# Does Shostakovich's Second Symphony suck?



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

My question is really about Shostakovich's 2d and 3d symphonies, but I like the alliteration in the title :devil:. I'm a big dsch fan, but I'm familiar with only a few of his symphonies. They vary in accessibility and, I'm sure, in quality. The standard line on his 2d and 3d symphonies are that they are Soviet propaganda pieces with little musical value. But I'm sure most of you agree that extramusical connotations cannot make good music bad any more than they can make bad music good. Do you think that these symphonies are good enough that I should invest the time to listen to them and try to understand them?

In general, I like to decide things for myself, but if everyone who replies agrees that the symphonies aren't that good, then I'm sure they aren't.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I do not like them. But that does not mean that they are bad.


----------



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

Well, I think the 2nd and 3rd both pale into insignificance compared to the rest that followed (and the one before, for that matter), but of course the circumstances of their composition were far different and much less personal. At the time DSCH was only in his early 20s, still cutting his teeth to a certain degree and both represented his first significant attempts, although not his first, at choral writing. 

Yes, the text to the vocal finales are pretty much your standard Soviet agitprop doggerel and if anything they makes both works go out with a anti-climactic whimper rather than a bang as they seem to water down the preceding orchestral torsos which do contain some interesting material. 

Although the composer himself didn't seem to hold either in high regard the experience gained from writing both was probably invaluable in terms of helping to add a further dimension to his game, not least when he felt it necessary to write material along similar populist lines after the Zhdanov affair of 1948.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

No. ".".............................


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just spun up the 2nd because I hadn't heard it in a while. The 1st movement I could barely hear because it's kind of noisy now right here. The 2rd movement is a real kick in the pants, sounds like Ives on meth.The 3rd choral movement is not for me.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

No, it definitely does not ‘suck’ and makes for a very interesting listen. I enjoy the clustered opening strings and the trumpet sailing over them. Besides, how many works have you heard that have a factory siren in them? A masterpiece it’s not, but it lead to masterpieces. It’s certainly worth the 20 minutes it takes to hear it.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

D Smith said:


> No, it definitely does not 'suck' and makes for a very interesting listen. I enjoy the clustered opening strings and the trumpet sailing over them. Besides, how many works have you heard that have a factory siren in them? A masterpiece it's not, but it lead to masterpieces. It's certainly worth the 20 minutes it takes to hear it.


My point exactly. In spite of my opinion (An opinion is like a behind. Everybody has one.) there is someone who thinks it is cool. If you think it is cool it is irrelevant what I think.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Actually I felt that the 1st symphony does. I don't remember the 2nd or 3rd at all, but that doesn't mean they are bad. By the 5th I reckon he started getting fairly decent.

[Edit: I've spot listened to parts of the 2nd and 3rd and now I remember them. They definitely do not suck. The 1st symphony is simply not down my alley. I'd have to be in the mood for a Merry Melodies kind of experience.]


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't mind the orchestral part of the Second-it's the propaganda final (choral) movement that turns me off. I haven't listened to the Third more than a couple of times, but I remember thinking... uh, what was that that I remember thinking  I'll be listening to it again, coming up soon (in my full collection play, of course). I consider the first three to be student or early works and not ones that diminish in any way from his stature.

[I think he started getting really good with the Fourth :tiphat:]


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

spradlig said:


> I'm a big dsch fan, but I'm familiar with only a few of his symphonies.


Cannot help but highlight this sentence. Not to rag, but simply for a laugh.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

No they don't, they are important clues in development towards his masterpiece, the fourth symphony. It was understandably a poor choice to ad those slightly propagandistic choral finals to either, but there are lots of interesting freedom of expression in these. Hadn't DDS been such a frail personality, these, the fourth and Lady Macbeth show show a more free take on the balance between tonality and that unmentionable "A" word, I think that the more constrained style he developed with the fifth and past is not as interesting. 
I'm a big Shostakovich fan, but I don't listen as much to the mature composers works as I do to his Youth production with a few exceptions like the 13th Symphony and the String Quartets.

/ptr


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> No. ".".............................


This.  Well done!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Balthazar said:


> This.  Well done!


Mmm?.................


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

Hmm, well...I'd say the second doesn't suck, but the third...? Yeh, probably does. He did this kind of thing a bit better later in his life in works such as 'The Sun Shines Over Our Motherland' which, despite being rubbished by many DSCH types, is actually a rather good piece.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

They are two of the weaker symphonies in a very impressive run of 15. I still enjoy listening to them, even so.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

**** Meh ****
|||||||||||||||||


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Russian patriotic choral movements in symphonies No.2 and 3... do you dare to say they're bad?!


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

Shostakovich was a very prolific composer, and it is not necessary to know a lot about all of his symphonies to be a fan. I'm familiar with many of his other works. Does one have to know about all of Dvorak's string quartets to be a Dvorak fan?

Almost all of the responses in this thread so far have been informative and/or interesting. Thanks to those of you who have written them. 




Avey said:


> Cannot help but highlight this sentence. Not to rag, but simply for a laugh.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Nahh, they do not suck, nor are they as good as the ones that follow (the Fourth in particular). Interestingly, they sort of take over where the First leaves off, while anticipating what's to come in the Fourth Symphony as well as his opera "Lady Macbeth." 

In essence, they're representative of the composer in the midst of the changing political and social climate and are historically important and interesting. They're quite like Shebalin's Second and Third Symphonies, their musical cousins. Popov's Chamber Symphony (Septet for flute, clarinet, bassoon, trumpet, violin, cello and harpsichord) likewise comes to mind.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Is it the propaganda message that people don't like, or the music itself? It seems to be the former.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

spradlig said:


> ... The standard line on his 2d and 3d symphonies are that they are Soviet propaganda pieces with little musical value....


Well, honestly I cannot see those symphonies as Soviet propaganda pieces...patriotic yes, nationalistic maybe, but he actually started writing Soviet propaganda pieces later in his life...
As already pointed out by ptr and Orfeo, the 2nd and the 3rd are good preparatory works for the 4th


----------



## GKC (Jun 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> An opinion is like a behind. Everybody has one.


Yes, but like behinds, some opinions are better formed than others.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

spradlig said:


> Shostakovich was a very prolific composer, and it is not necessary to know a lot about all of his symphonies to be a fan. I'm familiar with many of his other works. Does one have to know about all of Dvorak's string quartets to be a Dvorak fan?


I should probably quote myself, because who knows the next time I will be able to do that. But to paraphrase, like I said, I was not ragging on you. I hope you did not take it that way. I am not one to criticize (I don't think...). Simply, the fact that you put those two clauses together was humorous. That is all.

Though, why I am really replying, like for real, is because you brought up Dvorak and his quartets. My answer: Um, YES! YOU WOULD NEED KNOW ABOUT HIS QUARTETS TO BE A DVORAK *FAN*. That is a significant portion of his catalogue -- not simply in quantity, but substance. Lots of development and material there. The term "fan" is loose, but it requires a certain level of relation. In the hypo you present, I do dissent.

*But what is a Bohemian doing in a Shostakovich thread! Onward...
*

Shostakovich BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH Second Symphony, yeah interesting, but BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.............


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Depends on how much you pay.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

The second symphony, unlike the fifth, was unable to breathe in, making sucking an impossibility. It could, however, blow, which meant it was generally used on the cake at Shostakovich's various birthdays.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

spradlig said:


> My question is really about Shostakovich's 2d and 3d symphonies, but I like the alliteration in the title :devil:. I'm a big dsch fan, but I'm familiar with only a few of his symphonies. They vary in accessibility and, I'm sure, in quality. The standard line on his 2d and 3d symphonies are that they are Soviet propaganda pieces with little musical value. * But I'm sure most of you agree that extramusical connotations cannot make good music bad any more than they can make bad music good.* Do you think that these symphonies are good enough that I should invest the time to listen to them and try to understand them?
> 
> In general, I like to decide things for myself, but if everyone who replies agrees that the symphonies aren't that good, then I'm sure they aren't.


There must be a grain of truth in the fact that these symphonies are "propaganda." How could these "extramusical" factors affect the music, and make it "worse?"

Here are some possibilities:

Perhaps listeners have perceived an element of insincerity in these two, on some level. After all, we have to "believe" in music, just as we believe in a person.

If Shosty himself was under pressure, he would not produce his best work; that seems simplistically obvious.It may be a general truth that art produced for "extramusical reasons" of utility is not generally as good as music produced strictly for artistic and expressive reasons.


----------

