiling.


Of course you have to smile at party functions (outward appearances - i.e., what they wanted you to see and think). Candid photos and films I've seen didn't typically reflect this at all.

But I think this is really the main point. The poor man was hounded and felt at risk much of the time to please (and not offend) the regime. As others mentioned earlier, there was a stress factor there and it almost certainly affected his music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Richard8655 said:


> Of course you have to smile at party functions (outward appearances - i.e., what they wanted you to see and think). Candid photos and films I've seen didn't typically reflect this at all.
> 
> But I think this is really the main point. The poor man was hounded and felt at risk much of the time to please (and not offend) the regime. As others mentioned earlier, there was a stress factor there and it almost certainly affected his music.


Yes. Like millions of others. But it seems he had a great capacity for enjoyment as well.


----------



## Richard8655

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. Like millions of others. But it seems he had a great capacity for enjoyment as well.


I never implied he didn't.


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> Let's face it, Shostakovich would not interest us nearly as much unless he had been miserable. A large part of the appeal is trying to detect the nature of this angst, and feeling sympathy for it, while at the same time reveling in the fact that we live in a free country, wherever that may be. Anyway, artists are supposed to suffer, right?


That's not really what attracts me to his music. I was never a huge fan, but I like to keep chipping away at composers I don't automatically love to see if I can hear new things to enjoy. I've been working on Shosty since 1984. But only recently got hold of a complete symphony set, and his string quartets. I also like his operas, and piano quintet.


----------



## Janspe

The second violin concerto (Op. 129) is a terrific piece - it's a pity that it has to live in the shadow of the first! I'm a huge fan of Shosty's late style, it's so intense and personal - the music is so exposed that it's almost unbearably heavy at times.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Janspe said:


> The second violin concerto (Op. 129) is a terrific piece - it's a pity that it has to live in the shadow of the first! I'm a huge fan of Shosty's late style, it's so intense and personal - the music is so exposed that it's almost unbearably heavy at times.


Although I prefer the first, the second is great as well- much more emotional and stirring.

But the first is just downright genius and creative, along with the 5th and 11th symphonies, Piano Concerto No. 2, and String Quartet No. 8 is one of my favorite works.


----------



## cellodin

Tchaikov6 said:


> Although I prefer the first, the second is great as well- much more emotional and stirring.
> 
> But the first is just downright genius and creative, along with the 5th and 11th symphonies, Piano Concerto No. 2, and String Quartet No. 8 is one of my favorite works.


It's actually really interesting for his String Quartet No. 8 he quotes a lot of other pieces like parts from one of is piano trios (I want to say second?), his first cello concerto, and some other ones I can't really remember off the top of my head. One of the theories is that this was like an autobiography because he quoted himself so much, and I think this one was the one he dedicated to the victims of fascism or something - maybe hinting that it was like his struggle? I think he denied it when he was questioned on it, but at the time he was a part of the communist party so he couldn't really agree... What an interesting character


----------



## ahinton

cellodin said:


> It's actually really interesting for his String Quartet No. 8 he quotes a lot of other pieces like parts from one of is piano trios (I want to say second?), his first cello concerto, and some other ones I can't really remember off the top of my head. One of the theories is that this was like an autobiography because he quoted himself so much, and I think this one was the one he dedicated to the victims of fascism or something - maybe hinting that it was like his struggle? I think he denied it when he was questioned on it, but at the time he was a part of the communist party so he couldn't really agree... What an interesting character


The work in which self-quotation (along with quotations of others) is perhaps most in evidence is his final symphony, no. 15.


----------



## TxllxT

*Complete Films that feature Shostakovich' Film Music*











The Gadfly:






The Fall of Berlin:


----------



## TxllxT

Ordinary People 1945






Young Guard 1948
















King Lear:


----------



## TxllxT

King Lear:






Alone 1931:






Five days, five nights 1960:






Friends 1938:






Counterplan 1932:


----------



## TxllxT

Meeting at the Elbe 1949:






The Girl Friends 1936:






Golden Mountains 1931:






The Great Citizen 1938:


----------



## TxllxT

Michurin 1948:






Pigorov 1947:






The Return of Maxim 1937:






Sofiya Perovskaya 1967:






The Tale of the Priest and of His Workman Balda 1936:


----------



## TxllxT

The Unforgettable year 1919 - 1951:


----------



## TxllxT

The Vyborg Side 1939:






Maxim's Youth 1934:






Zoya 1944:






Belinsky 1953:






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_scores_by_Dmitri_Shostakovich


----------



## TxllxT

King Lear 1971:


----------



## EdwardBast

In case no one has posted this, here is a link to a lecture on Shostakovich's String Quartets, 4, 8, 10, and 11 for the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center by Michael Parloff. Apparently it accompanied a series of performances of the complete cycle at Lincoln Center. The 4th and 10th are among my favorites, which is why I posted this lecture. But Parloff did similar talks for the other quartets as well. They are a good introduction, with recorded examples of tasty bits, for those who don't know this body of work. The other lectures will pop up on youtube if you access this one, so I didn't bother with the other links.


----------



## TxllxT

*Preludes and Fugues, Op.87*

Shostakovich - Preludes and Fugues, Op.87, Book I - Tatiana Nikolayeva















Shostakovich - Preludes and Fugues, Op.87, Book II - Tatiana Nikolayeva















Dmitri Shostakovich plays Shostakovich - 8 Preludes and Fugues, op. 87















Shostakovich - 24 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 87 [Audio + Score]















Shostakovich- Svatoslav Richter (1956, Prague) Various PRELUDES and FUGUES op.87















Sviatoslav Richter - Shostakovich op.87 Preludes&Fugues nn.22,21,19,20
Great Hall of the Moscow Conservatoire, December 22nd, 1974






Richter plays Shostakovich Prelude and fugue No.4 & 15 (Budapest, 1963)






Richter plays Shostakovich Prelude and fugue No.14 & 17 (Budapest, 1963)






Richter plays Shostakovich Prelude and fugue No.12 & 23 (Budapest, 1963)






Shostakovich - 4 Preludes & Fugues - Richter Pécs 1974






Shostakovich / S. Richter, 1962: Prelude and Fugue in E Flat Minor, Op. 87, No. 14 - Philips LP


----------



## ed weinman

I have viewed on youtube.com the 2007 BBC PROMS concert of the Shostakovitch Symphony No. 10 performed by the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela conducted by Gustavo Dudamel several times. I cannot believe what I'm hearing and seeing from this remarkable performance. I tried to download it from youtube.com but the symphony is copy-protected. Does anyone have this that can be put on this forum? If the audience attending the concert didn't know about the orchestra and conductor's backgrounds and thought that they were merely going to hear a "youth" performance...well I can just imagine them being blown out of their seats when this superb work began with these young players and conductor. I would really love to see the concert, if not in it's entirety, at least the Shostakovitch.


----------



## Larkenfield

With regard to downloading the Shostakovich 10th Symphony, do a 'net search on 'how to download videos from YouTube'. It's done all the time because sometimes the videos are not up forever. Be familiar with the legal side of it too. Some of the download programs cost but they're usually relatively inexpensive.


----------



## Tchaikov6

ed weinman said:


> I have viewed on youtube.com the 2007 BBC PROMS concert of the Shostakovitch Symphony No. 10 performed by the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela conducted by Gustavo Dudamel several times. I cannot believe what I'm hearing and seeing from this remarkable performance. I tried to download it from youtube.com but the symphony is copy-protected. Does anyone have this that can be put on this forum? If the audience attending the concert didn't know about the orchestra and conductor's backgrounds and thought that they were merely going to hear a "youth" performance...well I can just imagine them being blown out of their seats when this superb work began with these young players and conductor. I would really love to see the concert, if not in it's entirety, at least the Shostakovitch.


Did you view this video?


----------



## ed weinman

Larkenfield, I've tried several times to download this particular video and was successful, but it will not allow me to transfer the download to a DVD. Any suggestions?


----------



## ed weinman

Tchaikov6, yes...I've viewed it many times on my home theater screen utilizing my theater sound...the problem with this video is that you don't get the full frequency range from just watching it on youtube...that's the reason why I wanted to download it to my computer and then transfer it to DVD...but I can't because of it's copy-protection. I have the new OPPO 205 audiophile player which does wonders for playing CDs and DVDs and I'd hoped that by transferring the work to DVD, I could take advantage of the work as it should be heard. The sound on the youtube sounds slightly congested.


----------



## Larkenfield

ed weinman said:


> Larkenfield, I've tried several times to download this particular video and was successful, but it will not allow me to transfer the download to a DVD. Any suggestions?


Hi Ed. I'm not sure this will work, but I would separately extract the soundtrack from the YT download - and there are programs that can do this - and then see if I could transfer that to a CD so I could play it in my CD player and most likely get a better quality sound. This might be a way around the DVD encoding, though I think the best quality sound that YouTube still offers is 192 Kbps.

It sounds like you've already tried downloading the YouTube video with different downloaders to see if all of them have the blocking of transfer to make one's own DVD. In any event, I do believe you can extract the sound, and that might be worth the effort for a noticeable improvement in the sound of the playback. I would use a lossless format to extract the sound to further avoid diluting it. This might be the best that one can do as a workaround of the DVD encoding. Good luck.


----------



## KenOC

Easiest way: Just use this web page, no program required.

http://convert2mp3.net/en/


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> Easiest way: Just use this web page, no program required.
> 
> http://convert2mp3.net/en/


Ken, thanks for sharing this link. I was able to save the Shostakovich 10th (full) as a 192 kbps mp3. My other download program would only save it as a 103 kbps mp3. Noticable improvement in sound quality.

The reverse was true saving the download as an mp4 file. The URL link site saved it at 93 kbps, and my Ummy program for the iMac was able to save it at 122 kbps - what I would view as a considerable difference. So the best sound quality will apparently be as a sound rather than video file - and that's good to know.

I haven't tried it yet, but the next test would be to see if it's possible to burn the downloaded mp3 (or other format) to a CD. I would guess that wouldn't be a problem and one could hear it in a CD player with its additional benefits. In any event, I'm glad to know about the online download site. --Lark

PS. The highest bitrate I've been able to download with most online video files is 187 kbps, and most have been at 93 kbps, at least using the download program that I have.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Ken, thanks for sharing this link. I was able to save the Shostakovich 10th (full) as a 192 kbps mp3.


Lark, using the drop-down box you can save the file as a FLAC (or lossless) file. Then you can use any other program, Foobar for example, to convert it to whatever format you like. This may give you a bit better sound. But of course it will never be better than whatever format YouTube has used to save it in the first place.


----------



## ed weinman

The main reason why I wanted the visual as well as, of course, the audio was because I wanted to witness the young talent on that stage and their great conductor. It is just amazing to watch them (all 200 musicians) and their fellow student/conductor, Gustavo Dudamel. They all were trained and raised at El Sistema in Venezuela since they were very young. Dudamel knows all of them and if you watch mostly any performance he will not take a bow standing in front of them. They are his family and as such the bows are taken within the first chairs around the conductor's podium. A CD only will not cut it for me. I need a program that will allow me to download the 50 minute plus symphony for both video and audio and then allow me to transfer that download to a DVD. Any suggestions?


----------



## ed weinman

I got it!! I downloaded a program called "iSkysoft i Media Converter Delux" and after three frustrating tries with the free download where I could only get 19 minutes 58 seconds then it would cut off...I purchased the program and, voila!, I now have the enitre Shostakovitch 10th Symphony, video and audio, from that remarkable BBC PRIOMS 2007 Concert with those absolutely remarkable musicians and their great leader, Gustavo Dudamel (who was in his mid 20's at the time). And what a performance it is! If you do not know about the orchestra or the maestro, you could do some research on the Venezuela El Sistema school founded in 1975 the great Jose Antonio Abreu. There are two DVDs, one on D. Gramophone entitled "The Promise of Music" which shows that preparations of conductor and orchestra for their performance of the Beethoven 3rd Symphony...the other entitled "El Sistema" is a documentary about the school's history and the way children with talent are found (either on the Venezuela streets or in impoverished homes) making their way to the school at very early ages and remain there for several years learning about music theory, music technique, etc. and also almost immediately giving them instruments and having them perform, no mater what level of competence, as an orchestra. (They do not live at El Sistema, only attend classes.) Of course, when they become proficient at their craft they are considered for the Youth Orchestra (which was renamed The Simon Bolivar Orchestra of Venezuela once the school realized that many of the members were no longer teenagers). 

In any event, I've got it and you should too!


----------



## Zhdanov

Mravinsky and Shostakovich


----------



## elgar's ghost

Great pic, Zhdanov - they look like they're getting prepared for a bank heist!


----------



## hpowders

Zhdanov said:


> Mravinsky and Shostakovich


They wouldn't be outta place in the movie Goodfellas.


----------



## ed weinman

hpowders said:


> They wouldn't be outta place in the movie Goodfellas.


...or going to the premier of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"


----------



## eugeneonagain

Among the best performances of DSCH's Quartet No.8 on youtube.Clear, sharp and accurate in the way Shostakovich should be played. The MOSAIC ensemble are all members of the Qatar Philharmonic Orchestra. The cellist is particularly good:


----------



## Larkenfield




----------



## Mandryka

I discovered this just about a month ago, the op 34 transcriptions, I thought the music is quite interesting, Tropp I know as a very great pianist. I haven't had a chance to hear the sonata yet.


----------



## MusicSybarite

A work that always amazes me is _The Execution of Stepan Razin_, for baritone, chorus and orchestra. It's a raw, brooding work with some folksy moments (something that is not especially usual in Shostakovich), plenty of drama and the sarcasm dose that Shostakovich knows to apply wittily. I just love it.


----------



## Ivan Smith

MusicSybarite said:


> A work that always amazes me is _The Execution of Stepan Razin_, for baritone, chorus and orchestra. It's a raw, brooding work with some folksy moments (something that is not especially usual in Shostakovich), plenty of drama and the sarcasm dose that Shostakovich knows to apply wittily. I just love it.


Power piece of music, dark though, very dark


----------



## Ivan Smith

Shostakovich is one of my favorite composers. For years I've been listening to my box set of the complete symphonies and complete string quartets almost daily, sometimes weekly. Seriously, it doesn't get much better than Dmitri!


----------



## MusicSybarite

Ivan Smith said:


> Shostakovich is one of my favorite composers. For years I've been listening to my box set of the complete symphonies and complete string quartets almost daily, sometimes weekly. Seriously, it doesn't get much better than Dmitri!


I share your enthusiasm. Shostakovich is a hell of composer.


----------



## kyjo

MusicSybarite said:


> A work that always amazes me is _The Execution of Stepan Razin_, for baritone, chorus and orchestra. It's a raw, brooding work with some folksy moments (something that is not especially usual in Shostakovich), plenty of drama and the sarcasm dose that Shostakovich knows to apply wittily. I just love it.


Yes, a fantastic work! It exceeded my expectations.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich's solo piano repertoire is a bit thin - the Op. 87 Preludes and Fugues, and (maybe) the Op. 34 Preludes and the 2nd Piano Sonata. The rest is seldom heard.
> 
> That may change. Boris Giltburg has transcribed the 8th String Quartet for piano, and it's a barn-burner. I was on the edge of my chair from beginning to end. It's rare, in my experience, that a transcription can be so effective. I hope those who enjoy Dmitri's music have a chance to hear this.
> 
> The two piano concerti on the CD are also very good.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Dmitri-Shost...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1487560650&sr=1-1


For me, the strikingly avant-garde 1st piano sonata is one of his masterpieces. He was 20 when he wrote it and it can appear to be a patchwork of various influence (Prokofiev in the opening toccata-like sequence, perhaps Debussy in some of the other segments), but he ties it all together like only a true genius can. One of the reasons it is rarely played is that it's monstrously difficult.


----------



## Zhdanov

him with his daughter Galina.









and his wife Nina.









with Mravinsky.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Nice pics, Zhdanov - please keep them coming.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Enjoy many rare photographs here on this page! (It's public so you don't need facebook to view the posts). The DSCH Shostakovich Journal:

https://www.facebook.com/DschShostakovichJournal/


----------



## EdwardBast

Just found this performance of the Fifth Quartet by the Dudok Quartet. It's the first interpretation I've heard that rivals the Borodin's. Shostakovich composed this shortly after the 24 Preludes and Fugues, opus 87, which perhaps explains the extraordinary contrapuntal richness. And the thematic connections between movements are subtle and profound. IMO one of the most important quartets of the 20thc.


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich, 1962.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich, 1962.


Someone should have told him smoking is bad for you!


----------



## Zhdanov

DavidA said:


> Someone should have told him smoking is bad for you!


Bernstein should.


----------



## RockyIII

I have a special love for the Shostakovich Piano Concerto No. 2, as I played the cello in a performance of it years ago. The pianist was a diminutive woman who played with large skill and emotion. Of all the pieces we played during my few years in the orchestra, it was my favorite. My current favorite recording is from 2011 with Alexander Melnikov and the Mahler Chamber Orchestra, Teodor Currentzsis conducting.

Rocky


----------



## KenOC

RockyIII said:


> I have a special love for the Shostakovich Piano Concerto No. 2, as I played the cello in a performance of it years ago. The pianist was a diminutive woman who played with large skill and emotion. Of all the pieces we played during my few years in the orchestra, it was my favorite. My current favorite recording is from 2011 with Alexander Melnikov and the Mahler Chamber Orchestra, Teodor Currentzsis conducting.
> 
> Rocky


DSCH's 2nd Piano Concerto was featured in one segment of Disney's _Fantasia 2000_.


----------



## MusicSybarite

RockyIII said:


> I have a special love for the Shostakovich Piano Concerto No. 2, as I played the cello in a performance of it years ago. The pianist was a diminutive woman who played with large skill and emotion. Of all the pieces we played during my few years in the orchestra, it was my favorite. My current favorite recording is from 2011 with Alexander Melnikov and the Mahler Chamber Orchestra, Teodor Currentzsis conducting.
> 
> Rocky


I love it too! It's Shostakovich at his funniest! And the slow movement is one of his most sentimental creations, far of the angry and bleak atmosphere of other of his works. I'm very fond of the Hamelin's performance on Hyperion label.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Hello there! Look what I just discovered


----------



## Taggart

Members are reminded that political discussion should be confined to the groups.

Composer guestbooks are meant for the *appreciation *of a composer.

Any disparagement of a composer should be reserved for the main forum.

Discussion of the political aspects of a composers life should take place in the _Politics and Religion in Classical Music_ sub-forum.

A number of purely political posts have been removed.


----------



## ZJovicic

I haven't listened very much of his stuff but I love his 10th and 15th symphonies and 2nd waltz.

I generally like his symphonies.


----------



## flamencosketches

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Hello there! Look what I just discovered


Good find! When I was in high school my orchestra director had some friends come in to play this with her for our class. She was a killer violinist. Anyway it blew my mind and I've been a fan of Shostakovich ever since, though I really have to be in the mood to listen to his music.

Emerson I think is my favorite string quartet of the few I know. I'm listening to them right now actually playing Debussy's quartet. When it finishes I will have to check out this video.

This morning I listened to Shostakovich's piano trio for the first time. Really liked it.


----------



## flamencosketches

That was in reference to the trio no. 2 in E minor to clarify. I really like Argerich, Maisky, and Kremer's version and have listened to it several times since posting that. Really dark stuff.

In the epilogue of his book What to Listen for in Music, Copland describes Shostakovich, alongside such names as Satie, Poulenc, and early Stravinsky, as being among the easiest tier of modern composers to get into (late Schoenberg, Webern, Varèse and a few others being in the "very tough" category; Prokofiev and Bartok somewhere in the middle). Do we agree with this assessment? I love some of Shostakovich's music but none of it strikes me as immediately obvious in its intention; I've had to work to enjoy almost everything I like of his. And still he has moments that totally lose me even in some of his most acclaimed work. (I don't get the 9th symphony at all). Just curious on everyone's thoughts!


----------



## Blancrocher

A recently discovered work by Shostakovich, Impromptu for viola and piano, op. 33.


----------



## Listenerris

I do so want a Shostakovich music is uderstanding, why is do so magnificient


----------



## Listenerris

Shostakovich's music in my point of view so truly is said Copland describes.It is strange sadly and ironically and something ironically? a little bit a his method of writing music help is understanding, though I have to say that is cool before.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I am currently reading Shostakovich's 'Testament'. It is fascinating: he doesn't seek to justify or 'explain' his music particularly, but he does give it context, which I find really helpful. 

And while we're mentioning favourites: 2nd Piano Concerto, Viola Sonata, 10th Symphony, 2nd Piano Trio.


----------



## Listenerris

Oh! need to, too, revere this book......:tiphat:


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Listenerris said:


> Oh! need to, too, revere this book......:tiphat:


Early on in Testament, DSCH makes it clear how much he hated snobs and bullies. And at regular intervals through the book, he makes it clear how much he disliked Prokofiev. Coincidence?


----------



## Zhdanov

Pat Fairlea said:


> I am currently reading Shostakovich's 'Testament'.


must have meant Testimony, however Volkov made it all up in most part - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_(book) - very unlikely that Shostakovich would confide to someone things he never told anyone, even his relatives. Volkov is a nobody for such prominet figures to pour there souls out to him.


----------



## EdwardBast

Pat Fairlea said:


> I am currently reading Shostakovich's 'Testament'. It is fascinating: he doesn't seek to justify or 'explain' his music particularly, but he does give it context, which I find really helpful.
> 
> And while we're mentioning favourites: 2nd Piano Concerto, Viola Sonata, 10th Symphony, 2nd Piano Trio.


Zhdanov is correct. Within a year of its publication, Laurel Fay exposed _Testimony_ as a fraud. See:

Laurel Fay: "Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose Testimony?", The Russian Review, vol.39, no.4, October 1980, pp.484-493

Fay's article also appears, and is more readily available, as the first chapter of Malcolm Brown's _A Shostakovich Casebook_. The second chapter, also by Fay, expands her argument and provides the evidence as it stood in 2002.

The most obvious evidence is that the first pages of _Testimony's_ chapters, and only the first pages, are taken from articles previously published in the USSR (with minor revisions to eliminate dates and other time-sensitive references). The second page of each chapter then goes in another direction, sometimes with a loss of continuity. To "prove" the authenticity of his work, Volkov got Shostakovich to sign (initial) the first page of each chapter of his typescript. What Fay suggests Volkov did was to tell Shostakovich he was planning to collect the composer's previously published articles in book form - perfectly plausible since Volkov was then editor of the USSR's most important music journal - then created a typescript of these seven articles, showed it to Shostakovich, and asked him to initial the first pages. To create _Testimony_ Volkov then took those first pages, threw out the rest of each article, and wrote whatever he wanted for the rest of each chapter.

In any case, the above refutes Volkov's claim that the words in _Testimony_ are a transcription of conversations with Shostakovich - unless one is stupid enough to believe Shostakovich began each of their conversations by reciting from memory the text of an already published article. The other obvious proof _Testimony_ is a scam is that when Fay called him out, Volkov claimed he had in his possession the original transcripts of his conversations with Shostakovich. Had he simply published these, he could have put the matter to rest. He never did, for the obvious reason that they don't exist.


----------



## KenOC

The issue is not as settled as some put forth. There is still plenty of contradictory material, and even people who should know the truth have differing opinions of the veracity of _Testimony_.

For instance, see this page: The Shostakovich Wars: Fresh Evidence for Testimony's Truth . The comments below the main text are interesting as well.


----------



## Zhdanov

Pat Fairlea said:


> at regular intervals through the book, he makes it clear how much he disliked Prokofiev.


which is completely impossible, for he was a very discreet person, let alone while conversing with ones not from his circle.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> The issue is not as settled as some put forth. There is still plenty of contradictory material, and even people who should know the truth have differing opinions of the veracity of _Testimony_.
> 
> For instance, see this page: The Shostakovich Wars: Fresh Evidence for Testimony's Truth . The comments below the main text are interesting as well.


Forty year old hearsay of a former roommate is fresh evidence? Right. Volkov claims to have the transcripts. That would be evidence. As soon as one of these clowns explains why the first page of each chapter was cribbed from a preexisting source and fraudulently published as the spoken words of Shostakovich, then they might gain some credibility. Fay pointed out this problem in 1980 and no one has come up with a credible explanation yet.


----------



## Zhdanov

KenOC said:


> The Shostakovich Wars: Fresh Evidence for Testimony's Truth


well, someone is carrying on with pushing this agenda, their attempting to rewrite history, that's it.

moreover, as far as memoirs go, composers memoirs are in the music they composed.

what more to say than already said in there?


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> well, someone is carrying on with pushing this agenda, their attempting to rewrite history, that's it.
> 
> moreover, as far as memoirs go, composers memoirs are in the music they composed.
> 
> *what more to say than already said in there?*


I imagine there is a lot more to say. Just because _Testimony_ is a fraud doesn't mean the opinions expressed in it weren't held by Shostakovich. It might just mean Volkov heard the opinions attributed to Shostakovich at second or third hand from friends and acquaintances. Are these attributions accurate? Some of his friends and acquaintances thought/think so, others did/do not. _Testimony_ is tainted and no statement in it that is uncorroborated in other sources can be trusted. What Shostakovich actually thought and said in private is a much thornier question. The best we can do is to read what his friends and acquaintances said and then try to decide who to believe.


----------



## joen_cph

The amount of people close to the composer who confirmed large parts of the content of Testimony to be generally truthful makes the fraud focus less important. A few of them later took back their words, but still, evidence is that it represents important aspects of the composer's thinking.


----------



## EdwardBast

joen_cph said:


> The amount of people close to the composer who confirmed large parts of the content of Testimony to be generally truthful makes the fraud focus less important. A few of them later took back their words, but still, evidence is that it represents important aspects of the composer's thinking.


Well yes, but we can pretty much get the same thing by the "Duh!" principle: What did Shostakovich think of a brutal and corrupt autocracy whose sociopathic leader killed his friends and threatened him for years? Duh!

As for truth in all its shades and varieties, choose your poison - just don't attribute the words in _Testimony_ to Shostakovich. (I don't mean you, joen_cph, I mean all y'all out there in the ether.)


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> ...What did Shostakovich think of a brutal and corrupt autocracy whose sociopathic leader killed his friends and threatened him for years?


Part of the answer: He served in the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR from 1947 and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union from 1962 until his death. And of course he joined the Party in 1960.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> Just because _Testimony_ is a fraud doesn't mean the opinions expressed in it weren't held by Shostakovich.


if such logic be accepted, then *any* opinion may be ascribed just to *anyone*, which is absurd.


----------



## KenOC

Seems like this debate isn't going away anytime soon. _The Shostakovich Wars_ is a 300+ page tome last revised in 2014. It appears to take the side of Volkov and to attack Fay, Taruskin, and other deniers. If you have an insatiable appetite for this sort of thing, it's online as a PDF file.


----------



## Zhdanov

joen_cph said:


> The amount of people close to the composer who confirmed large parts of the content of Testimony to be generally truthful makes the fraud focus less important.


look at the date they began 'confirming' the book. 1990s meltdown, the support they had from Communists was gone completely, so they got hunted down by Western authorities to force them into 'testifying' whatever they are told at the moment; even Shostakovich son & daughter weren't spared, but i for one don't blame them for testifying against their father, because they had to make ends meet somehow etc.


----------



## Zhdanov

KenOC said:


> If you have an insatiable appetite for this sort of thing, it's online as a PDF file.


thanks for advice but it appears that books and films and like stuff is not where the truth resides because its rather to be found in facts and events obvious to everyone and treated with nothing other than common sense and logic.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> if such logic be accepted, then *any* opinion may be ascribed just to *anyone*, which is absurd.


Nonsense. What I wrote means exactly the opposite of what you wrote. It means only that establishing the truth requires reliable evidence. The fact that _Testimony_ is unreliable has nothing to do with whether positions opposed to _Testimony_ are correct. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



KenOC said:


> Seems like this debate isn't going away anytime soon. _The Shostakovich Wars_ is a 300+ page tome last revised in 2014. It appears to take the side of Volkov and to attack Fay, Taruskin, and other deniers. If you have an insatiable appetite for this sort of thing, it's online as a PDF file.


I was there for the main battle when it was hashed out on the floor at an American Musicological Society meeting. The fraudulence of _Testimony_ is settled. What Shostakovich believed is not. But as I just told Zhdanov, the two issues aren't really closely connected.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Part of the answer: He served in the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR from 1947 and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union from 1962 until his death. And of course he joined the Party in 1960.


What do you think this says about Shostakovich's beliefs? I don't see that it gives any clear indication of what Shostakovich thought of the system or those running it. Do you think it does? Why? The nature of the system ensured that nearly everyone had to make pragmatic decisions irrespective of personal beliefs.


----------



## Zhdanov

EdwardBast said:


> What do you think this says about Shostakovich's beliefs?


that he was a stalwart bolshevik?



EdwardBast said:


> The nature of the system ensured that nearly everyone had to make pragmatic decisions


like with every known system is it?



EdwardBast said:


> irrespective of personal beliefs.


so his beliefs were 'love and peace' ?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I appear to have naively opened a large can of worms. 

My apologies to all concerned! I will retreat back under my large mossy boulder and await the end of this particular artillery exchange.


----------



## EdwardBast

Zhdanov said:


> that he was a stalwart bolshevik?
> 
> like with every known system is it?
> 
> so his beliefs were 'love and peace' ?


It might mean he was a stalwart Bolshevik. He might have had any number of reasons.

Love and peace? Are those beliefs?


----------



## Stavrogin

I've stumbled upon this wonderful, harrowing piece:






"Prelude for two cellos and piano"

However, I struggle to find consolidated info on this work. It's not even on IMSLP...?

Any help?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Portamento

Stavrogin said:


> I've stumbled upon this wonderful, harrowing piece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prelude for two cellos and piano"
> 
> However, I struggle to find consolidated info on this work. It's not even on IMSLP...?
> 
> Any help?
> 
> Thanks a lot.


It doesn't say much that it's not on IMSLP because Shostakovich is under copyright worldwide. Only the pre-1924 works (I believe) are public domain in the US. It may be an arrangement of another work of his.


----------



## flamencosketches

Was Shostakovich one of the greatest contrapuntists of his generation?
















He was certainly talented in a dying art form.


----------



## flamencosketches

I just went ahead and purchased this:









Figured I had nothing to lose but space on my hard drive. Does anyone else have this "box"? It looks like there are some great historical recordings here including some with the composer himself on the piano.


----------



## millionrainbows

I love the String Quartet No. 8.

I just got this set, dirt cheap, dug the artwork. Haven't listened yet.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I love the String Quartet No. 8.
> 
> I just got this set, dirt cheap, dug the artwork. Haven't listened yet.
> 
> View attachment 119317


Got a link to where I, too, can buy it for dirt cheap?  Or was it a one-off deal on a used copy?


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Got a link to where I, too, can buy it for dirt cheap?  Or was it a one-off deal on a used copy?


It was a cut-out, actually. It has four 2-CD cases in a slipcover, and the barcodes on each back-insert has a hole punched through it, but not the jewel box. I wonder how they did that? I paid $10.00 for it, at my local brick-and-mortar.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> ...I paid $10.00 for it, at my local brick-and-mortar.


That's absurd. Almost criminal! But a fine catch.


----------



## joen_cph

Currently down to around 22 Euros in Europe for the complete set
https://www.amazon.de/gp/offer-list...r?ie=UTF8&condition=new&qid=1559279050&sr=8-1


----------



## philoctetes

I really like the recordings Dmitri did of his music. His energy on the piano is manic. Jewish Folk Poetry with Dorliac is the schnit. Listening to a newer one now that's very good, nice coupling too..









Sorry this is a bit noisier than the CD I have


----------



## flamencosketches

I love both Shostakovich's E minor trio and Ravel's trio, but I have only one recording of each. May have to check out that disc. As for the Jewish Poems, I wasn't familiar at all. I'll check this out. 

I'm listening to his 9th symphony right now. It has grown on me a lot. Hell of a symphony. I imagine Stalin probably took the somewhat lighter textures and brevity (and perhaps irreverence?) as a kick in the balls after expecting a grand victorious war symphony, choirs and all, to celebrate the big win over the Nazis. So of his symphonies, the ones I have liked and connected with have been 5, 9, and 7 in that order. 7 is awesome, but overlong. I'm going to keep working through them slowly. I think there may be even more to process in these symphonies than in a Mahler symphony, for example.


----------



## philoctetes

flamencosketches said:


> I love both Shostakovich's E minor trio and Ravel's trio, but I have only one recording of each. May have to check out that disc. As for the Jewish Poems, I wasn't familiar at all. I'll check this out.
> 
> I'm listening to his 9th symphony right now. It has grown on me a lot. Hell of a symphony. I imagine Stalin probably took the somewhat lighter textures and brevity (and perhaps irreverence?) as a kick in the balls after expecting a grand victorious war symphony, choirs and all, to celebrate the big win over the Nazis. So of his symphonies, the ones I have liked and connected with have been 5, 9, and 7 in that order. 7 is awesome, but overlong. I'm going to keep working through them slowly. I think there may be even more to process in these symphonies than in a Mahler symphony, for example.


I got to hear Giergev and the Mravinsky do that one live a couple years ago, and it really raised my appreciation. Great bassoon parts. Their recording comes with a VC#1, also a favorite


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I love the String Quartet No. 8.
> 
> I just got this set, dirt cheap, dug the artwork. Haven't listened yet.
> 
> View attachment 119317


Went ahead and bought this for 25 bucks new from a seller on amazon. Really looking forward to getting it.


----------



## HerbertNorman

I listened to the 11th symphony again yesterday , Vassily Petrenko and the Royal Liverpool Philarmonic ... One of my favourite Shostakovich Symphonies and one of the easiest to really understand... My favourite remains the 10th and I love the 5th and the 7th...


----------



## elgar's ghost

Stavrogin said:


> I've stumbled upon this wonderful, harrowing piece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prelude for two cellos and piano"
> 
> However, I struggle to find consolidated info on this work. It's not even on IMSLP...?
> 
> Any help?
> 
> Thanks a lot.


I think this is from the suite compiled by Lev Atovmyan from the soundtrack to the film _The Gadfly_ op.97 (1955), but I don't know who made this particular arrangement. There is also a version for two violins and piano made by Konstantin Fortunatov.


----------



## emomusicisthebest

Well, I recently discovered this amazing composer of the 20th century, and I want to thank him for composing such an amazing emo music. :lol: Jokes aside, I see many people enjoy his symphonies, concertos and string quartets. But I think this beautiful string octet is also one of his bests. 




I can't believe he wrote this when he was 19. What am I doing with my life...Anyway please recommend some rare pieces of Shosty cause I think I heard almost everything.


----------



## emomusicisthebest

Another great piece of him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsVTDhJh8nM


----------



## Janspe

It's been a while since I've listened to the string quartets systematically, but now I'm enjoying the recording by the Pacifica Quartet so much that I'm just taking it all in, one quartet per day. A nice way to start the day, a Shostakovich quartet and my infinite cups of coffee. =) Though I often feel like listening to something a bit more cheerful afterwards...

Many works feel wonderfully fresh to me. Believe it or not, I haven't heard the 8th in its entirety in many years, so it was really fantastic to check it out once again - it really is a genius piece of music! Also I found myself really impressed with the 9th quartet, and revising the later ones, especially the 15th, filled me with newfound appreciation of Shostakovich.

Over the years my attitude towards this composer has changed a lot. When I first discovered him as a teenager I went totally nuts and proclaimed him the greatest ever - with works like the 5th symphony, 1st violin concerto and 2nd piano sonata dominating my listening life for quite some time. But then that hot-burning enthusiasm took its toll and I retreated away from him in a way, feeling a bit over-saturated. But in recent years, after delving into his work more comprehensively, I feel like I've begun to really rediscover his work. There are many great works that I've heard only a few times, so there's a lot of "work" to be done still.


----------



## 89Koechel

YES, flamencosketches ... it took a while, but Shostakovich was truly "apposite" to the "socialist realism" idea of music, that the old thief and murderer - Stalin - espoused. That 9th Symphony is still one of Dmitri's best, in it's HUMOR and conciseness, and probably has had FEW great recordings (I still like the "ancient" one with Efrem Kurtz ... but anyone can name their choice). Maybe I could recommend his first, 4 Symphonies (and NOT neglecting the 5th, nor the 6th, nor beyond) as a wonderful place to begin, in the big, orchestral works. His First Symphony (from University days) is truly a work of a fledgling genius, even if it's last movement might have been more-succinct. His Second and Fourth Symphonies have achieved a certain acceptance, in recent years. ... Well, that leaves his THIRD Symphony, in it's originality and enduring "fame", of sorts. The Third is hardly-ever (as far as I know) ever performed, and has few recordings ... but DO note an old RCA LP, with Morton Gould (coupled-with the 2nd Symphony). Well, Gould & RCA made some GREAT recordings, but this might be the best, overall.


----------



## Zhdanov

89Koechel said:


> the old thief and murderer - Stalin


now he is a thief to boot... go ahead, heap any blame on him - theft, murder, treason, adultery etc.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Zhdanov said:


> now he is a thief to boot... go ahead, heap any blame on him - theft, murder, treason, adultery etc.


Indeed. Petty theft is surely an insignificant crime compared to the blood of millions he already has on his hands.


----------



## Zhdanov

CnC Bartok said:


> the blood of millions he already has on his hands.


this 'millions blood' comes from that those who died natural death have been counted as 'murdered'.


----------



## flamencosketches

89Koechel said:


> YES, flamencosketches ... it took a while, but Shostakovich was truly "apposite" to the "socialist realism" idea of music, that the old thief and murderer - Stalin - espoused. That 9th Symphony is still one of Dmitri's best, in it's HUMOR and conciseness, and probably has had FEW great recordings (I still like the "ancient" one with Efrem Kurtz ... but anyone can name their choice). Maybe I could recommend his first, 4 Symphonies (and NOT neglecting the 5th, nor the 6th, nor beyond) as a wonderful place to begin, in the big, orchestral works. His First Symphony (from University days) is truly a work of a fledgling genius, even if it's last movement might have been more-succinct. His Second and Fourth Symphonies have achieved a certain acceptance, in recent years. ... Well, that leaves his THIRD Symphony, in it's originality and enduring "fame", of sorts. The Third is hardly-ever (as far as I know) ever performed, and has few recordings ... but DO note an old RCA LP, with Morton Gould (coupled-with the 2nd Symphony). Well, Gould & RCA made some GREAT recordings, but this might be the best, overall.


I love the first two and the 4th, less so the 3rd. The 1st might actually be my favorite Shostakovich symphony. I still struggle with them here and there, I have to really be in the mood to listen to one of the long DSCH symphonies, though I would overall rate him among my favorite composers.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Zhdanov said:


> this 'millions blood' comes from that those who died natural death have been counted as 'murdered'.


Hilarious. I am sure you are absolutely right.


----------



## Echo Chamber

Stavrogin said:


> I've stumbled upon this wonderful, harrowing piece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prelude for two cellos and piano"
> 
> However, I struggle to find consolidated info on this work. It's not even on IMSLP...?
> 
> Any help?
> 
> Thanks a lot.


A very good question. Even as huge fan of Shostakovich, I don't believe I've heard this work. I wonder if it's an arrangement of another work?


----------



## Enthusiast

Zhdanov said:


> now he is a thief to boot... go ahead, heap any blame on him - theft, murder, treason, adultery etc.


Worse! Bad poetry ...


----------



## Echo Chamber

HerbertNorman said:


> I listened to the 11th symphony again yesterday , Vassily Petrenko and the Royal Liverpool Philarmonic ... One of my favourite Shostakovich Symphonies and one of the easiest to really understand... My favourite remains the 10th and I love the 5th and the 7th...
> View attachment 129313


I'm less impressed with Petrenko's cycle. I prefer Rozhdestvensky and Kondrashin. I think both of these cycles get to the emotion of the music. There seems to be more depth in their interpretations and the playing from their Russian orchestras is outstanding.


----------



## Echo Chamber

millionrainbows said:


> I love the String Quartet No. 8.
> 
> I just got this set, dirt cheap, dug the artwork. Haven't listened yet.
> 
> View attachment 119317


That's a good modern set for sure. My desert island set is with the Borodin Quartet on Melodiya. I'm sure you own or have heard of their cycle before.


----------



## EdwardBast

Echo Chamber said:


> A very good question. Even as huge fan of Shostakovich, I don't believe I've heard this work. I wonder if it's an arrangement of another work?


It's not in his works list, so probably.


----------



## elgar's ghost

EdwardBast said:


> It's not in his works list, so probably.


I did reply with an answer of sorts (post no. 513) but I couldn't get any further info.


----------



## Flamme

I always read ''dirty shostakovich'' dont know why??? I wonder what kind of opera could he he made, if he wanted 2...Something revolutionary...Wait a minute, he actually made couple! https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2003-02-16-0302150394-story.html


----------



## Neo Romanza

Flamme said:


> I always read ''dirty shostakovich'' dont know why??? I wonder what kind of opera could he he made, if he wanted 2...Something revolutionary...Wait a minute, he actually made couple! https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2003-02-16-0302150394-story.html


Sure, both _The Nose_ and _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_ were both over-the-top and experimental in nature. The fact that Stalin left during intermission of _Lady Macbeth_ should tell you just how radical it sounded.


----------



## EdwardBast

elgars ghost said:


> I did reply with an answer of sorts (post no. 513) but I couldn't get any further info.


Yes. Nice catch!


----------



## Malx

Any comments on the quality of performances on Kitajenko's Symphony set on Capriccio?


----------



## sstucky

Try Symphony No. 4 (Ormandy, 1963) and Symphony No. 10 (Ancerl, 1955).


----------



## HerbertNorman

I was always told listen to the music and let it be , just music. I listened to the eleventh symphony yesterday and I tried not to think of the story behind it or the composers life and all that must have influenced it.

This is not easy with Shostakovich as it is a reason why he is hyped up a bit and why he is so fascinating.

I think the 11th for example is just an enthralling piece of music , even without the stories surrounding the composer and the subtitle it has. This is true for many of his works probably...


----------



## Gargamel

HerbertNorman said:


> I was always told listen to the music and let it be , just music. I listened to the eleventh symphony yesterday and I tried not to think of the story behind it or the composers life and all that must have influenced it.
> 
> This is not easy with Shostakovich as it is a reason why he is hyped up a bit and why he is so fascinating.
> 
> I think the 11th for example is just an enthralling piece of music , even without the stories surrounding the composer and the subtitle it has. This is true for many of his works probably...


I think there's also a composition for choir which uses the same melodies as the 11th. I heard it once but haven't found the name since.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Gargamel said:


> I think there's also a composition for choir which uses the same melodies as the 11th. I heard it once but haven't found the name since.


You're not thinking of The Execution of Stepan Razin? Not sure if melodies are shared, don't think so. It's more in the style of Symphony 13, even sharing the same poet in Yevtushenko. It's a great piece of music btw...

The folk-music qualities of Symphony 11 are maybe closer to the (admittedly weak) works like The Song of the Forests, or The Sun shines over the Motherland. My personal valuation of both works ranges from the saccharine to Stalinist abominations.....(NOT Symphony No.11, which is a masterpiece.)


----------



## Gargamel

CnC Bartok said:


> You're not thinking of The Execution of Stepan Razin? Not sure if melodies are shared, don't think so. It's more in the style of Symphony 13, even sharing the same poet in Yevtushenko. It's a great piece of music btw...
> 
> The folk-music qualities of Symphony 11 are maybe closer to the (admittedly weak) works like The Song of the Forests, or The Sun shines over the Motherland. My personal valuation of both works ranges from the saccharine to Stalinist abominations.....(NOT Symphony No.11, which is a masterpiece.)


No. It's a non-instrumental work, only the choir. Heard it on youtube many years ago. I remember one part which was basically same as in the first movement of Symphony 11. The name didn't include any hint of "Symphony 11", though.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Gargamel said:


> No. It's a non-instrumental work, only the choir. Heard it on youtube many years ago. I remember one part which was basically same as in the first movement of Symphony 11. The name didn't include any hint of "Symphony 11", though.


It's the sixth of the Ten Choruses on Texts by Revolutionary Poets, Op.88. Also 9th of January, as per 11th Symphony. Here's a YouTube snippet:






And the English words:


----------



## Gargamel

CnC Bartok said:


> It's the sixth of the Ten Choruses on Texts by Revolutionary Poets, Op.88. Also 9th of January, as per 11th Symphony. Here's a YouTube snippet:


Bingo! Love this one. I was wrong about which movement it was. (It's second movement, not first.)


----------



## HerbertNorman

CnC Bartok said:


> It's the sixth of the Ten Choruses on Texts by Revolutionary Poets, Op.88. Also 9th of January, as per 11th Symphony. Here's a YouTube snippet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the English words:
> 
> View attachment 144675


Thanks for this one!


----------



## Janspe

I just discovered a recording of the 12th symphony by Michael Gielen - of all people! And at least after a brief search I couldn't find any other Shostakovich recordings by him, apart from the accompanying 1st piano concerto. Now why on earth would this Beethoven-Mahler-Bruckner conductor _part excellence_ decide to record just this one symphony by Shostakovich? I find the choice rather surprising. Is there a story behind this recording?


----------



## MrMeatScience

Janspe said:


> I just discovered a recording of the 12th symphony by Michael Gielen - of all people! And at least after a brief search I couldn't find any other Shostakovich recordings by him, apart from the accompanying 1st piano concerto. Now why on earth would this Beethoven-Mahler-Bruckner conductor _part excellence_ decide to record just this one symphony by Shostakovich? I find the choice rather surprising. Is there a story behind this recording?
> 
> View attachment 145432


He gave an interview in the 90s where he mentioned a general lack of affinity with the music, but some interest in the 8th and 10th symphonies nonetheless. I'm not sure he ever performed them. 12 certainly is a strange symphony to single out; one of the weaker ones.


----------



## Janspe

MrMeatScience said:


> He gave an interview in the 90s where he mentioned a general lack of affinity with the music, but some interest in the 8th and 10th symphonies nonetheless. I'm not sure he ever performed them. 12 certainly is a strange symphony to single out; one of the weaker ones.


Thanks for the reply! Yes, I was also aware of Gielen's general lack of interest in Shostakovich (for some reason that doesn't surprise me at all) so the fact he did a recording of the 12th is all the more puzzling. Go figure!


----------



## flamencosketches

Is it any good? I know most rate the 12th as Shostakovich's worst.


----------



## SanAntone

This week I've started up again with the symphonies and string quartets. Then I began to branch out to the other chamber music, the concertos, and have been really enjoying getting back into his music.

After a long time it is fun to listen again to this music.


----------



## SanAntone

********************


----------



## HerbertNorman

A game on here had the thirteenth Symphonie in it and I listened to that intensively again... What a great work this is.
Admittedly the composer is one of my favourites and I might be a bit biased...but it gives me the shivers...

This rendition , is one I had never listened to before...


----------



## joen_cph

Janspe said:


> I just discovered a recording of the 12th symphony by Michael Gielen - of all people! And at least after a brief search I couldn't find any other Shostakovich recordings by him, apart from the accompanying 1st piano concerto. Now why on earth would this Beethoven-Mahler-Bruckner conductor _part excellence_ decide to record just this one symphony by Shostakovich? I find the choice rather surprising. Is there a story behind this recording?
> 
> View attachment 145432





flamencosketches said:


> Is it any good? I know most rate the 12th as Shostakovich's worst.


I've owned it but found it very uninteresting by comparison, and sold it. Haitink for example is impressive in the 12th, and there are many better recordings of the 1st Piano Concerto.


----------



## Snowbrain

*Books on Shostakovich*

I've been on a Shostakovich journey for the past few months so I've been reading books related to his life and music, as follows:

1. Volkov, Testimony, the Memoirs of DSCH
2. Barnes, The Noise of Time
3. Johnson, How Shostakovich Changed My Mind
4. MacDonald, The New Shostakovich
5. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (reader be warned...)
6. The Complete Poems of Anna Akhmatova
7. Taylor, Shostakovich: A Life Remembered
8. Masullo, Shostakovich 24 Preludes and Fugues
9. Lesser, Music for Silenced Voices: The Shostakovich and His 15 String Quartets
10. Ho and Feofanov, Shostakovich Reconsidered
11. The Stories of Vladimir Nabokov
12. Hamrick Brown, A Shostakovich Casebook

This is a partial list...ones I've read so far; there are many, many more.


----------



## Snowbrain

Where can one buy orchestral scores of Shostakovich's works? The Moscow publisher DSCH sells them but they're super expensive. I bought a nice hardcover of the 5th symphony from DSCH but it was $80! The 4th is over $90 and others are also pricey. Who else offers them? IMSLP does not have any Shostakovich since his works are still under copyright. Any suggestions? 
Thanks for any help.


----------



## Heck148

Snowbrain said:


> Where can one buy orchestral scores of Shostakovich's works? The Moscow publisher DSCH sells them but they're super expensive. I bought a nice hardcover of the 5th symphony from DSCH but it was $80! The 4th is over $90 and others are also pricey. Who else offers them? IMSLP does not have any Shostakovich since his works are still under copyright. Any suggestions?
> Thanks for any help.


Dover put out 2 publications:
Syms 1 and 5
Syms 9 and 10

I acquired others - Sikorski editions, i think distributed by Hal Leonard...iirc, i purchased them
thru SheetMusic...online...they aren't cheap, but not too awful c$30-35 a piece [this was several years ago,]...I've no idea as to price or availability at present...Good luck...


----------



## Snowbrain

Heck148 said:


> Dover put out 2 publications:
> Syms 1 and 5
> Syms 9 and 10
> 
> I acquired others - Sikorski editions, i think distributed by Hal Leonard...iirc, i purchased them
> thru SheetMusic...online...they aren't cheap, but not too awful c$30-35 a piece [this was several years ago,]...I've no idea as to price or availability at present...Good luck...


Thanks for the tips but I've searched all over the place for Shostakovich complete scores and I've never seen anything of his by Dover... can you send me a link to the Dover ones you mention? So far what's showing up are 1) DSCH editions, 2) Sikorski editions, and 3) Japanese Zen-on-Score import editions.. but nothing by Dover.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Snowbrain said:


> Thanks for the tips but I've searched all over the place for Shostakovich complete scores and I've never seen anything of his by Dover... can you send me a link to the Dover ones you mention? So far what's showing up are 1) DSCH editions, 2) Sikorski editions, and 3) Japanese Zen-on-Score import editions.. but nothing by Dover.


The reason you can't see anything published by Dover is because they don't exist. I did a search on Dover's website and here are results I received:

https://doverpublications.ecomm-search.com/search?keywords=Shostakovich


----------



## Neo Romanza

I just have to mention how incredible the newer recording of the _Babi Yar_ is with Muti/CSO:


----------



## EdwardBast

Snowbrain said:


> I've been on a Shostakovich journey for the past few months so I've been reading books related to his life and music, as follows:
> 
> 1. Volkov, Testimony, the Memoirs of DSCH
> 2. Barnes, The Noise of Time
> 3. Johnson, How Shostakovich Changed My Mind
> 4. MacDonald, The New Shostakovich
> 5. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (reader be warned...)
> 6. The Complete Poems of Anna Akhmatova
> 7. Taylor, Shostakovich: A Life Remembered
> 8. Masullo, Shostakovich 24 Preludes and Fugues
> 9. Lesser, Music for Silenced Voices: The Shostakovich and His 15 String Quartets
> 10. Ho and Feofanov, Shostakovich Reconsidered
> 11. The Stories of Vladimir Nabokov
> 12. Hamrick Brown, A Shostakovich Casebook
> 
> This is a partial list...ones I've read so far; there are many, many more.


In case you don't know, Shostakovich sources are a minefield of misinformation and slovenly thinking. Before reading _Testimony_, read at least the first two chapters of Brown's _Shostakovich Casebook_. It will prepare you for the fact that _Testimony_ is fraudulent. The book is not in fact the memoirs of Shostakovich and only what is corroborated in other more reliable sources can be assumed to have been said by Shostakovich.

And as soon as you read MacDonald, especially his writing on the Fifth Symphony, find the essay by Taruskin cited below. Then decide how seriously to take MacDonald's theses.

Taruskin, Richard. "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony." In Shostakovich Studies. Ed. David Fanning. Cambridge University Press (1995): 17-56.


----------



## Olias

Neo Romanza said:


> I just have to mention how incredible the newer recording of the _Babi Yar_ is with Muti/CSO:


YES! I just got this one a couple of weeks ago and wow is it good.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Olias said:


> YES! I just got this one a couple of weeks ago and wow is it good.


Excellent! Do you have a favorite performance of the _Babi Yar_? My reference is the Haitink, but there are many good ones: Kondrashin and Barshai for example. I have to say this new one from Muti is giving all of these previous favorites a run for their money.

Oh and I thought Previn on EMI was always a good one.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Neo Romanza said:


> : Kondrashin and Barshai /QUOTE]
> 
> Yes, that one is my favourite...but I'm going to look that Muti recording up. I don't think I've come past it before. Thanks


----------



## Olias

Neo Romanza said:


> Excellent! Do you have a favorite performance of the _Babi Yar_? My reference is the Haitink, but there are many good ones: Kondrashin and Barshai for example. I have to say this new one from Muti is giving all of these previous favorites a run for their money.
> 
> Oh and I thought Previn on EMI was always a good one.


Muti has become my favorite!


----------



## Captainnumber36

edited and deleted, double post.


----------



## Captainnumber36

edited and deleted.


----------

