# How Well Do You Rate The Symphonies Of Shostakovich?



## HarpsichordConcerto

Curious to see what fellow members here think of Shostakovich's symphonies. You do not necessarily have to vote but an opinion would be nice.


----------



## KenOC

I'm old enough to remember when only his 5th Symphony was at all well-known -- the 7th had by that time disappeared into oblivion. There was quite a bit of cold war prejudice and Shostakovich was widely seen as a commie tool. Some people of my generation still hear him that way!

But to the question...great stuff. My faves are, in numerical order, 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15. Not so fond of the 4th or the symphonies with voices, but that's probably just me. Overall, and speaking TOTALLY objectively :lol:, Shostakovich was the greatest symphonist of the century.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

KenOC said:


> I'm old enough to remember when only his 5th Symphony was at all well-known -- the 7th had by that time disappeared into oblivion. There was quite a bit of cold war prejudice and Shostakovich was widely seen as a commie tool. Some people of my generation still hear him that way!
> 
> But to the question...great stuff. My faves are, in numerical order, 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15. Not so fond of the 4th or the symphonies with voices, but that's probably just me. Overall, and speaking TOTALLY objectively :lol:, Shostakovich was the greatest symphonist of the century.


Very interesting, thank you for sharing. The reason is the only symphony I find consistently engaging, and it's the only one "at that level" for me, is #4, which you do not find as appealing as the others.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I think most of them are cool, especially when performed by Kondrashin. But I think there are better as-a-whole cycles.


----------



## Ukko

I paid considerable attention to the symphonies a couple decades back, but never voluntarily listen to them nowadays - except for once-in-a-while the 9th. The angst now strikes me as overdone, or maybe, um, regretably unstoic?


----------



## clavichorder

The only one I've ever really gotten crazy about is the 6th. Probably because I've had enough repeat listenings, its the only CD I own of his though I've heard others live and on youtube.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Despite doubts raised by even some his more ardent admirers concerning the quality of nos. 2 & 3 I myself think it is one of the great symphonic cycles I've heard so I'll stick my neck out and say it stands a good chance of being one of the greatest ever if ongoing reputation and being well-represented on disc mean anything. Bearing in mind he wrote 15 of the things I think the quality running through the cycle as a whole makes it a candidate for being one of the finest - and the 4th through to the 10th (all apart from the withdrawn 4th were written in often turbulent times not just for him but also for the Soviet Union as a whole) is probably my favourite sequence of symphonies along with Bruckner's 4th through to the 9th and the whole of Beethoven's.


----------



## techniquest

I'd go further and suggest that the 4th through to, and including, the 13th is my favourite sequence of symphonies - yes even with the much-maligned 12th. Like KenOC says above, when I first started to listen to music, the 5th was the only one that was ever really heard followed by the 10th and the 1st. Then HMV/Melodiya came along and the world of Russian symphonic music opened up including the rest of the Shostakovich output. I can remember the first performance of the 15th and the amount of time and energy that was spent by music critics into analysing the musical quotes, particularly the Wagner quote at the start of the last movement. Whatever individuals tastes in music, there can be no doubting the importance and significance of Shostakovich as a symphonist of stature.


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> The angst now strikes me as overdone, or maybe, um, regretably unstoic?


I'm of a similar opinion. Shostakovich seems to be quite popular among classical fans, but I could never enjoy his music all that much. Too much emotional baggage and bombast for my taste. And much of it sounds affected. I tried listening to the piano quintet yesterday, and I got the same impression. I'll take some Takemitsu as an antidote.


----------



## Andreas

I think Shostakovich's symphonies are meaningful and important.

There are three reasons, however, why one might see it differently:

1. Political ideology. After all, it was music at least partly approved or tolerated by a totalitarian dictatorship.

2. Stylistic conservatism. Compared to the western avant-garde, that is.

3. Lastness. Perhaps the worst of the three. Shostakovich was among the last generation of great composers who not only wrote symphonies the way Beethoven or Mahler or Sibelius wrote them (i.e. as the undisputed heavyweight genre of music) but also whose symphonies have become part of the standard repertoire and concert programmes. There is always something dead-endish about lasts of any kind.


----------



## KenOC

Andreas said:


> There is always something dead-endish about lasts of any kind.


J. S. Bach?


----------



## Lukecash12

Andreas said:


> I think Shostakovich's symphonies are meaningful and important.
> 
> There are three reasons, however, why one might see it differently:
> 
> 1. Political ideology. After all, it was music at least partly approved or tolerated by a totalitarian dictatorship.
> 
> 2. Stylistic conservatism. Compared to the western avant-garde, that is.
> 
> 3. Lastness. Perhaps the worst of the three. Shostakovich was among the last generation of great composers who not only wrote symphonies the way Beethoven or Mahler or Sibelius wrote them (i.e. as the undisputed heavyweight genre of music) but also whose symphonies have become part of the standard repertoire and concert programmes. There is always something dead-endish about lasts of any kind.


You hit no. 3 on the button.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I quite like a good many of Shostakovitch' symphonies... although I probably prefer his cello concerto, the preludes and fugues (HC... have you heard that work? Quite intriguing for the Baroque lover... clearly inspired by Bach's WTC) and even some of the quartets more. I don't honestly find myself as passionate about Shosty's symphonies as I am about symphonies of Mahler, Schubert, Beethoven, etc... but then I could say the same of most Russian symphonies. I'm honestly just not as fluent with regard to Shostakovitch as I am with some others... but he is slowly growing on me... and I would surely place him easily among the greatest of the 20th century.


----------



## drpraetorus

I found the Symphonies to be a deep and profound shout of resistance to an inhuman and crushing society. Artistic boors and their toady lickspittles running the arts like a factory. Friends disappearing, who he later found to have been killed of exiled to the gulag. And all the while the threat that it could happen to him or his family. In this situation, each person had to choose what role they were going to play. Shostakovich chose the Holy Fool. He went as far as he dared in challenging the regime but covered himself enough to get away with it. Kabalevsy became a toady. 

There are some thing to remember when going over the symphonies. Shostakovich had a taste for what some would call vulgar music. Common, coarse sometimes crude. His rape scene music from “Lady MacBeth” is almost pornographic music. The trombones are particularly graphic with their glissandi. So, expect some broad uncouthness. But it is not just coarse for the sake of being coarse. It is often a dig at the tastes of the ruling class. Stalin in particular. He, like Hitler, thought he was the final and best judge of art and music. However, he had the tastes of a poorly educated Georgian priest, which is what he was after all.

Stalin and his cronies were of the opinion that all art must be made to serve the Communist party and the State, which were the same thing. That meant that it must be gloriously socialistic and open to the common man, like them. If they didn’t like it or couldn’t understand it, it was therefore bad and should be banned. Along with the artist if necessary. One of the things these people wanted to hear was loud, blatantly heroic, bombastic music. Soft ending in particular were deemed anti socialistic. That is one of the reasons Shostakovich withdrew his 4th. It has that ever so sad long diminuendo right after the grand fortissimo. This could be interpreted as a slap at the party and communism. That would have been far to dangerous considering that he had already been denounced, under Stalin’s direction, for “Lady MacBeth”. His musicians were uneasy even rehearsing the 4th. It was especially bad when unknown men with dour faces appeared at the rehearsals. 

Because of this experience Shostakovich learned to hide his actual intent in approved, or barely approved, socialist realism. He gave them the biggest, most blatant, loud endings possible. But if you listen to them with something like the ears of his audience, the Russian people, they sound vulgar, harsh and empty. Which was his opinion of the Communist leadership. You can really hear it in the finale of the 7th and 12th It is worth checking out the subtext of the symphonies, especially the major ones like the 5th, 7th, 11th 12th. 

The 5th is an excellent example of the dual meanings in the music. The first movement is fairly harsh and dark. There is a strong militaristic feeling. This is relived at the end with a pastoral horn and flute duet. The party apparatchiks would have seen this on the same lines the first movement of Beethoven’s 5th, all storm and strife. The people would have seen a portrait of their lives under their Communist masters. Remember, this is the period of the show trials, disappearances and forced collectivization. At least ten million dead from Stalin’s manufactured famine. 

The second movement is a scherzo. It can be seen as a rollicking good time or as a satyr of the Soviet beaureacracy. 

The third movement is an intensely had and poignant picture of the suffering of Shostakovich and the Russian people. It is an elegy for all those lost at the time. Many had been close friends of Shostakovich. He, himself had become aware that he was being watched and could disappear at any time. Again, his audience was well aware of this. The party would hear a beautiful slow movement commenting on the hard state of mankind. This is after all, a C minor symphony. 

The fourth movement is all struggle and defiance. It is written so that the party members listening would hear a triumph of the new soviet man. It is also written so that Shostakovich could say that we are down but not out. The final major key restatement of the main theme is harsh, loud, vulgar and ultimately hollow and devoid of true triumph. Shostakovich said it is the forced rejoicing of the people. A cry for freedom from oppression. 

At the premiere, Shostakovich was given a 45 minute standing ovation that only ended as the audience was forced from the hall. To the audience it was a triumph. Shostakovich had succeeded in producing a potent protest that the government could not criticize as being anti-Soviet or formalistic. He had saved himself from oblivion at the very least. The party critics and musical functionaries new that there was more to this symphony than first meets the ear. But Shostakovich had given them all the proper musical points in the proper place. It was not morally objectionable, it was everything a proper Soviet work should be. What could they say?

By the time of the 13th, Shostakovich was a well enough known figure internationally that he could be more open in his criticism in his symphonies. However, he still had a hard time getting his 13th performed because of it’s strong criticism of contemporary Soviet life and it’s dig at Soviet anti-Semitism. 14 and 15 are more introspective and a little quirky. 

Another thing to listen for is his musical quotations. He will often use folk songs or political songs to make his point, often in an ironic way. Sometimes he uses quotations from his own works to make a point or simply because he like the piece quoted. One of the more interesting of these, to me at least, is in the 15th symphony. There are several obvious quotations in that work, but towards the end he goes all the way back to his 4th and repeats the wood block and castanet ticking. It’s a little like a musical raspberry to the Soviet government. “I beat you at your own game”. 

With all the political subtexts and protests etc. in the music, it would be easy for it to become crap. Kind of like Beethoven’s “Wellingtons Victory” or Wagner’s “American Jubilee”. Shostakovich is always an excellent musical craftsman and composer. The quality of the music let him say what he did without being to harshly criticized.


----------



## KenOC

"I found the Symphonies to be a deep and profound shout of resistance to an inhuman and crushing society."

I can't agree with this post at all. Shostakovich was an adherent of Communist philosophy all his life. In fact, he joined the Party in 1960, two years before his 13th Symphony. And that symphony was criticized only for some of Yevtushenko's poetry, certainly not for the music.

A hidden and subversive critic of the regime? Well, he certainly had no love for Stalin, but he was a loyal Communist. When he was criticized in 1936, I believe it was a real crisis of concience for him. Just what was his correct role as a Soviet composer? 1948 was, of course, a different matter.


----------



## Andreas

KenOC said:


> J. S. Bach?


Yes. Bach, after he had died, was almost completely forgotten/discarded/ignored for about three generations until Mendelssohn came along and put him back on the map.


----------



## Lukecash12

Andreas said:


> Yes. Bach, after he had died, was almost completely forgotten/discarded/ignored for about three generations until Mendelssohn came along and put him back on the map.


It just depends on who you ask. Bach seems to have lived on during that time when it comes to key figures in music. Just look at his affect on keyboard music. Beethoven called the WTC his "bible" of keyboard music. Of course he was mostly forgotten, but he certainly wasn't forgotten locally, or amongst composers who were into the kapellmeisters of the area. His son succeeded the post of a figure as renowned at the time as Telemann (who published quite a lot during his life), so I'm sure JS Bach wasn't as obscure as people tend to suggest.

A lot of people surely knew about the great organist, contrapuntist, and improviser, that was JS Bach, and a good deal of German composers talked about his WTC. Sadly, I don't think anyone knew just how prolific he was. They probably knew he composed a bunch of cantatas (given his posts), but just couldn't look at the scores or hear a performance of them. I wonder often what Beethoven would have thought, if he had seen just how marvelous was this figure that he revered. If the WTC was his keyboard "bible", what would he have thought of the massive output that is Bach? I personally doubt he would have said that Mozart's Mass in C minor was the best. IMO, he would have preferred Bach's Mass in B. Actually, I'm pretty sure he would have ranted and raved about Bach's orchestral music, especially his sacred music.

Digressing even further from the topic of the thread, which I'm sorry for doing today, I wonder if Beethoven wanted to write more sacred music. He was pretty fond of sacred music.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Shostakovich's symphonic cycle is just too uneven to stand as one of the finest in symphonic literature - even in the 20th century. There are many more even cycles and I would point people to the following composers who wrote around the same number of symphonies as Shostakovich:

Kalevi Aho
Kurt Atterberg
Vagn Holmboe
Allan Pettersson
William Schuman
Robert Simpson
Eduard Tubin

To my ears, all of these composers' cycles are of a more consistently high standard than Shostakovich. At his very best (eg in Nos 1, 4, 8, 10 and 13) Shostakovich is a force to be reckoned with, but too many of his symphonic works fall below these standards (to a greater or lesser extent).


----------



## Lukecash12

Delicious Manager said:


> Shostakovich's symphonic cycle is just too uneven to stand as one of the finest in symphonic literature - even in the 20th century. There are many more even cycles and I would point people to the following composers who wrote around the same number of symphonies as Shostakovich:
> 
> Kalevi Aho
> Kurt Atterberg
> Vagn Holmboe
> Allan Pettersson
> William Schuman
> Robert Simpson
> Eduard Tubin
> 
> To my ears, all of these composers' cycles are of a more consistently high standard than Shostakovich. At his very best (eg in Nos 1, 4, 8, 10 and 13) Shostakovich is a force to be reckoned with, but too many of his symphonic works fall below these standards (to a greater or lesser extent).


I have found your views interesting for a while now, so I wonder why you think Shostakovich falls short with some of his symphonies. How did they not deliver?

Great references, by the way. You seem to have gotten around the 20th century symphonies. Strong candidates there.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Lukecash12 said:


> I have found your views interesting for a while now, so I wonder why you think Shostakovich falls short with some of his symphonies. How did they not deliver?
> 
> Great references, by the way. You seem to have gotten around the 20th century symphonies. Strong candidates there.


A little precis of my views:

No 1: A truly accomplished student work, although I don't hear much 'real' Shostakovich in it compared to some other contemporaneous works.
No 2: An experiment; some fascinating sounds and ideas, but not a symphony in any real sense of the word and the choral section is ghastly.
No 3: Uneven in its ideas even within itself, episodic, weird, another horrible choral final section.
No 4: A flawed masterpiece, but a great work.
No 5: Given the circumstances in which it was composed, it's quite staggering this symphony is as good as it is. I don't, however, put it among the very best of Shostakovich's works.
No 6: I have a soft spot for this work, but its weird and lopsided nature (both structurally and musically) discounts it from my list of Shostakovich's best.
No 7: Well, it served its purpose, but it's little more than a propaganda work. The inner two movements have some nice touches.
No 8: Taught, well balanced and emotionally draining, I find this one of the most satisfying of DSCH's works.
No 9: This should almost be in the top list - it's Shostakovich's 'Classical' Symphony in a way. Beautifully structured and superbly written - and tantalisingly decadent. Listen to Kondrashin's old 1964 recording to hear this work to best effect.
No 10: One of Shostakovich's best works of all. Nuff said.
No 11: Film music in quasi-symphonic form. I don't think this symphony is as good as its recent popularity might suggest.
No 12: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! There are those who believe Shostakovich INTENDED this to be a banal, blowsy and bombastic piece of empty musical rhetoric to undermine the thematic historical content.
No 13: Another gripping and emotionally challenging work. It is perfectly structured and I return to it often.
No 14: I think this is a great work too - but it's not really a 'symphony', is it? That's the only reason it wasn't in my original list (although I hesitated!), but it IS among Shostakovich's finest creations.
No 15: Strange, enigmatic, structurally flawed, but oddly compelling. Some would put this among his greatest works. I'm torn.

If you're interested, I include the following as among Shostkovich's finest compositions:

Cello Concertos 1 & 2
The Execution of Stepan Razin (the best Shostakovich work that's never performed)
From Jewish Folk Poetry
Hamlet (1964 film score)
Suite on Verses by Michelangelo Buanarroti
The Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk
Piano Trio No 2
Preludes and Fugues, Op 87
String Quartets 3, 5, 8, 10, 13
Violin Concertos 1 & 2


----------



## principe

Shostakovich' s music is one of the greatest not only in the 20th century but in the whole western Classical Music. His Symphonies, despite whatever individual flaws one may wish to trace, stand as unique masterpieces as compositions of great form, memorable melodies, incredibly interesting and creative orchestration and of human character that can affect audiences all over the world. There is no other composer who has been in 20th century so influential and popular, at the same time, among musicians and audiences! He is a modern Classic!
Composers which had been mentioned, like Aho, Attenberg, Holmboe...Tubin might be interesting and important figures in _their region_, but their influence, significance and appeal is extremely limited in the rest of the globe, despite the very good services from some very fine labels such as BIS, Dacapo, Ondine, etc.
Each Shostakovich' s Symphony is a sort of small or big "Odyssey" to a familiar territory of our life, interest, emotions and musicality. Even the flaws of them work perfectly fine within the general context and frame of the work in question. We should not neglect that there is no "perfect" Symphony as such. Beethoven struggled with almost everything: melodies, rhythms, orchestration, but he was a unique master of the form. Thanks to the form of his Symphonies, anything seems - and it is actually - right. Every note follows the other in perfection, even if the individual features are not perfect. 
One has to listen to Shostakovich' s Symphonies several times paying attention to the form and the multiple texture of them.

Principe


----------



## Vaneyes

I weep uncontrollably due to lack of Shosty love on this thread. But I'll pick myself up, and brush myself off. 'Tis a new dawn. :angel:


----------



## Tero

Yes, the too much angsty thing. I can listen to about one movement of a string quartet or chamber symphony, derived from those. Listening to 3 or 4 parts would have me thinking about slitting my wrists.

I like the piano concertos. Kind of Stravinskian.


----------



## starthrower

Vaneyes said:


> I weep uncontrollably due to lack of Shosty love on this thread. But I'll pick myself up, and brush myself off. 'Tis a new dawn. :angel:


Don't despair! I'm listening to this one in your honor. And enjoying it quite a bit in spite of my earlier comments.


----------



## KenOC

Delicious Manager said:


> If you're interested, I include the following as among Shostkovich's finest compositions:


A great list, but I think you overlooked the Quintet and the Cello Sonata!

BTW if you're "torn" about the 15th Symphony, don't be. It's one of his finest works. Trust me.


----------



## techniquest

> The Execution of Stepan Razin (the best Shostakovich work that's never performed)


Absolutely 100% agree with you on this one; it is a superb work.



> No 12: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! There are those who believe Shostakovich INTENDED this to be a banal, blowsy and bombastic piece of empty musical rhetoric to undermine the thematic historical content.


However, I can't agree with what you say here; it is easy to dismiss no.12 as a banal piece, but don't be so quick to arrive at this conclusion. Given how skilled Shostakovich was even in the flawed symphonies, why would you be so quick to think that he _unintentionally_ wrote a piece of rubbish? (Not that I regard it as rubbish)


----------



## KenOC

Delicious Manager said:


> Shostakovich's symphonic cycle is just too uneven to stand as one of the finest in symphonic literature - even in the 20th century.


An interesting view. What if only his eight "best" symphonies were known? Then, more people might agree that he was "the greatest symphonist of the century." Now, suppose the other seven less-great symphonies were discovered. Would he then be viewed as a lesser composer?

BTW my impression is that most would agree his output was uneven, but there would be a lot of disagreement over which were strong and which were weak.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I quite like a good many of Shostakovitch' symphonies... although I probably prefer his cello concerto, the preludes and fugues (HC... have you heard that work? Quite intriguing for the Baroque lover... clearly inspired by Bach's WTC) and even some of the quartets more. I don't honestly find myself as passionate about Shosty's symphonies as I am about symphonies of Mahler, Schubert, Beethoven, etc... but then I could say the same of most Russian symphonies. I'm honestly just not as fluent with regard to Shostakovitch as I am with some others... but he is slowly growing on me... and I would surely place him easily among the greatest of the 20th century.


I would place Shostakovich amongst the top half dozen or so 20th century composers, no doubt. I find his symphonies overall quite uneven in quality and a few that I have my suspicion on whether these are symphonies or not, especially the cantata-like #13 for example. Perhaps that might be rather harsh considering the historical context during which many of these were composed.

I find his concertos more engaging, perhaps because these are more "defined" for "ultra-conservative" wig wearing folks like me.


----------



## principe

For quite a few scholars, musicians and people in the Classical Music business, Shostakovich tends to be considered as the finest composer of the past century. 
In every genre he composed, everything has at least great musical value and interest. His Piano Music is extraordinary and beautiful, beloved and performed by great pianists. His Chamber Music is unique and utterly great. Only the String Quartets can constitute the milestone of the genre in 20th century (along with the only 6 by Bartok). His Concertos are so beautiful, intriguing, creative and, for works of 20th century, very popular. As for his Symphonies, with all the problems of getting familiar with them, they are by far the most influential, popular and most frequently played from the past century. Only the 15th, I have seen it, in almost five continents, during the last few years.
My surprise was when I found out how popular he is in Asia. Asians adore his music, which is performed on every occasion it can be.

Principe


----------



## Lenfer

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I quite like a good many of Shostakovitch' symphonies... although I probably prefer his cello concerto, the preludes and fugues (HC... have you heard that work? Quite intriguing for the Baroque lover... clearly inspired by Bach's WTC) and even some of the quartets more. I don't honestly find myself as passionate about Shosty's symphonies as I am about symphonies of Mahler, Schubert, Beethoven, etc... but then I could say the same of most Russian symphonies. I'm honestly just not as fluent with regard to Shostakovitch as I am with some others... but he is slowly growing on me... and I would surely place him easily among the greatest of the 20th century.


I agree I find his other work superior to his symphonies but then I lean toward the chamber side of music and away from the full symphony generally.

I read he was a queer little chap very anxious/neurotic I don't know if that's true but I feel it's reflected in his music. As much as I like *Shostakovitch* and I like his work I find it hard to connect to it emotionally at least in anyway that's positive way.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lenfer said:


> I agree I find his other work superior to his symphonies but then I lean toward the chamber side of music and away from the full symphony generally.
> 
> I read he was a queer little chap very anxious/neurotic I don't know if that's true but I feel it's reflected in his music. As much as I like *Shostakovitch* and I like his work I find it hard to connect to it emotionally at least in anyway that's positive way.


Well, living under Stalin's guise could make one twitchy.


----------



## quack

I think the very fact that Shosty's symphonies are uneven is what makes them probably my favorite symphony cycle. There's a little too much consistent Mahlerishness about Mahler's oeuvre, a little too perfect, whereas Shosty is a mess of ideas which I like. They are more like a biography than practically any other composer's works.


----------



## pasoleati

I wonder if a previously unknown work of Shostakovich was found and then played to a group of "experts" while claiming it to be a work of some unknown Swedish composer, I wonder would the experts find "opposition to totalitarianism" etc...This case does remind me of a well known classical much TV show in which small teams from Nordic countries, very well versed in classical music, competed with each other in tasks like recognizing a composition. One time a choral piece was to be recognized, and the Swedish team (remember, people with lengthy background in classical music) started by suggesting that the singing in is Russian. It was in Finnish. Ever after that I have had a great mistrust of musical "experts".


----------



## elgar's ghost

The uneven aspect and the biographical nature that quack refers to is quite important for me when putting the cycle (as well as the rest of his output) into historical context - it almost seems that the unevenness could be an analogy for the unpredictable events that formed the backdrop to the cycle itself: the brief promise of a brave new world where the fledgling USSR was ushering in a new golden age (1-3), then the sudden jolt of the official clampdown on artistic freedom which brought about the hounding of Akhmatova, the torture and murder of Meyerhold, the death of Mandelstam while in captivity, the lonely suicide of Tsvetaeva etc etc. followed by Stalin's nerve-shredding carrot and stick policy towards DSCH which, paradoxically, only abated to a degree during the brutal war years (4-10), playing it cute during the Krushchev era (11 and 12), then changing tack and having the courage to face his country's recent grim past head-on (13), the realisation that the candle was beginning to burn low (14) and finally having the last laugh with the ambiguous nature of no. 15 - was he just trying to throw would-be interpreters one final curveball or was it the culmination/encapsulation of all that had gone before? As he was planning a 16th symphony at the time of his death, who knows? 

Whatever the cycle's flaws, it's still an incredible body of work from an ordinary man who unwillingly had to lead an extraordinary life. And we haven't even got on to the concertos, songs and chamber music...


----------



## drpraetorus

KenOC said:


> "I found the Symphonies to be a deep and profound shout of resistance to an inhuman and crushing society."
> 
> I can't agree with this post at all. Shostakovich was an adherent of Communist philosophy all his life. In fact, he joined the Party in 1960, two years before his 13th Symphony. And that symphony was criticized only for some of Yevtushenko's poetry, certainly not for the music.
> 
> A hidden and subversive critic of the regime? Well, he certainly had no love for Stalin, but he was a loyal Communist. When he was criticized in 1936, I believe it was a real crisis of concience for him. Just what was his correct role as a Soviet composer? 1948 was, of course, a different matter.


Shostakovich was a socialist, not a Bolshevik and not a communist until he joined the party under some duress. He did not want to join but did because he had little choice in the matter. Actually, he said he had been blackmailed. It did afford him some protection from his critics and allowed him to have more contact with the outside world. Even in the 60's the Soviet Union was a repressive police state. They were regularly sending dissidents to mental hospitals and the far reaches of the east if they got to be too much trouble.

The Shostakovich family suffered under the Bolsheviks because they were not of the proper strain of socialism and also because they were of Polish extraction, not pure Russian.

Dmitri at first tried to get along with the authorities. His 2nd and 3rd symphonies were intended to be socialist realist and of the proper political philosophy. The Age of Gold and The Bolt were also intended to be proper political works. They were disliked by the musical authorities. Not ideologically pure enough. His works were popular enough with the audience but not with the authorities.

It was the official denunciation in 1936 that fully opened his eyes regarding his place in Soviet musical circles. Because his music did not please Stalin, he was a marked man. He withdrew his 4th symphony because it could have been deadly not to. This is when his music, particularly his symphonies assume the duality that not only I, but others, including Dmitri himself commented.

The 13th symphony was opposed by the musical authorities from the beginning. Because of his international fame and his party membership, they could not outright forbid the performance, but they made it clear that there would be consequences for the soloist and conductor if they participated. The original conductor was to have been Shostakovichs friend and the conductor who premiered many of Dmitris previous works, Yevgeny Mravinsky. Mravinsky declined to conduct the work. Dmitri accused him of cowardice and their friendship ended rather abruptly. It is quite possible that Mravinsky had been "warned" by the authorities. He also had to replace the original bass soloist who backed out over concerns of the message in the poetry. The new conductor, Kyril Kondrashin, was also pressured to withdraw but he refused. Changes in the text, especially of the first movement were demanded and requests that the first movement be dropped came in. The premier of the work was to have been televised but the cameras were removed at the last moment. The chorus almost walked out before the performance.

This work is the most blatantly critical of the regime of any Shostakovich work. It specifically indicts the government for anti-Semitism and exposes the living conditions of workers in the "Workers Paradise". It relives the terror of the Stalin purges and implies that they continue under Khrushchev. 
It was not the quality of the poetry but it's content that had the authorities so upset.

From at least 1936 to his death, despite having been compelled to join the Communist Party, Shostakovich never made peace with the Soviet authorities. He consciously used the inherent ambiguity of music to tell two stories in his symphonies. He used whatever power his international prestige gave him to protest as much a possible the repression in the Soviet Union.

Knowing the specifics of the time and place in history are essential to fully understanding the symphonies. Especially 5-12. There is more there than meets the ear.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

drpraetorus said:


> Shostakovich was a socialist, not a Bolshevik and not a communist until he joined the party under some duress. He did not want to join but did because he had little choice in the matter. Actually, he said he had been blackmailed. It did afford him some protection from his critics and allowed him to have more contact with the outside world. Even in the 60's the Soviet Union was a repressive police state. They were regularly sending dissidents to mental hospitals and the far reaches of the east if they got to be too much trouble.
> 
> The Shostakovich family suffered under the Bolsheviks because they were not of the proper strain of socialism and also because they were of Polish extraction, not pure Russian.
> 
> Dmitri at first tried to get along with the authorities. His 2nd and 3rd symphonies were intended to be socialist realist and of the proper political philosophy. The Age of Gold and The Bolt were also intended to be proper political works. They were disliked by the musical authorities. Not ideologically pure enough. His works were popular enough with the audience but not with the authorities.
> 
> It was the official denunciation in 1936 that fully opened his eyes regarding his place in Soviet musical circles. Because his music did not please Stalin, he was a marked man. He withdrew his 4th symphony because it could have been deadly not to. This is when his music, particularly his symphonies assume the duality that not only I, but others, including Dmitri himself commented.
> 
> The 13th symphony was opposed by the musical authorities from the beginning. Because of his international fame and his party membership, they could not outright forbid the performance, but they made it clear that there would be consequences for the soloist and conductor if they participated. The original conductor was to have been Shostakovichs friend and the conductor who premiered many of Dmitris previous works, Yevgeny Mravinsky. Mravinsky declined to conduct the work. Dmitri accused him of cowardice and their friendship ended rather abruptly. It is quite possible that Mravinsky had been "warned" by the authorities. He also had to replace the original bass soloist who backed out over concerns of the message in the poetry. The new conductor, Kyril Kondrashin, was also pressured to withdraw but he refused. Changes in the text, especially of the first movement were demanded and requests that the first movement be dropped came in. The premier of the work was to have been televised but the cameras were removed at the last moment. The chorus almost walked out before the performance.
> 
> This work is the most blatantly critical of the regime of any Shostakovich work. It specifically indicts the government for anti-Semitism and exposes the living conditions of workers in the "Workers Paradise". It relives the terror of the Stalin purges and implies that they continue under Khrushchev.
> It was not the quality of the poetry but it's content that had the authorities so upset.
> 
> From at least 1936 to his death, despite having been compelled to join the Communist Party, Shostakovich never made peace with the Soviet authorities. He consciously used the inherent ambiguity of music to tell two stories in his symphonies. He used whatever power his international prestige gave him to protest as much a possible the repression in the Soviet Union.
> 
> Knowing the specifics of the time and place in history are essential to fully understanding the symphonies. Especially 5-12. There is more there than meets the ear.


The historical context you gave was interesting read and I would say quite invaluable to coming to appreciate the symphonies. I think the greatness of Shostakovich as a symphonist and composer in general was to utilise music as a means to express all that was happening around him during artistically uneasy times. But I cannot help wonder whether the music suffered to any extent as a result. He composed several of the symphonies under some "duress" (or perhaps there was a better term to describe). The uneven aspect of the symphonies that several of us described must be in one way or another related to the Soviet regime. Letting the music speak for itself though, I cannot help to think that this uneveness must be a major weakness in his symphonic oeuvre.


----------



## Arsakes

Option 3. They're too stressful to listen many times a year.


----------



## brianwalker

quack said:


> Shosty's symphonies are uneven


*+++
*

Hence my votes.


----------



## chalkpie

One of the best cycles EVER. And you can say the same about his string quartets. Do the math and you have an original music genius whose music was profoundly affected by his life and the time in which they were written. 

If DSCH was a spoiled, rich American composer born in Hollywood with money to burn, I don't think his music would be worth listening too. There is pain, bitterness, sarcasm, irony, passion, despair, and hope in his music, and like he once said -- "I never lie in music". 

One of the best ever to my ears.


----------



## Delicious Manager

KenOC said:


> A great list, but I think you overlooked the Quintet and the Cello Sonata!
> 
> BTW if you're "torn" about the 15th Symphony, don't be. It's one of his finest works. Trust me.


I didn't overlook the Piano Quintet and the Cello Sonata - I deliberately omitted them. The Cello Sonata is, for me, one of Shostakovich's most disappointing works - too keen to not offend the ear. The Piano Quintet is better, bit still lacks the profundity and magic of, say, the 2nd Piano Trio.


----------



## Delicious Manager

techniquest said:


> Absolutely 100% agree with you on this one; it is a superb work.
> 
> However, I can't agree with what you say here; it is easy to dismiss no.12 as a banal piece, but don't be so quick to arrive at this conclusion. Given how skilled Shostakovich was even in the flawed symphonies, why would you be so quick to think that he _unintentionally_ wrote a piece of rubbish? (Not that I regard it as rubbish)


I was not being 'quick to arrive at this judgement'; I have known this piece since the mid-1970s and so I think I have become familiar enough with it to have had time to come to an informed conclusion.


----------



## techniquest

> I was not being 'quick to arrive at this judgement'; I have known this piece since the mid-1970s and so I think I have become familiar enough with it to have had time to come to an informed conclusion.


I think you missed my point, but never mind


----------



## Xaltotun

I love his symphonies, and I love the fact that he still, in his day and age, treated the symphony as a serious matter, a matter of a "personal credo", even if he played with the subject, and perhaps occasionally turned it on its head. His music is weighty, and I feel it addresses personal as well as universal problems. But circumstances turned him paranoid, nervous, twitchy, sceptic... and this is reflected in his music. I seek absolute idealism in classical music and tolerate only a moderate amount of realism and scepticism; that's why there's friction in my relationship with this composer. I love those parts of the symphonies where I can lull myself into thinking about heroism, faith (in the state), leadership, will to prevail, determination etc. But so often, he then pulls the rug from under my feet


----------



## Delicious Manager

Xaltotun said:


> I love his symphonies, and I love the fact that he still, in his day and age, treated the symphony as a serious matter, a matter of a "personal credo", even if he played with the subject, and perhaps occasionally turned it on its head.


Shostakovich wrote his last symphony more than 40 years ago. That's not far off half a century and so it could hardly be called 'this day and age'. Your comment suggests (although I am happy to be wrong) that you think other composers HAVEN'T treated the symphony as a serious matter when, in fact, there is a huge number of symphonies written after Shostakovich's 15th by a wide range of composers who treat the symphony very seriously indeed. Just a few names that pop into my head:

Hans Werner Henze (died last week)
Vagn Holmboe
Peter Maxwell Davies
Per Nørgård
Poul Ruders
Alfred Schnittke
Roger Sessions
Robert Simpson
Lepo Sumera
Boris Tishchenko
Erkki-Sven Tüür


----------



## PetrB

I'm not, overall, a Shostakovitch fan: 
I think he shone best when he was less self-consciously writing for a friend
Cello Concerto No. 1, Piano Concerto No. 2
or in some works for the stage, where he let just about all his rage and pithy to scathing satire uninhibitedly 'hang out'
Lady Macbeth, The Nose, [and now I will want to check Delicious_Manager's recommendation of "The Execution of."]

The whole symphonic thing, well, I do not adhere to the symphony as some sina qua non format which needs to continue. It may not have died, but could, imho, certainly use more of a rest than is has been given by some 

I find that comment Boulez made about Shostakovitch has more than a grain of truth in it. The analogy was to olive oil; Boulez having said that Shostakovich was like a third pressing of Mahler, i.e. weakened watered-down late romantic tea.

In Shostakovitch I too often hear "all that old Brahms stuff" as it were. Very little of it holds my attention through an entire work. Just not feelin' it. His basic harmonic vocabulary and M.O re: form just does not intrigue me enough to want to return after once hearing it. (I think the Nielsen Symphony No.5 has more to offer, is more 'important' than any Shostakovitch Symphony, is in no way less conservative, and that justified more on its first half than the entire work.]


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> In Shostakovitch I too often hear "all that old Brahms stuff" as it were.


You might want to check out his 9th Symphony ... or the last two movements of his 6th. I think he forgot the Brahms parts in those!


----------



## Xaltotun

Delicious Manager said:


> Shostakovich wrote his last symphony more than 40 years ago. That's not far off half a century and so it could hardly be called 'this day and age'. Your comment suggests (although I am happy to be wrong) that you think other composers HAVEN'T treated the symphony as a serious matter when, in fact, there is a huge number of symphonies written after Shostakovich's 15th by a wide range of composers who treat the symphony very seriously indeed. Just a few names that pop into my head:
> 
> Hans Werner Henze (died last week)
> Vagn Holmboe
> Peter Maxwell Davies
> Per Nørgård
> Poul Ruders
> Alfred Schnittke
> Roger Sessions
> Robert Simpson
> Lepo Sumera
> Boris Tishchenko
> Erkki-Sven Tüür


Thanks for the information; my knowledge on modern composers is still rather lackluster. But I'll clarify what I tried to say: for a long time after Beethoven, it was sort of taken for granted that the symphony was the most important form in classical music; a lot of people treated the symphony as more important than the other forms, a sort of crown jewel category. And while composers still at this day and age might treat the symphony with ambition and respect, it doesn't have that unchallenged status any more, does it? What I tried to say was that for Shostakovich, the symphony was still the undisputed "king", the ultimate tool for the expression of a composers world-wiew, a more important musical form than the rest.


----------



## Vaneyes

I rate them very well.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Delicious Manager said:


> ...
> Lepo Sumera
> 
> Erkki-Sven Tüür


Who the hell are these folks?


----------



## Delicious Manager

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Who the hell are these folks?


Seek out the music and listen to the music. Look them up on the internet. Then you will know who the hell they are.


----------



## rik

12 It is called the Dawn of Humanity. He is good but there are too few players.
I am reading Soviet Composers by Stanley Krebs. Not an easy read and I have all the degrees you can get. Prokofiev went back to the Soviet Union in 1936. Not a good year. He went via Hawaii and said I like that. The system gave him a hard time.

Try 12.


----------



## violadude

Hmmm there needs to be something between option 2 and option 3. I can listen to Shostakovich's symphonies many times and still find them enjoyable enough to be engaged, but I don't know if I can say he is one of the best symphonists of the entire 20th century...


----------



## Vesteralen

Well, I see I'm with the majority in selecting Option 2. The only thing that keeps him out of Option 1 for me is the unevenness of his body of symphonic work. Others may have said something similar, but it's one of those threads that's just too daunting to go back and read in its entirety now....


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> Hmmm there needs to be something between option 2 and option 3. I can listen to Shostakovich's symphonies many times and still find them enjoyable enough to be engaged, but I don't know if I can say he is one of the best symphonists of the entire 20th century...


Agreed, which is why I didn't vote. I put some of the symphonies in category 2, some in category 3.


----------



## realdealblues

Mahlerian said:


> Agreed, which is why I didn't vote. I put some of the symphonies in category 2, some in category 3.


Same here as far as thinking there needed to be another option.

I ended up voting for the third option because I guess I don't give them "many" listens throughout the year. They are interesting to hear. I don't dislike them, but they aren't as "re-listenable" (at least as frequently for me) as Beethoven or Mahler or Mozart symphonies are. I might listen to all of them once a year with a few that I like the most getting an extra listen or two throughout the year.


----------



## Mahlerian

I've now voted, because I realized that I could choose multiple options. I relegate 7 and 12 to the "hack-work" bin.

In my opinion, none of the symphonies really stack up against _any_ by Mahler, Brahms, or Beethoven, though.


----------



## Tristan

Probably my second-favorite 20th century symphonist after Mahler. Prokofiev would be 3rd.


----------



## Orfeo

elgars ghost said:


> The uneven aspect and the biographical nature that quack refers to is quite important for me when putting the cycle (as well as the rest of his output) into historical context - it almost seems that the unevenness could be an analogy for the unpredictable events that formed the backdrop to the cycle itself: the brief promise of a brave new world where the fledgling USSR was ushering in a new golden age (1-3), then the sudden jolt of the official clampdown on artistic freedom which brought about the hounding of Akhmatova, the torture and murder of Meyerhold, the death of Mandelstam while in captivity, the lonely suicide of Tsvetaeva etc etc. followed by Stalin's nerve-shredding carrot and stick policy towards DSCH which, paradoxically, only abated to a degree during the brutal war years (4-10), playing it cute during the Krushchev era (11 and 12), then changing tack and having the courage to face his country's recent grim past head-on (13), the realisation that the candle was beginning to burn low (14) and finally having the last laugh with the ambiguous nature of no. 15 - was he just trying to throw would-be interpreters one final curveball or was it the culmination/encapsulation of all that had gone before? As he was planning a 16th symphony at the time of his death, who knows?
> 
> Whatever the cycle's flaws, it's still an incredible body of work from an ordinary man who unwillingly had to lead an extraordinary life. And we haven't even got on to the concertos, songs and chamber music...


I ditto that all the way.


----------



## Orfeo

I think the uneven aspect and the biographical nature of Shostakovich's symphonies can aptly be applied to Myaskovsky's (and should).


----------



## Copperears

I think history will discover Shostakovitch to be a more interesting composer than Beethoven. He bridges the gulf between late-19th-century German orchestral and operatic work and 20th-century modernist experimentation, and is able to combine both musically complex and sophisticated form with "programmatic" elements in a way that is compelling to the ear.

The prejudices of the 20th century are slowly dissipating, with the last few hysterical shouts of fear dying out; if the human species survives, we will begin to discover how absolutely monumental and compelling his entire opus really is.


----------



## maestro267

Definitely the most popular symphony cycle entirely written in the 20th century, and as there are really only 3 centuries to go by when it comes to symphonies, they are by default among the finest ever written.


----------



## EdwardBast

Shostakovich would have been the first to acknowledge that the set was incredibly uneven — uneven on a Mahlerian scale even! Some are great, some are hack work. (I'm with Mahlerian in assigning 7 to the hack bin — however, I must dispute his claim that none of them is as good as any symphony of Mahler. I would assign Mahler's Third and Seventh to the hack bin as well, so to me, Mahlerian is setting the bar really low.) 

The ones I believe to be best are 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15. I enjoy others as well. 

As for Shostakovich being a loyal communist: He was horribly conflicted about having at last given in and joined the party. I believe a friend found him a few nights later in an alcoholic stupor, weeping and berating himself as a "wh*re" for having done so. Nothing is simple. (This censorship is really annoying!)

Solomon Volkov has pretty much been proven to be a fraud and some of the interpretations of anti-communist subtexts by him and others are dubious at best. Take the finale of the Fifth. Yes the triumph of the finale seems overstated to the point of parody, but how can one be sure what this indicates. Might merely be trying too hard to meet the demands for optimism set by the aesthetics of Socialist Realism.

Bottom line for me: The whole rating thing is tedious. I think he wrote at least five excellent symphonies and others that are very good. That makes me happy. I would be exceedingly happy if there were other symphonic composers of his era who did as well. I'll keep looking.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Shostakovich would have been the first to acknowledge that the set was incredibly uneven - uneven on a Mahlerian scale even! Some are great, some are hack work. (I'm with Mahlerian in assigning 7 to the hack bin - however, I must dispute his claim that none of them is as good as any symphony of Mahler. I would assign Mahler's Third and Seventh to the hack bin as well, so to me, Mahlerian is setting the bar really low.)


Take it how you will. I agree that the 3rd and 7th may have been Mahler's most uneven symphonies, but only so far as they seem to overreach somewhat in their reconciling of extremes. Individual movements within them are excellent, such as the finale of the 3rd and the first movement of the 7th, so I feel like they are far from hack-work.

Also, the idea of hack-work in relation to Mahler is bizarre, because none of his works were written for commission, and none of them, outside of the 2nd and 8th, enjoyed any kind of popular success (none of them achieved critical success), so he would never have intentionally "dumbed-down" his music to pander to anyone. Shostakovich's 7th and 12th are quite far below the standards that he could reach in his better works, and they are throughout their length (considerable in the case of the former) dumbed-down.

I still think Shostakovich's best symphony was the 4th by a considerable margin.


----------



## Copperears

I don't see how anyone can even begin to consider the 7th "hack work," when it was written in service to the death struggle of humanity under the most horrifying conditions imaginable in the face of imminent annihilation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_première_of_Shostakovich's_Symphony_No._7#Preparation

One of the most stirring pieces of music ever written, bar none.

If that's hack work, Handel's Messiah is an unconscious drunken celebration of satanic whores, written as a flimsy bagatelle.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Take it how you will. I agree that the 3rd and 7th may have been Mahler's most uneven symphonies, but only so far as they seem to overreach somewhat in their reconciling of extremes. Individual movements within them are excellent, such as the finale of the 3rd and the first movement of the 7th, so I feel like they are far from hack-work.


Yet, at his best, Mahler was a genius at reconciling extremes. My favorite example is the second movement of the fifth, where two opposing elements diverge - "things fall apart, the center cannot hold" - one reaching toward the glory of the chorale, the other devolving into stormy chaos. Both with implications for the finale where the rift is sealed. Anyway, what you argue for Mahler is equally true of Shostakovich. His bad symphonies have their moments and even beautiful individual movements. I hear them being uneven in a similar way; Shostakovich knew his Mahler, and it shows.



Mahlerian said:


> Also, the idea of hack-work in relation to Mahler is bizarre, because none of his works were written for commission, and none of them, outside of the 2nd and 8th, enjoyed any kind of popular success (none of them achieved critical success), so he would never have intentionally "dumbed-down" his music to pander to anyone. Shostakovich's 7th and 12th are quite far below the standards that he could reach in his better works, and they are throughout their length (considerable in the case of the former) dumbed-down.


I think you are using the term hack-work in a more precise way than I was. I meant nothing beyond implying substandard work and was not suggesting any venal motives on the composer's part.



Mahlerian said:


> I still think Shostakovich's best symphony was the 4th by a considerable margin.


Of course you like Shostakovich's Fourth, it is the most . . . well, the most Mahlerian of the lot. Mahler was one of Shostakovich's favorite composers. Indeed a quotation from Das Lied von der Erde in the third movement might be central in interpreting Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony.


----------



## EdwardBast

Copperears said:


> I don't see how anyone can even begin to consider the 7th "hack work," when it was written in service to the death struggle of humanity under the most horrifying conditions imaginable in the face of imminent annihilation:


Because I listened to the first movement. The relentless invasion of the sausage eaters. I appreciate its historical importance and its role during the war. I just prefer to appreciate it more rarely than most of his other work.



Copperears said:


> If that's hack work, Handel's Messiah is an unconscious drunken celebration of satanic whores, written as a flimsy bagatelle.


Hey, when I wrote the singular of whores earlier in the thread, it appeared as "*****". I guess they are only acceptable in party sized groups.


----------



## Copperears

And only in satanic form, clearly.....

But see that's the thing, once again, of getting too caught up in the programmatic interpretation of a musical work.

Sure, the approaching march might sound repetitious, but is it any more so than Bolero? I see it as in many ways a quotation of Ravel's experiment on that front.

Further, it's not really any different in nature from the strong groupings of percussion, brass and wind instruments characteristic of all of Shostakovitch's symphonic work. In intensity, and its pressure on the almost chamber-music-like dialogue of oboe with clarinet that exists in the same movement in counterpoint, yes, it is more distinctive; but at the same time, that serves to lend those tense, mournful, meditative interludes also so characteristic of Shostakovitch even more power than they might have without such near-overwhelming opposition.

It is a musical triumph of form as much as anything else; the small voices' ability to remain distinct in their contrast to the grouped brass and percussive instruments is quite musically effective.

Further, I hear not only Ravel, and Mahler, but Stravinsky and dare I say even Copland resonant throughout this movement it sounds like you've listened to superciliously; it is a marvel of echo and quotation of a range of musical forms present in that moment, and it integrates them into a well-structured, coherent musical tour-de-force, without dropping a stitch. Not to mention the elements of Russian folk music, as well.

And that's just the first movement, characterized by my light, off-the-cuff observations here on the fly. There is so much more, and the rest of the symphony is even more stupendous than this.

I remain astonished at how ignorantly and casually people dismiss even Shostakovitch's early symphonic output. And his string quartets, oh my god..... you could enjoy those for a lifetime.

Dispense with all the political mud and characterization, and listen to what's there; it is sustainedly glorious.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Yet, at his best, Mahler was a genius at reconciling extremes. My favorite example is the second movement of the fifth, where two opposing elements diverge - "things fall apart, the center cannot hold" - one reaching toward the glory of the chorale, the other devolving into stormy chaos. Both with implications for the finale where the rift is sealed. Anyway, *what you argue for Mahler is equally true of Shostakovich. His bad symphonies have their moments and even beautiful individual movements.* I hear them being uneven in a similar way; Shostakovich knew his Mahler, and it shows.


I don't think Mahler had any bad symphonies, just some that are more successful than others. I find them all worthwhile. Among Shostakovich's works I fail to find anything worthwhile in the Seventh (especially its outer movements) or the Twelfth. They're not quite on the level of the lesser examples of his film or propaganda music (certain projects that he undeniably cared nothing about), but I find them quite dull.



Edwardbast said:


> I think you are using the term hack-work in a more precise way than I was. I meant nothing beyond implying substandard work and was not suggesting any venal motives on the composer's part.


Well, in Shostakovich's case it wasn't necessarily for monetary gain or even popular acclaim so much as the approval of authorities whom he knew would not accept the things he truly found artistically fulfilling. It's one of the reasons he turned to writing String Quartets after his first denunciation. It's sometimes surprising to me that he was able to write things that appeased the censors in the short run that actually had some merit, but I wonder what might have been if he had lived in a less repressive society in the first place.



EdwardBast said:


> Of course you like Shostakovich's Fourth, it is the most . . . well, the most Mahlerian of the lot. Mahler was one of Shostakovich's favorite composers. Indeed a quotation from Das Lied von der Erde in the third movement might be central in interpreting Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony.


Well, I like it because it's his most audacious symphony that's completely self-assured. The preceding two do a poor job of reconciling their bombastic choral perorations with their more adventurous sections, but the Fourth is a single, fascinatingly protean entity that is at once elusive and straight to the point (the first movement is a disguised sonata form, the seemingly bizarre finale is really simply ABAC with the B section being a large-scale development on the themes of A, but they are in constant flux so it can be hard to recognize where this or that motif came from).

After that, the fifth was written to be easier to understand, and it has strong points (the slow movement in particular), but I find the finale musically weak no matter how one interprets it. The first symphony's finale does a better job of being a pseudo-victory, in my opinion.


----------



## Neo Romanza

For me, Shostakovich's symphonies are some of the finest of all-time. Forgetting what has come before Shostakovich and what has come after and just evaluating them one-by-one, I'd say that _Symphonies 2, 3, 12, 14_ are complete duds. I find _Symphony No. 14_ far too limiting for Shostakovich's sound-world and I just don't care much for the music itself. _Symphonies 2, 3, & 12_ are pure propaganda garbage, although _Symphony No. 2_ is _better_ than the 3rd and 12th I'd say. Where things start to get cooking is _Symphony No. 4_, which is just a completely insane work altogether. _Symphony No. 5_, if played in a convincing way, is one of the best symphonies ever written. It has everything in a symphony one could ask for. That _Largo_ movement is one of Shostakovich's most heartfelt outpourings. One would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by that movement. _Symphony No. 8_ is my favorite Shostakovich symphony. This is where the 'gloves came off' so to speak.

Anyway, enough rambling here, I think highly of this symphonic cycle and continue to be moved by so much of this music. Definitely a feather in Shostakovich's hat for sure. Magnificent music.


----------



## Copperears

I remain astonished; how sad.

Although I also remain confirmed in my own musical preferences; while trying not be bored by Bruckner, I can't say that will ever change. Talk about dull music from a dull person!


----------



## Cheyenne

The final section of the fourth - starting at the loud outburst - is truly staggering.


----------



## Blake

Copperears said:


> Although I also remain confirmed in my own musical preferences; while trying not be bored by Bruckner, I can't say that will ever change. Talk about dull music from a dull person!


I just... I can't.... I don't... understand... Does. Not. Compute.


----------



## Copperears

Vesuvius said:


> I just... I can't.... I don't... understand... Does. Not. Compute.


I'll work on it.

It may be he just did not photograph well. He looks like the protagonist in H.P. Lovecraft's short story, "Cool Air."

http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/ca.aspx


----------



## Skilmarilion

EdwardBast said:


> Shostakovich would have been the first to acknowledge that the set was incredibly uneven - uneven on a Mahlerian scale even! Some are great, some are hack work. (I'm with Mahlerian in assigning 7 to the hack bin - however, I must dispute his claim that none of them is as good as any symphony of Mahler. *I would assign Mahler's Third and Seventh to the hack bin as well, so to me, Mahlerian is setting the bar really low.)*


Why is this?

The difference between a work being 'uneven' and being 'hack work' is beyond measure. For me, there is an enormous amount of beauty, poignancy and craftsmanship throughout Mahler's 3rd and 7th symphonies, containing some of his most unique and inspired 'sound worlds'. I think the scherzo of the 3rd is perhaps not his strongest, and the finale of the 7th is somewhat disappointing, but that's where the unevenness ends imo.

I don't see how these two works could ever be grouped with Shostakovich's 7th, which [apart from some moments in the slow movement] is utterly empty and completely uninteresting, not to mention the ridiculousness of the first movement.

Perhaps I would just about take Shostakovich's 5th over Mahler's 8th, but otherwise their set of symphonies are not even comparable.


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> Why is this?
> 
> The difference between a work being 'uneven' and being 'hack work' is beyond measure. For me, there is an enormous amount of beauty, poignancy and craftsmanship throughout Mahler's 3rd and 7th symphonies, containing some of his most unique and inspired 'sound worlds'. I think the scherzo of the 3rd is perhaps not his strongest, and the finale of the 7th is somewhat disappointing, but that's where the unevenness ends imo.


I like Mahler's 4th, 5th, and 6th symphonies quite a bit and believe that one of these, the 6th, is a complete success. The only positive thing I can say about the first movement of the 3rd symphony is that it is bad enough that it sends me into uncontrollable fits of laughter. The funereal bits are funny. Those incessant mass trills in the brass and winds are funny. The secondary themes are hysterical. I'm not joking! The first time I heard it, I had to pretend I was overcome by a coughing jag so that I could escape the hall. No way I could ever get through that first movement to hear the rest in a live performance.



Skilmarilion said:


> I don't see how these two works could ever be grouped with Shostakovich's 7th, which [apart from some moments in the slow movement] is utterly empty and completely uninteresting, not to mention the ridiculousness of the first movement.
> 
> Perhaps I would just about take Shostakovich's 5th over Mahler's 8th, but otherwise their set of symphonies are not even comparable.


I don't think the 5th is among Shostakovich's best symphonies.

In any case, I am not the person to ask about Mahler because Germanic post Romantic music is perhaps my least favorite musical style.

.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> I like Mahler's 4th, 5th, and 6th symphonies quite a bit and believe that one of these, the 6th, is a complete success. The only positive thing I can say about the first movement of the 3rd symphony is that it is bad enough that it sends me into uncontrollable fits of laughter. The funereal bits are funny. Those incessant mass trills in the brass and winds are funny. The secondary themes are hysterical. I'm not joking! The first time I heard it, I had to pretend I was overcome by a coughing jag so that I could escape the hall. No way I could ever get through that first movement to hear the rest in a live performance.


I agree to an extent with this - not that I think its laughably bad - but I agree there are problems in Mahler's 3rd with the flow of the music and the contrasts. However, I think the first 10 minutes or so of the 3rd is some of the more impressive large orchestral music I've heard. Awesome stuff.

Shostakovich's Symphonies are growing on me, I quite like the 4th and the 13th.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> I like Mahler's 4th, 5th, and 6th symphonies quite a bit and believe that one of these, the 6th, is a complete success. The only positive thing I can say about the first movement of the 3rd symphony is that it is bad enough that it sends me into uncontrollable fits of laughter. The funereal bits are funny. Those incessant mass trills in the brass and winds are funny. The secondary themes are hysterical. I'm not joking! The first time I heard it, I had to pretend I was overcome by a coughing jag so that I could escape the hall. No way I could ever get through that first movement to hear the rest in a live performance.


Hear it as you will.

I still think that movement's better than anything in Shostakovich's entire oeuvre. There's nothing in Mahler which sinks to the utter vapid trashiness of this moment of the Leningrad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ZEoNTtRB8#t=1005

(Sorry, it's supposed to redirect to 16:45 or so, but the ad is messing it up.)


----------



## tdc

I think at this point I still all around slightly prefer the first movement of Mahler's 3rd to any of Shostakovich's symphonic movements as well - just because I enjoy the initial section (which returns at the end of the movement) quite a lot.

I think this is a classic case where Mahler had a certain idea in mind he really wanted to express, and he tried to compose the music around this idea, instead of perhaps trying to refine the piece down into something that really worked - what the music wanted to be. As crudblud says - in creating sometimes you've gotta "kill your darlings".


----------



## Mahlerian

tdc said:


> I think at this point I still all around slightly prefer the first movement of Mahler's 3rd to any of Shostakovich's symphonic movements as well - just because I enjoy the initial section (which returns at the end of the movement) quite a lot.
> 
> I think this is a classic case where Mahler had a certain idea in mind he really wanted to express, and he tried to compose the music around this idea, instead of perhaps trying to refine the piece down into something that really worked - what the music wanted to be. As crudblud says - in creating sometimes you've gotta "kill your darlings".


It's the one case where I think, perhaps, the movement is a little too long. I don't mind while listening to it, but it's that double exposition:

Introduction (First Exposition)
A (opening horn call and chorale)
B
C (first bits of the march)

Exposition
B' (trombone solo)
C' (full march)

Development

Recapitulation
A' (horn call, chorale)
B'' (trombone solo)
C''' (march, short coda)

What I call "C" here is actually a theme developed out of the opening horn call of A.


----------



## Morimur

Shostakovich's string quartets are very fine. His symphonies, however, abound in banal vulgarities.


----------



## DamoX

Have a feeling I could understand how he tried to live in such a tough era.


----------



## dgee

Morimur said:


> Shostakovich's string quartets are very fine. His symphonies, however, abound in banal vulgarities.


I don't fully agree with this statement but I definitely enjoyed it. Sometimes the banal vulgarities are quite fun like in parts of the 5, 10 and 13 symphonies. Sometimes they are not like in the 7, 11, 12 symphonies. I still think the peak of his symphonic output is 9 - it's very neat and fun. Like Beethoven, I prefer fun Shosty to Very Serious Shosty


----------



## Mahlerian

dgee said:


> I don't fully agree with this statement but I definitely enjoyed it. Sometimes the banal vulgarities are quite fun like in parts of the 5, 10 and 13 symphonies. Sometimes they are not like in the 7, 11, 12 symphonies. I still think the peak of his symphonic output is 9 - it's very neat and fun. Like Beethoven, I prefer fun Shosty to Very Serious Shosty


Likewise, I think the finale of the 6th is one of Shostakovich's more effective movements, raucous and trivial and completely unashamed of it.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Likewise, I think the finale of the 6th is one of Shostakovich's more effective movements, raucous and trivial and completely unashamed of it.


I lie that movement too (and BTW the rest of the symphony as well). And I like the 1st movement of the 9th for the same reason.


----------



## JACE

I love Shostakovich's music. He's one of my favorite composers.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Hear it as you will.


Has nothing to do with what I will. It is an involuntary reaction. I can't hear that movement without laughing.



Mahlerian said:


> I still think that movement's better than anything in Shostakovich's entire oeuvre. There's nothing in Mahler which sinks to the utter vapid trashiness of this moment of the Leningrad:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ZEoNTtRB8#t=1005
> 
> (Sorry, it's supposed to redirect to 16:45 or so, but the ad is messing it up.)


Sorry Mahlerian, your statement is incomprehensible to me. I find the first movement of Mahler's 3rd to be execrable. Utter, pompous dreck without redeeming aesthetic value. Which is exactly what I would say about the first movement of the Leningrad, except I might substitute "crass" for "pompous." Which is worse? Who knows? Who cares? I generally don't like to get that close to the bottom of either barrel. I might give the edge to the Shostakovich because it is both funnier and shorter.

Oh, I almost forgot: Very few movements by Shostakovich fall to the level of the first movement of Mahler's Third - and, thankfully, few if any of Mahler's do either.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Has nothing to do with what I will. It is an involuntary reaction. I can't hear that movement without laughing.
> 
> Sorry Mahlerian, your statement is incomprehensible to me. I find the first movement of Mahler's 3rd to be execrable. Utter, pompous dreck without redeeming aesthetic value. Which is exactly what I would say about the first movement of the Leningrad, except I might substitute "crass" for "pompous." Which is worse? Who knows? Who cares? I generally don't like to get that close to the bottom of either barrel. I might give the edge to the Shostakovich because it is both funnier and shorter.
> 
> Oh, I almost forgot: Very few movements by Shostakovich fall to the level of the first movement of Mahler's Third - and, thankfully, few if any of Mahler's do either.


I didn't get the first movement of the Third the first time I heard it either. It sounded jumbled in content and unfocused in form. But it isn't. I was sure that the style of the music was changing every few seconds. But it doesn't. The gaudiness of the march sections is over-the-top, sure, and are the trills bizarre? Of course. But there's an unbridled joy to the whole thing that offsets the heaviness of the trombone solo and chorales. It's madness, but there is without a doubt method to it.

The first movement of the Leningrad, on the other hand, especially the part I pointed out, is dreary. It's dull, boring, colorless, strident music which substitutes a mere repetition in the minor mode (triple forte, timpani and gongs) for any kind of development at the supposed climax of the movement. The finale is even worse.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> I didn't get the first movement of the Third the first time I heard it either. It sounded jumbled in content and unfocused in form. But it isn't. I was sure that the style of the music was changing every few seconds. But it doesn't. The gaudiness of the march sections is over-the-top, sure, and are the trills bizarre? Of course. But there's an unbridled joy to the whole thing that offsets the heaviness of the trombone solo and chorales. It's madness, but there is without a doubt method to it.
> 
> The first movement of the Leningrad, on the other hand, especially the part I pointed out, is dreary. It's dull, boring, colorless, strident music which substitutes a mere repetition in the minor mode (triple forte, timpani and gongs) for any kind of development at the supposed climax of the movement. The finale is even worse.


Well, obviously we are not going to agree on this one. I don't hear a single idea in Mahler 3/i that doesn't sound like a parody of better Mahler, and certainly nothing that warrants thirty plus minutes. In any case, I plan to spend the rest of my life avoiding both works as I would rabid weasels.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> Well, obviously we are not going to agree on this one. I don't hear a single idea in Mahler 3/i that doesn't sound like a parody of better Mahler, and certainly nothing that warrants thirty plus minutes. In any case, I plan to spend the rest of my life avoiding both works as I would rabid weasels.


It sounds like you haven't even given the work a fair chance to me. The quiet build-up at the start of the movement before the prominent brass theme and how well it rolls into that section I find nothing short of amazing. Nothing else Mahler composed sounds anything like that first movement. So I don't get the "parody" argument. To be honest it sounds like your opinion of the symphony is based largely on your first impression of the first movement.


----------



## Morimur

Despite my general dislike for Shostakovich, I sympathize with the harsh existence he lead. Stalin broke him, and in my opinion, ruined his creativity. Shostakovich could've been so much more, under kinder circumstances.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Between 'mm...' and 'meh'.


----------



## KenOC

Morimur said:


> Despite my general dislike for Shostakovich, I sympathize with the harsh existence he lead. Stalin broke him, and in my opinion, ruined his creativity. Shostakovich could've been so much more, under kinder circumstances.


Hmmm... I wonder if Stalin broke him before or after he wrote his Quintet, 1st Violin Concerto, 10th Symphony, Cello and Piano Concertos (I could go on, and won't even mention the quartets...)


----------



## PetrB

I find so much of nothing in any of them that I never even think of them. After having gone through them a number of times, I was done with them. 

I only think anything of them at all -- just like I do if asked, "What do you think of Andrew Lloyd Weber?" I.e. "Unless mentioned, I don't think of them at all."

They are clearly a big deal for others. I can not see any real value to them at all other than as a sort of circumstantial historic social document, better left merely mentioned or referred to in books than performed.

I suppose that not feeling anything upon hearing them (other than a vague irritation), not thinking of them well as music, not being at all impressed because "they are large-scale symphonies," is pretty harsh, maybe even damning, maybe flightily superficial or gravely shallow on my part... but that is what I both feel, and think, of them.


----------



## Andrei

Despite being of partial Russian descent and love of Glinka, The Five, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Stravinsky and some others I cannot get to grips with Shostakovich. Enjoy 5th, 10th and 11 symphonies only. As an aside; how Leningrad did not surrender after hearing the 7th is one of modern history's mysteries. It certainly saps my will to live. Be that as it may a proper assessment of his music is difficult while it is clouded by biographical opinion.


----------



## Skilmarilion

PetrB said:


> I find so much of nothing in any of them that I never even think of them. After having gone through them a number of times, I was done with them.
> 
> ...
> 
> I suppose that not feeling anything upon hearing them (other than a vague irritation), not thinking of them well as music, not being at all impressed because "they are large-scale symphonies," is pretty harsh, maybe even damning, maybe flightily superficial or gravely shallow on my part... but that is what I both feel, and think, of them.


I feel almost exactly the same -- with no other 'big deal' symphonic oeuvre do I feel mostly indifferent, i.e. I could gladly never listen to any of them again, and could have gladly never listened to any of them in the first place.

Even his 4th, which is somewhat revered, I find to be nearly unbearable -- even with concentrated listening it comes out as 'noise' to me. The 5th is better than any of the others, imo. The 15th is quite interesting in places, but it could really have done without the Rossini quote.

What's most disappointing is that Shostakovich was inspired so much by Mahler, and yet his symphonies are so often empty, vulgar, harshly orchestrated, uninteresting in terms of thematic material and thematic development, and utterly boring -- everything that Mahler's symphonies aren't.


----------



## Skilmarilion

EdwardBast said:


> Well, obviously we are not going to agree on this one. I don't hear a single idea in Mahler 3/i that doesn't sound like a parody of better Mahler, and certainly nothing that warrants thirty plus minutes. In any case, I plan to spend the rest of my life avoiding both works as I would rabid weasels.


Okay, so you may not enjoy the first movement -- but there are 5 other movements in this work [which make up part 2]. I don't understand why it is hack work because of the first movement.

Shostakovich's 7th -- nearly the whole thing is bombastically boring. Perhaps a movement just half as good as the finale of Mahler's 3rd, could have 'saved' Dmitri's 7th, but there isn't.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> It sounds like you haven't even given the work a fair chance to me. The quiet build-up at the start of the movement before the prominent brass theme and how well it rolls into that section I find nothing short of amazing. Nothing else Mahler composed sounds anything like that first movement. So I don't get the "parody" argument. To be honest it sounds like your opinion of the symphony is based largely on your first impression of the first movement.


No, I know the work pretty well - and most of Mahler's other symphonies too. But there is really no point in engaging me in a discussion on it. His whole style repulses me, beginning with the ubiquitous funereal music, which strikes me as a cheap and cliche ridden bid for gravitas. Anyway, I will stop now and focus on Shostakovich.


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> Okay, so you may not enjoy the first movement -- but there are 5 other movements in this work [which make up part 2]. I don't understand why it is hack work because of the first movement.
> 
> Shostakovich's 7th -- nearly the whole thing is bombastically boring. Perhaps a movement just half as good as the finale of Mahler's 3rd, could have 'saved' Dmitri's 7th, but there isn't.


I'm sorry we digressed to Mahler. And there would be no point in trying to salvage Shostakovich's 7th. Even Shostakovich wouldn't have considered it worth the trouble. _He_ could _tell_ when he was writing crap.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... I wonder if Stalin broke him before or after he wrote his Quintet, 1st Violin Concerto, 10th Symphony, Cello and Piano Concertos (I could go on, and won't even mention the quartets...)


I _will_ mention the quartets. At least half of them are excellent. A couple are truly great. Broken or not, Shostakovich produced an enormous amount of music of the highest quality and in an unmistakable and individual voice.


----------



## hpowders

I like the Fifth the best, then the Ninth and the Fifteenth. I used to like the Eighth and Tenth, but I have outgrown them. I have no use for any but the three I mentioned.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> I like the Fifth the best, then the Ninth and the Fifteenth. I used to like the Eighth and Tenth, but I have outgrown them. I have no use for any but the three I mentioned.


Good idea! I'm playing the 9th now. Ones I like that you didn't mention are #1, #6 (especially), and #10 (haven't outgrown this yet).


----------



## Marschallin Blair

I think the _Tenth_ is masterful in depicting the debilitating psychological effects of living in a totalitarian slave pen. I love the fierce drama of the _Scherzo_, which ostensibly is portraiture of Stalin.

The_ Eleventh _is a cinematic masterpiece in its entirely. With the first movement, I can just_ see _the crisp, winter morning in front of the Czar's palace with the crowd petitioning him for a redress of grievances. I can just_ see_ the barricades and street warfare of the second and last movements. . . and so could cinematic visionary Russian director Sergei Eisenstein-- since he used parts of Shostakovich's _Eleventh Symphony _to track parts of his film, _Battleship Potemkin_. Prokofiev was_ commissioned_ to score Eisenstein's _Alexander Nevsky _and _Ivan Terrible_-- but Shostakovich's music is so atmospheric, dramatic, and visceral, that film had to catch up with _him_.


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> I think the _Tenth_ is masterful in depicting the debilitating psychological effects of living in a totalitarian slave pen. I love the fierce drama of the _Scherzo_, which ostensibly is portraiture of Stalin.


The source of the alleged Stalin connection, Solomon Volkov, is completely unreliable. But there is no doubt the symphony is laden with meaning. There is the emergence of Shostkovich's signature motive (D-Eb-C-B), which appears for the first time in the third movement. Also in this movement, and perhaps not coincidentally, there is a horn call which quotes a horn theme from the beginning of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde. Then, more globally, is the fact that the overall structure is modeled on Beethoven's Fifth (scherzo theme derives from symphony's opening motive, this theme returns in the development section of the finale, overall progression from minor mode to major mode), which was a work with a special place in defining the tenets of Socialist Realism as they applied to the symphony.

My point is that there are plenty of ways into the meaning of this work that don't require reliance on Volkov's tainted and at least partially fraudulent wares.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

EdwardBast said:


> The source of the alleged Stalin connection, Solomon Volkov, is completely unreliable. But there is no doubt the symphony is laden with meaning. There is the emergence of Shostkovich's signature motive (D-Eb-C-B), which appears for the first time in the third movement. Also in this movement, and perhaps not coincidentally, there is a horn call which quotes a horn theme from the beginning of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde. Then, more globally, is the fact that the overall structure is modeled on Beethoven's Fifth (scherzo theme derives from symphony's opening motive, this theme returns in the development section of the finale, overall progression from minor mode to major mode), which was a work with a special place in defining the tenets of Socialist Realism as they applied to the symphony.
> 
> My point is that there are plenty of ways into the meaning of this work that don't require reliance on Volkov's tainted and at least partially fraudulent wares.


How is the narrative completely unreliable?


----------



## MoonlightSonata

For those of you interested, there's a rather good book, _The Conductor_ by Sarah Quigley, about the Seventh Symphony. It's largely fictionalised, but a good read.


----------



## Art Rock

In spite of all the vitriol poured over it in this thread, I love the 7th. In addition, 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 are all symphonies I would not want to be without.


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> How is the narrative completely unreliable?


Within a year of its publication, Laurel Fay demonstrated to my satisfaction that _Testimony_, the book in which the Stalin interpretation is offered, is not in fact a transcription of statements by Shostakovich as Solomon Volkov claimed. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming. This in and of itself does not invalidate the claim that the Tenth is about Stalin and the Stalin years, it only proves there is no reason to believe Shostakovich said it. (I fully documented the case against Volkov with the essential bibliography in another Shostakovich thread on this forum, maybe in his guestbook?)

Part of the reason Volkov's Stalin-based interpretation seems plausible (and it seems plausible to me too), is that it is parasitic on a standard interpretation of Beethoven's Fifth, one which became a cornerstone of socialist-realist poetics. To wit: Beethoven's Fifth is [allegedly] a struggle with Fate, which antagonistic force is represented in the opening motive. This force returns in muted form in a theme of the scherzo, and then in the finale to put the triumphant conclusion in doubt. Shostakovich's Tenth follows this same pattern. All one has to do is associate Shostakovich's scherzo theme with Stalin and the rest of the interpretation follows, especially since the returning "Stalin motive" in the development section of the finale is written out of existence by the loudest statement of Shostakovich's signature motive (Shostakovich consigning Stalin to oblivion with a signature just as the Stalin had signed the death warrants of Shostakovich's friends and acquaintances?).

My overall point is that one can get to a Stalin-based interpretation without relying on Volkov's statements, which seem likely to be fabrications or third hand rumors. It is not implausible that Volkov might have come up with just such an obvious interpretation on his own and then supplied the "evidence" for it by fabricating a quotation by the composer. It is also possible Shostakovich intentionally embedded a Stalin-based narrative by designing the Tenth Symphony's structure in such a way that the standard interpretation of Beethoven's Fifth would serve as a kind of decoding key. No way of knowing really.


----------



## Harrytjuh

I think his 14th symphony is one of his best symphonies, it's so dark and cold and chilling... but yet very beautiful.


----------



## Morimur

Marschallin Blair said:


> I think the _Tenth_ is masterful in depicting the debilitating psychological effects of living in a totalitarian slave pen. I love the fierce drama of the _Scherzo_, which ostensibly is portraiture of Stalin.
> 
> The_ Eleventh _is a cinematic masterpiece in its entirely. With the first movement, I can just_ see _the crisp, winter morning in front of the Czar's palace with the crowd petitioning him for a redress of grievances. I can just_ see_ the barricades and street warfare of the second and last movements. . . and so could cinematic visionary Russian director Sergei Eisenstein-- since he used parts of Shostakovich's _Eleventh Symphony _to track parts of his film, _Battleship Potemkin_. Prokofiev was_ commissioned_ to score Eisenstein's _Alexander Nevsky _and _Ivan Terrible_-- but Shostakovich's music is so atmospheric, dramatic, and visceral, that film had to catch up with _him_.


The 11th is one of his worst: predictable, superficial and stale, as if churned out by a factory.


----------



## Morimur

Harrytjuh said:


> I think his 14th symphony is one of his best symphonies, it's so dark and cold and chilling... but yet very beautiful.


Bartók does dark, cold, and chilling so much better.


----------



## mikey

> Originally Posted by Marschallin Blair View Post
> I think the Tenth is masterful in depicting the debilitating psychological effects of living in a totalitarian slave pen. I love the fierce drama of the Scherzo, which ostensibly is portraiture of Stalin.
> 
> The Eleventh is a cinematic masterpiece in its entirely. With the first movement, I can just see the crisp, winter morning in front of the Czar's palace with the crowd petitioning him for a redress of grievances. I can just see the barricades and street warfare of the second and last movements. . . and so could cinematic visionary Russian director Sergei Eisenstein-- since he used parts of Shostakovich's Eleventh Symphony to track parts of his film, Battleship Potemkin. Prokofiev was commissioned to score Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky and Ivan Terrible-- but Shostakovich's music is so atmospheric, dramatic, and visceral, that film had to catch up with him.





Morimur said:


> The 11th is one of his worst: predictable, superficial and stale, as if churned out by a factory.


This hear is the wonder and the complete bafflement (to me) of music. How the same piece is inspirational to 1 listener and ordinary dross to another. Then people somehow want to objectively evaluate a composition? If anyone can crack this for me, I'll be grateful (and surprised!)


----------



## Skilmarilion

EdwardBast said:


> I'm sorry we digressed to Mahler. And there would be no point in trying to salvage Shostakovich's 7th. Even Shostakovich wouldn't have considered it worth the trouble. _He_ could _tell_ when he was writing crap.


Hey, this is all that I see:

*hack·work* 
n.

_1. Commissioned work, such as writing or acting, done usually by formula and in conformance with commercial standards.
2. Tedious, monotonous, or uninteresting work of any kind._

It's one of the more strange labels to attach to symphonic works of two of the 'giants', but it's probably not all that too far away from giving a true picture of Shostakovich 7, in my view.

Mahler 3 & 7 though? I don't think so.


----------



## Skilmarilion

mikey said:


> This hear is the wonder and the complete bafflement (to me) of music. How the same piece is inspirational to 1 listener and ordinary dross to another. Then people somehow want to objectively evaluate a composition? If anyone can crack this for me, I'll be grateful (and surprised!)


But then TC (on occasions!) wouldn't be half as entertaining without this. :-D


----------



## Marschallin Blair

mikey said:


> This hear is the wonder and the complete bafflement (to me) of music. How the same piece is inspirational to 1 listener and ordinary dross to another. Then people somehow want to objectively evaluate a composition? If anyone can crack this for me, I'll be grateful (and surprised!)


Taste by definition is rareified.

Not everyone has intelligence, taste, and judgement.


----------



## Blancrocher

Marschallin Blair said:


> Taste by definition is rareified.


I prefer solid food, Blair, regardless what the dictionaries say I should like.


----------



## Harrytjuh

Morimur said:


> Bartók does dark, cold, and chilling so much better.


I wouldn't say that, they are very different. Shostakovich' dark is sombre and gloomy while Bartók's is just terrifying and, I don't know how to explain it... Fact is I like them both very much.


----------



## hpowders

Shostakovich, boring. Bartok, fascinating.


----------



## Art Rock

Isn't it funny how tastes differ? For me it is exactly opposite.


----------



## KenOC

Opposite for me, too. In fact, I haven't heard a single symphony by Bartok that I can abide.


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> Hey, this is all that I see:
> 
> *hack·work*
> n.
> 
> _1. Commissioned work, such as writing or acting, done usually by formula and in conformance with commercial standards.
> 2. Tedious, monotonous, or uninteresting work of any kind._
> 
> It's one of the more strange labels to attach to symphonic works of two of the 'giants', but it's probably not all that too far away from giving a true picture of Shostakovich 7, in my view.
> 
> Mahler 3 & 7 though? I don't think so.


Lest this be lost amid the harsh criticism of particular works, I think both Shostakovich and Mahler composed wonderful symphonies when they were at their best. I think it worth remembering that around and during the time Shostakovich composed his 7th, he spent two weeks digging trenches and gun emplacements in Leningrad, served in a fire brigade, and observed his fellow citizens beginning to starve and go without fuel. These conditions were perhaps not ideally conducive to creative work.


----------



## hpowders

Art Rock said:


> Isn't it funny how tastes differ? For me it is exactly opposite.


That's good! The world would be soooo freakin' boring if we all thought alike.

As long as YOU like it. That's what counts!


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Opposite for me, too. In fact, I haven't heard a single symphony by Bartok that I can abide.


Oh, come on Ken! The Concerto for Orchestra is great!


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> I prefer solid food, Blair, regardless what the dictionaries say I should like.


Yeah. Listen to what you like. If I love a certain performance and someone else does not, and attempts to bait me into an argument, who cares? I'm certainly not going to be baited or worked up over it. Life's too short to bother with such trivialities.


----------



## hpowders

I haven't listened to any Shostakovich in around 6 months and that was the searing American live premiere performance by David Oistrakh of the first violin concerto. Most of the symphonies don't interest me. I get restless. Too much meandering, moody slow music, not beautiful enough to sustain me. So damn depressing!


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, come on Ken! The Concerto for Orchestra is great!


Well, if it was a symphony, Bartok would have called it one! He was no dummy, after all. :tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Well, if it was a symphony, Bartok would have called it one! He was no dummy, after all. :tiphat:


It is a symphony, Bartok did call it something else, and he wasn't a dummy. Can you name a single feature of its form or scoring that in any way suggests the concerto genre? Can you imagine any musically educated listener who was not already aware of the title who would classify it as a concerto rather than as a symphony? Of course not. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks, and it won't start barking if you name it Dog.

Just speculation here, but perhaps Bartok thought singleton symphonies always sound lonely and pathetic, eternally eliciting questions like: "Gee, why only one?" Concerto for Orchestra, on the other hand, sounds self-sufficient enough that no one would ask why there aren't two of them.


----------



## Harrytjuh

Haha I love how this discussion is turning into a Shostakovich vs Bartók thread


----------



## EdwardBast

Harrytjuh said:


> Haha I love how this discussion is turning into a Shostakovich vs Bartók thread


After having been a Shostakovich versus Mahler thread for a while.

I have really started to enjoy Shostakovich's 4th lately. It wasn't on my list of favorites before. In fact, I think I will put it on right now!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

EdwardBast said:


> After having been a Shostakovich versus Mahler thread for a while.
> 
> I have really started to enjoy Shostakovich's 4th lately. It wasn't on my list of favorites before. In fact, I think I will put it on right now!











Have you heard Chung's Philadelphia offering? Its a visceral live performance with absolutely stellar sound.

Positively_ fer-o-cious_.


----------



## EdwardBast

Marschallin Blair said:


> View attachment 52984
> 
> 
> Have you heard Chung's Philadelphia offering? Its a visceral live performance with absolutely stellar sound.
> 
> Positively_ fer-o-cious_.


No. I have a CD of Haitink with the LSO I picked up for a couple of bucks at a thrift store. I'll keep an ear out for the above. Thanks!


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Opposite for me, too. In fact, I haven't heard a single symphony by Bartok that I can abide.


Fine. How about Bartok's Violin Concerto #2 vs the Shostakovich #1? The Bartok is a masterpiece from first note to last. The other puts you to sleep except for maybe 4 minutes.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Fine. How about Bartok's Violin Concerto #2 vs the Shostakovich #1? The Bartok is a masterpiece from first note to last. The other puts you to sleep except for maybe 4 minutes.


I can only answer this way:

1 - Beethoven
2 - Brahms
3 - Shostakovich: #1 A-minor
4 - Tchaikovsky
5 - Sibelius
6 - Prokofiev: #1 D-major
7 - Prokofiev: #2 G minor
8 - Mendelssohn
9 - Barber
10 - Szymanowski: #1


----------



## Skilmarilion

Morimur said:


> The 11th is one of his worst ...


Oddly enough I find the 11th okay, albeit much of the finale is unlistenable, imo.

If we're going to mention 'worsts', I nominate #13 and #14 emphatically.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> I can only answer this way:
> 
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Brahms
> 3 - Shostakovich: #1 A-minor
> 4 - Tchaikovsky
> 5 - Sibelius
> 6 - Prokofiev: #1 D-major
> 7 - Prokofiev: #2 G minor
> 8 - Mendelssohn
> 9 - Barber
> 10 - Szymanowski: #1


We agree on the Sibelius...except I would place it at #1 and the Bartok at #2.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> We agree on the Sibelius...except I would place it at #1 and the Bartok at #2.


Actually, that's not my list!

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-orchestral-concertos

See also "20th Century Concertos":

1 - Shostakovich: Violin Concerto #1
2 - Elgar: Cello Concerto
3 - Ravel: Piano Concerto for the Left Hand
4 - Sibelius: Violin Concerto
5 - Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #1
6 - Prokofiev: Piano Concerto #3
7 - Prokofiev: Violin Concerto #1
8 - Prokofiev: Piano Concerto #2
9 - Prokofiev: Violin Concerto #2
10 - Barber: Violin Concerto


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'd say DSCH's weakest symphonies are 2 & 3, but only comparatively speaking. Despite the weakness of the choral finales, I can enjoy them in the context that those two symphonies were both right for the times and also for him as a developing composer of orchestral AND vocal works - at the time of writing the 3rd symphony he was still only 22/23.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Skilmarilion said:


> Oddly enough I find the 11th okay, albeit much of the finale is unlistenable, imo.
> 
> If we're going to mention 'worsts', I nominate #13 and #14 emphatically.


I find the finale absolutely monumental, myself.


----------



## Polyphemus

Marschallin Blair said:


> I find the finale absolutely monumental, myself.


That's twice we agree. Go easy Eris people will start to talk.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Actually, that's not my list!
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-orchestral-concertos
> 
> See also "20th Century Concertos":
> 
> 1 - Shostakovich: Violin Concerto #1
> 2 - Elgar: Cello Concerto
> 3 - Ravel: Piano Concerto for the Left Hand
> 4 - Sibelius: Violin Concerto
> 5 - Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #1
> 6 - Prokofiev: Piano Concerto #3
> 7 - Prokofiev: Violin Concerto #1
> 8 - Prokofiev: Piano Concerto #2
> 9 - Prokofiev: Violin Concerto #2
> 10 - Barber: Violin Concerto


Oh! Okay! I was about to write the Sibelius family. Just so I get it right, you spell Ken, K e n?


----------



## Nocturne

I voted "One of the very finest of the entire symphonic repertoire". My favourite ones are no. 11 and no. 5.


----------



## fjf

I've tried a few times to like them, with no luck. I'll keep trying.


----------



## hpowders

The only ones I can tolerate are No. 5 and No. 15.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> The only ones I can tolerate are No. 5 and No. 15.


Good choices. But do try 1 and 9!


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Good choices. But do try 1 and 9!


Yes. I know them. 9 is quite pithy. I have most. I remember being impressed by #14 a long time ago. I think it was Ormandy. Don't remember the vocal soloists.


----------



## JACE

hpowders said:


> I remember being impressed by #14 a long time ago. I think it was Ormandy. Don't remember the vocal soloists.


Simon Estes and Phyllis Curtin.

I have the LP.


----------



## hpowders

JACE said:


> Simon Estes and Phyllis Curtin.
> 
> I have the LP.


Yes! Yes! Exactly!! Ormandy was a terrific Shostakovich conductor (as well as Prokofiev).

Anyhow, it must be on cassette tape and I am no longer able to listen to it.


----------



## JACE

KenOC said:


> Good choices. But do try 1 and 9!


Whenever I listen to the First, I am AMAZED that it was written by 19 year-old conservatory student.

To me, it sounds like the work of a fully-mature master composer.


----------



## JACE

hpowders said:


> Yes! Yes! Exactly!! Ormandy was a terrific Shostakovich conductor (as well as Prokofiev).


Agree 100%!!! And don't forget Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff! Ormandy & the Philadelphians could play those Russkies like nobody's business.



hpowders said:


> Anyhow, it must be on cassette tape and I am no longer able to listen to it.


*Viva vinyl!*


----------



## Badinerie

Listening to my old Lenny Bernstein 5th. The first one I heard...Im amazed I ever tried any more! Really nerve splitting stereo but I did, and I'm glad of it! 
Shostakovich 5,6,8,9,10 Oh yes!

......I like the 12th too. Really!

Forgot to add. Haitink's the man!


----------



## JACE

Badinerie said:


> Forgot to add. Haitink's the man!


Haitink's Eighth is my fave. I think that's the high-point of his cycle.


----------



## Vaneyes

Badinerie said:


> Listening to my old Lenny Bernstein 5th. The first one I heard...Im amazed I ever tried any more! Really nerve splitting stereo but I did, and I'm glad of it!
> Shostakovich 5,6,8,9,10 Oh yes!
> 
> ......I like the 12th too. Really!
> 
> Forgot to add. Haitink's the man!


Don't give up on 4, and oh thank heaven for 7, 11. 2, 3 are throwaways. 13, 14, angst. 1, 15, optional.


----------

