# Favourite Shostakovich Symphony? :)



## Stroopwafel

_Well, I am a very fond of Shostakovich and he is probably my favourite composer 

I would say my three favourites are 
Symphony no. 10, Symphony no. 5, Symphony no. 11

I really love the new recordings that Vasily Petrenko has done with the Liverpool Phil orchestra, but I also love the older ones like the Moscow Phil

What do you think? xD _


----------



## emiellucifuge

I really love the 14th!


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm keen on the 14th as well, but I'm always more comfortable in imagining it as an orchestral song cycle and grouping it with the orchestral versions of the late Tsvetaeva and Michelangelo settings rather than as an actual symphony. In fact, I like them all - even the oft-criticised 'agitprop' 2nd and 3rd symphonies which I can easily excuse as being the works of a young man who may have genuinely believed at the time that his country had ushered in a wonderful new age. The essence of his cycle for me are symphonies 4 through to 10 as these represent the timespan when DSCH himself was often under immense strain due to Stalin's 'carrot and stick' policy towards him and also because as a body of work seemed to encapsulate the troubled times in the USSR as a whole.


----------



## jalex

Right now #15 is my favourite. I love most of them though (with the usual exceptions of #2, #3 and #12, though of those only #3 is irredeemably terrible). Special mentions to #4, #5, #8, #9, #10 and #14.

I have Barshai's set which I gather is as good as any.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Right now, I'm partial to the 5th. It was my first introduction to the composer, through a recording passed down from my uncle on some old 78s. I was a teenager then, not knowing anything about his music, just taken in by the impact it made on me.


----------



## Bix

ooh my favourite a the moment is number 11 - played by the RLPO and Petrenko

the second movement is amazing, just when you think an orchestra cannot be pushed any further they move into the march and it just sends shivers down you spine, the percussionists did themselves proud in this recording


----------



## joen_cph

Statistically I´ve been listening the most to VIII and XV.


----------



## opus55

While I cycled through Haitink box set at least three times as a whole, I probably listened to these more than five times - 4, 5, 7, 10, 12. I can't pick which one is my favorite; too many good ones!


----------



## tebw

5 and 10 seem to make it onto the CD player most of all. 5 is one of my all time favourite symphonies.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Numbers *4, 5, 8* - my favourites.

The Sixth is also very interesting. 
The Tenth are also good. Though, I'm always suprised, did the official critics understand that Shostakovich celebrates the death of Stalin or not?

I have mixed feelings about the Eleventh. Sometimes I love it, sometimes I really hate it.


----------



## suffolkcoastal

My favourites are nos 4 & 13 followed by nos 8 & 15. The 13th seems to me to be the most deeply Russian of all his symphonies and never fail to find the symphony immensely moving. No 4 is a terrifying masterpiece.


----------



## tgtr0660

The 5th, followed by the 10th, 11th, 7th, 1st, 9th, 4th, and the rest (let's just mention half of them).


----------



## Pestouille

Stroopwafel said:


> _Well, I am a very fond of Shostakovich and he is probably my favourite composer
> 
> I would say my three favourites are
> Symphony no. 10, Symphony no. 5, Symphony no. 11
> 
> I really love the new recordings that Vasily Petrenko has done with the Liverpool Phil orchestra, but I also love the older ones like the Moscow Phil
> 
> What do you think? xD _


I have quite a lot of Shostakovich recordings, Kondrashin, Janssons, Haitink Cycles, some symphonies by Petrenko, Mravinsky, Jurowski, Gergiev....

Petrenko is among the best, but I lack the fever of Kondrashin, the iron hand in silk gloves from Haitink... As a choice for a symphony, the recordings are depending on my mood... Globally Petrenko is certainly a must have for a Shostakovich lover. He has an analytical approach of Shostakovich and enlighten certain parts dimmed for example in Kondrashin (violent, feverish, ...), he's a very young master conductor getting the best out of his orchestra.


----------



## afterpostjack

My favorites are: 4, 5, 7, 10, 11. The 6th and 9th are also good.


----------



## notreally

11, 5, 8, 15, and a special mention of the 14th because it got me into classical music.


----------



## haydnfan

My favorites are 5, 8, 10 with 8 being my favorite.


----------



## Vaneyes

4, 10, 11.


----------



## tahnak

My current favorite is the Lenin XII.


----------



## RussicheCello

I love everything he makes, but my favorites are his Tenth (second movement especially, of course!), the Fifth, and the Eighth (the third movement left an impression on me).

This is somewhat off-topic, but I also reccomend his first and eighth string quartets.


----------



## clavichorder

I generally haven't liked most symphonies by Shostakovich I've heard, but for whatever reason, I get and like the 6th symphony. The 5th does not grab my attention and keep me listening. The 6th took some work, but my memory has locked it in as a worthy work by now. I can't be that lopsided in how much attention I devote to certain works right? The must be a reason in my tastes as to why I like the 6th more than others I've heard. I also like the Violin Concerto 1, but mostly just for the Scherzo.


----------



## Art Rock

For me, 5, 7 and 10. I love 14, but like others, I really can't see this as a symphony.


----------



## Mahlerian

In relative order:

4...8, 14, 5, 10, 6...13, 1, 15, 9...11, 7...2, 3.........12

But I'd take any Mahler over any of them.


----------



## TheVioletKing

My personal rank of all 15 Shostakovich Symphonies:

- Symphony no.7 (My all time favorite Symphony by any composer)
- Symphony no.10 (Special because I got to play it in marching band)
- Symphony no.5 (Special because I got to play the finale in Orchestra)
- Symphony no.12
- Symphony no.13
- Symphony no.11
- Symphony no.15
- Symphony no.6
- Symphony no.9
- Symphony no.4
- Symphony no.3
- Symphony no.1
- Symphony no.8
- Symphony no.14
- Symphony no.2


----------



## KenOC

Probably the 15th. Maybe some day I'll figure out what it's all about.


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> Probably the 15th. Maybe some day I'll figure out what it's all about.


The Hokey-Pokey, that's what it's all about.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> The Hokey-Pokey, that's what it's all about.


Shucks. I was hoping it was the hoochie coochie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoochie_coochie


----------



## Tristan

The 4th was the first one I heard. It's massive and heavy, but that's why I like it. The 5th is part of a long line of excellent 5th symphonies; the 11th is worth special mention as is, I think, the 10th.

But of course I like them all, yes, even 2, 3, and 12. 2 especially I find bizarre and awesome at the same time. And 3 has that very strange snare drum passage toward the end with the orchestra playing erratically and stopping abruptly in the background. I love that part...


----------



## AClockworkOrange

At present it is a coin toss between the 5th, which was my first introduction to Shostakvich (I believe it was a Haitink recording) and the 8th (Rostropovich/LSO).

Some of them are a little hit and miss for me such as 2 and 15. I'm glad these weren't my introduction to Shostakovich or Vasily Petrenko otherwise Imwould have missed out on a great composer and a great conductor. 

Then again, maybe I listened to them too soon as I still haven't heard all of the symphonies yet so I'll give them another chance later. The 8th on first listen didn't grab me but on the second listen (after leaving it a while) it hooked me in and now I really love the piece.


----------



## Kelt

Hmmm! Well, I can't quite remember the exact one, but it starts off very loud, dramatic, and gloomy. After that, it gets much more dramatic and gloomy, and louder. Which one is that? :lol:


----------



## Aries

My favourites are the 7th and the 3rd.

Then 8th, 4th, 2nd.


----------



## Bone

4 and 8 with an occasional dose of 5 and 10 to keep me populist.


----------



## Novelette

#5: it was my gateway into Shostakovich.


----------



## ptr

Was first introduced to DDS in the 1970's by Previn's RCA fifth, have had a minor obsession with his music ever since. 
It's hard for me to single out "a symphony" as the best as I look at his oeuvre (much as I do with Mahler) as a whole entity, still, if I look at what gets the most turntable time I get a grouping as follows.

A: 4 - 8 - 13 - 11
B: 14 - 10 - 6 - 9 - 1
C: 12 - 5 - 15 - 7
D: 2 - 3

I would not want to be without Kondrashin's Fourth and Thirteenth (live on Russian disc from the second performance in 1962), Eight's by Bychkov, Mravinsky and Sanderling (the latter as a boothleg aircheck with BPO), Eleventh by Pletnev (Pentatone), Mravinsky (Melodiya) and Cluytens (HMV/Testament) just to mention the most important "A" one's!

/ptr


----------



## MJongo

The 15th. 10th and 5th are great as well. Something about multiples of 5 I guess.


----------



## KenOC

MJongo said:


> The 15th.


A wise choice. You'll go far.


----------



## Mordred

The eighth at the moment. The 3rd movement is so bare bones and unique in its simplicity and then the fourth kicks in with the percussion and lower brass belting you straight in the face followed straight up by those brooding deathly quiet strings. Then of course the 5th and the 10th. He is the master!


----------



## Feathers

4, 5, 8, 10, 11...and...is it weird that I actually like 12?


----------



## ptr

Feathers said:


> ...is it weird that I actually like 12?


No, it is perfectly normal! it's rather an acute awareness of taste!

/ptr


----------



## sharik

Feathers said:


> is it weird that I actually like 12?


no, actually they in the West discard that one only because its dedicated to Lenin.


----------



## ptr

sharik said:


> no, actually they in the West discard that one only because its dedicated to Lenin.


To whom Shostakovich dedicated his symphonies does not even play in the least to the reception in the west, so I'd like to know if You can you supply any factual proof to this!

I'd say that the only two Shostakovich Symphonies that are not regarded very well in the west is No 2 & 3, mostly because of the totally phony and unnecessary choral ending bits!

/ptr


----------



## sharik

ptr said:


> can you supply any factual proof to this!


its subtitled 'The Year Of 1917' by Shosty himself.


----------



## Delicious Manager

sharik said:


> no, actually they in the West discard that one only because its dedicated to Lenin.


Actually, most in the 'West' disregard No 12 because it is such an appallingly weak piece of music. Some have suggested that Shostakovich deliberately made his dedication to Lenin and the 1917 Revolution a flaccid piece of music. It can't have been a lack of inspiration that caused Shostakovich to write such a pointless meandering piece of poor cinematic-type music as the works directly contemporaneous with it (eg 9th and 10th string quartets, 13th Symphony) are among the composer's mightiest creations.


----------



## Art Rock

Agreed. When I played them all again a few weeks ago (Barshai box), the 12th stood out as the weakest of the bunch.


----------



## sharik

Delicious Manager said:


> Some have suggested that Shostakovich deliberately made his dedication to Lenin and the 1917 Revolution a flaccid piece of music


it sounds anything but flaccid, but read up on it in wiki


----------



## Delicious Manager

sharik said:


> it sounds anything but flaccid, but read up on it in wiki


I don't need to read up on it, sharik - I have known this piece intimately since I bought my first recording of it (Georges Prêtre and the Philharmonia Orchestra) more than 40 years ago. I have listened to it perhaps hundreds of times and have studied the score in detail. Its programme might make interesting reading, but the music makes for uninspiring and tiresome listening. I think it is universally accepted among Shostakovich scholars that this really is one of his weakest pieces in any genre (and doesn't even stand up particularly well against some of his better film scores).

You like it - that's fine.


----------



## sharik

Delicious Manager said:


> You like it - that's fine.


not that i like it but neither it puts me off, and certainly neither of his symphs should be dismissed like that.


----------



## Delicious Manager

sharik said:


> not that i like it but neither it puts me off, and certainly neither of his symphs should be dismissed like that.


Most of the great composers created one or two turkeys - they're human just like us, after all. I don't see anything wrong with recognising this and discussing the merits of this piece or that. Shostakovich was quite an uneven composer; it's perhaps not surprising, given the circumstances under which he was living and working during much of his lifetime. In fact, what it perhaps most remarkable is that he managed to write such fine pieces of music at times when he was under the most pressure to conform to that ill-defined concept of 'Socialist Realism' (eg Symphonies 5, 10, 13; 1st Violin Concerto).


----------



## KenOC

Delicious Manager said:


> It can't have been a lack of inspiration that caused Shostakovich to write such a pointless meandering piece of poor cinematic-type music as the works directly contemporaneous with it (eg 9th and 10th string quartets, 13th Symphony) are among the composer's mightiest creations.


Well, Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory and the 7th Symphony at the same time, so anything's possible!


----------



## sharik

Delicious Manager said:


> Shostakovich was quite an uneven composer


uneven, yes but never talentless when it came to writing a symphony, because symphony as such is the highest point of classical music, and no composer would waste it.



Delicious Manager said:


> he managed to write such fine pieces of music at times when he was under the most pressure to conform to that ill-defined concept of 'Socialist Realism'


it was exactly the 'pressure' that helped him put his genius to use, as was with symphs 5, 7, 8, 9.


----------



## ptr

Yea, I think that it is a way to simplistic view to take any of Shostakovich music at face value and believe that and titles or dedications that he gave the works was anything more than ornaments to make them look polished enough to get through the prevailing Stalinist censorship. 
Unfortunately reception of Shostakovich music in both "General" West and in Russia was and is Black and/or White and life in Russia post the 1917 revolution was despite a lot of waving of red flags rather grey (The Ukrainian side of my Family has given me ample proof of this!). 
And the fact that Shostakovich was a man with jittery nerves whom often had emotions that twirled like a flag follows wind, Laurel Fay in her book "Shostakovich: A Life" calls him a Wuss (Wimp/Coward), and this might true that he was a wuss in everything concerning life but not in his music!
The fact that his music is still discussed, debated and loved 35 years after his passing is at least for me proof that its merit goes deeper than the mere surface of the labels history and us who enjoy it had placed on it!

/ptr


----------



## sharik

ptr said:


> that it is a way to simplistic view to take any of Shostakovich music at face value and believe that and titles or dedications that he gave the works was anything more than ornaments to make them look polished enough to get through the prevailing Stalinist censorship


listen carefully to the 12th - it sounds exactly like its title, that is, _The Year Of 1917_.



ptr said:


> life in Russia post the 1917 revolution was despite a lot of waving of red flags rather grey (The Ukrainian side of my Family has given me ample proof of this!)


never trust what immigrants say.



ptr said:


> Laurel Fay in her book "Shostakovich: A Life" calls him a Wuss


then Holst wasn't a wuss that he conceded to a part of his German name to be erased by the British authorities?... i also haven't heard of a Brit composer who dared to address themes of Enclosure and the Irish Famine ...so much for the freedom of speech!


----------



## maestro267

My favourite is No. 11. Such a dramatic and powerful work, especially the drum-fuelled climax of the second movement, and the clash between G major and G minor at the very end of the work.


----------



## ptr

sharik said:


> listen carefully to the 12th - it sounds exactly like its title, that is, _The Year Of 1917_.


I don't doubt this, but I don't give anything special to extra musical interpretations of others as I said!



> never trust what immigrants say.


So You say that I should not trust my relatives that where sent to Gulag by Stalins Croonies, that is the most stupid thing You have written here so far, I only trust people that I can look straight in to the eye and tell what they are saying is true or nor, and one thing I know for true, my relatives don't lie! I think that the problem with Russia and Russian in general is that they have not yet started to wash their dirty laundry!



> then Holst wasn't a wuss that he conceded to a part of his German name to be erased by the British authorities?... i also haven't heard of a Brit composer who dared to address themes of Enclosure and the Irish Famine ...so much for the freedom of speech!


I don't understand what relevance Holst has at all, just a poor argument, and You'll have to take it up with Laurel Fay, I'm just saying that there is a lobby in the West that have thought of his as such, not that "wuss" part really has any relevance outside western academia!

/ptr


----------



## SiegendesLicht

sharik said:


> listen carefully to the 12th - it sounds exactly like its title, that is, _The Year Of 1917_


Do you mean it sounds exactly like the roar and cursing of those drunken sailors that stormed the Emperor's palace and drowned the country in blood?


----------



## userfume

Number 5 for me, 1st movement is my favourite


----------



## conclass

Why do you say that the ending of symphonies No. 2&3 are unnecessary? Is it from a theoretical perspective, or is it just a point of view?


----------



## ptr

conclass said:


> Why do you say that the ending of symphonies No. 2&3 are unnecessary? Is it from a theoretical perspective, or is it just a point of view?


Mostly because both the poem's are of real low quality, and are more propagandistic rhetoric of no value other then as historical documents of the period, neither Bezymensky or Kirsanov are remembered for the poetic greatness. And secondly is how Shostakovich sets the poems in stark contrast to the rest of the music in these symphonies, just like he really don't believe in what he is writing is a valuable addition to the symphony.
I think this is fairly well documented, you can try reading fx. Ian Macdonlad's "The New Shostakovioch" and Isaak Glikmans "Letters to a friend". Most biographies on Shostakovich will touch on his ambivalence towards these choral endings!

/ptr


----------



## sharik

ptr said:


> So You say that I should not trust my relatives that where sent to Gulag


what were the charges against them?



ptr said:


> the problem with Russia and Russian in general is that they have not yet started to wash their dirty laundry!


er, what you are talking about?



ptr said:


> I don't understand what relevance Holst has at all


he was forced by the British authorities to change his name so it sounds less German.


----------



## sharik

SiegendesLicht said:


> Do you mean it sounds exactly like the roar and cursing of those drunken sailors that stormed the Emperor's palace and drowned the country in blood?


in your opinion the symph doesn't sound like that?


----------



## Art Rock

sharik said:


> he was forced by the British authorities to change his name so it sounds less German.


Cite? As far as I know it was his own choice, driven by the understandable anti-German feelings in the UK during WW 1.


----------



## KenOC

Art Rock said:


> Cite? As far as I know it was his own choice, driven by the understandable anti-German feelings in the UK during WW 1.


I join in this request.


----------



## sharik

Art Rock said:


> it was his own choice


but how do we know? Shostakovitch for instance is being ascribed so many mythical deeds, that why the same can't be ascribed to Holst's?


----------



## Art Rock

Thanks, so your statement is based on nothing.


----------



## sharik

Art Rock said:


> your statement is based on nothing


- just like biographers' speaking out on Shosty.


----------



## KenOC

sharik said:


> - just like biographers' speaking out on Shosty.


This would be a good place to correct historical errors on Shostakovich, but you seem hesitant to do so.


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> This would be a good place to correct historical errors on Shostakovish, but you see hesitant to do so


you might not noticed that my posts on the subject get deleted by the admins and myself banned every now and then.


----------



## KenOC

sharik said:


> you might not noticed that my posts on the subject get deleted by the admins and myself banned every now and then.


No I haven't noticed your posts being deleted. I do see that you were awarded a "time out' for a bit. Be that as it may, perhaps you will repeat some of your deleted corrections of historical fact? I can't imagine that these will be considered controversial. Of course, some sort of citations will be welcome.


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> perhaps you will repeat some of your deleted corrections of historical fact?


so that to get deleted and banned once again?.. do you know how it feels when your posts deleted?

i've never seen such a disgusting policy on any other site.


----------



## KenOC

Well, it's unfortunate that you don't feel comfortable being more specific. Statements like, "just like biographers' speaking out on Shosty" bring no value to anybody. They support judgments of neither "biographers" or Shostakovich, only of yourself.


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> Statements like, "just like biographers' speaking out on Shosty" bring no value to anybody. They support judgments of neither "biographers" or Shostakovich, only of yourself.


i wish you told that to the the mods here.


----------



## ptr

sharik said:


> what were the charges against them?


What makes you think that there where any charges involved?
In those times it was enough just related to a Kulak/кула́к, how much of the Russian History do You actually know? 
My grandmothers cousins told me they where actually gratefully that They had not been shoot without charges and dumped in an open ditch like so many of their kind!



> er, what you are talking about?


yea, You are making my point! You only seem to believe the actual party approved history book, not the one that has any bearing on the real history!



> he was forced by the British authorities to change his name so it sounds less German.


Not at all, loosing germanisms in Surnames was a commonality after the first world war in most winning nations! AFAICT there where no governmental proclamation to do this in the UK, can You point to a place where it says so?

/ptr


----------



## sharik

ptr said:


> What makes you think that there where any charges involved?


you see, my own grandad was jailed in 1937, got half a year for 'anti-communist propoganda' because in fact they did not put anyone in jail on no charges, only *relocate* to faraway regions, as they did with the kulaks.



ptr said:


> You only seem to believe the actual party approved history book


once again, what your talking about??


----------



## SiegendesLicht

sharik said:


> you see, my own grandad was jailed in 1937, got half a year for 'anti-communist propoganda' because in fact they did not put anyone in jail on no charges, only *relocate* to faraway regions, as they did with the kulaks.


Well, yes, like the timber works in Siberia. As if it wasn't as bad as any prison.


----------



## Celloissimo

Everyone seems to focus too much on the political agenda of Symphony 5 and ignore the emotional side of it. For me, the symphony doesn't seem to truly be about protesting against the government, but rather an expression of the emotional turmoil he was experiencing at the time. The finale of Symphony 5 has put me in tears at multiple occasions and in my view has so many more dimensions of meaning. Not every single piece by Shostakovich is about flipping off Stalin.

My personal five would include:

1. 5th- a mind blowing artistic achievement
2. 10th- Brilliant orchestration: everything is structured and flows perfectly. Ingenious melodies and themes.
3. 14th- More of a song cycle as was mentioned earlier, but a beautiful piece.
4. 15th- Quirky but appealing to me. 
5. 1st- This was impressive, especially given the age Shosty composed it


----------



## sharik

SiegendesLicht said:


> yes, like the timber works in Siberia


nah, those were *labour camps*, not necessarily in Siberia and not for the relocated persons... also conditions in gulags varied from harsh to very mild, depending on a gulag, some of which were more of a *banishment* than of prison.


----------



## pelt

It just has to be the 5th.


----------



## chalkpie

4 is probably tops for me. 

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 are my other loves.

1, 2, and 3 are also amazing in their own rights, yet I don't listen to them as much.

14 and 15 are also rarely played, yet they are both completely different and totally unique.

I need to warm up to 12.

And if those weren't enough, then you have 15 amazing SQ's to chew on.

DCSH is the BEST! :guitar:


----------



## Vaneyes

Today, 4, 8, 11, 10, 6, 7, 5, 9, 12, 15. Bernstein does nice things with 1, but I really have no need for it, or 2, 3, 13, 14, by anyone. :tiphat:


----------

