# Shostakovich’s symphonies – still controversial after all these years



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Suggested by another thread… Shostakovich wrote 15 symphonies, the first 92 years ago and the last 46 years ago. Opinions on their merits, and on which ones are good or less than good, vary a lot.

What do you think? Which are his finest, and why? Which ones are misfires? Will his reputation grow, or will he fade? Let us know!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I like them all, love a lot of them. My favourites would be 7, 10, 13, 5, 4 and 14, in that order.

He has a solid reputation right now, and I see it stay that way.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I rarely listen to 2, 3, or 12, and I don't think that I am unique in that respect. 13 and 14 are very moving but somber and difficult pieces that I occasionally listen to. 5& 10 are the core.
1&15 while composed so far apart seem linked in other ways and are frequent disc mates. 4 iswild and terrifying. 5&10 are well known and I have heard them on recordings and concert frequently in the last 40 years. 7 is also a special case with an interesting history that is only lately becoming appreciated for it's musical merits. 6&9 are fascinating and along with 11 the ones that have interested me the most recently. 8 is a mighty work that is perhaps just a wee bit prolix but one of the great 20th Century Symphonies.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Massive fan of Shostakovich here. Favorite symphonies are 4, 8, 14. Lately I can't get enough of the recent BSO/Nelsons recording of 10. 

Shostakovich is one of the giants of the 20th century, with a unique harmonic language, compositional architecture, orchestration, sense of melody, and more. 

-09


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

KenOC said:


> which ones are good or less than good


but 'less than good' is not applicable to Shostakovitch & his works.



KenOC said:


> Which ones are misfires?


obviously, none of them.



KenOC said:


> Will his reputation grow, or will he fade?


will that of, say, Mahler grow or fade?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Triplets said:


> I rarely listen to 2, 3, or 12, and I don't think that I am unique in that respect. 13 and 14 are very moving but somber and difficult pieces that I occasionally listen to.


Agreed - #3 is actually pretty interesting, except it like, #2, has the mandatory Proletarian Revolution" stuff hooked on to the last movement. 2 and 12 are the weakest. The rest are excellent - great/top notch...
13,14 are fine works, but 14 esp, is so dark, so morose, that I can't listen to the entire piece at one sitting...I have to take it in chunks..
#4 was controversial, DS hid it for years, because it is from his earlier period - and he had just gotten into trouble with the Party, over Lady Macbeth/Mtzensk - it offended the sensibilities of Comrade Stalin...[the Steel Man noted for his delicate "sensibilities!!]
Shostakovich's early period features very colorful, flamboyant orchestration, use of jazz, bright hues....Lady Macbeth, the big Ballets - "Age of Gold", "The Bolt", film scores...
Starting with #5, his orchestral tone darkens considerably, but he still was a great orchestrator, and presents his ideas most effectively. 
#s 1,4,5,7,8,9,10 are my favorities, in no special order - #6 and 11 are great , too
To me, it is remarkable how similar #1 [one of the greatest "First" symphonies] is to #15, his last....different content of course, but the form is remarkably similar, and the style so unique...it's almost like DS came full circle, or almost...many years in between, of course...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Heck148 said:


> Lady Macbeth/Mtzensk - it offended the sensibilities of Comrade Stalin


not only his, but also every Russian's... watch the opera before making comments about it.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

My favorites: 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15- But I enjoy them all.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Zhdanov said:


> not only his, but also every Russian's... watch the opera before making comments about it.


It's pretty brutal, for sure.....but did Stalin care what the populace thought??


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Heck148 said:


> did Stalin care what the populace thought??


sure he did and cared that Russian culture & history to be not maligned.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

5 is by far my favorite---it's one of my favorite compositions, period.


----------



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

Relatively speaking, I think nos. 2 and 3 are the ****** in the armour thanks mainly to the relative lameness of the final movements but we might do well to remember that these were Shostakovich's first attempts at choral writing (if we don't take into account the choruses employed in his contemporaneous opera, _The Nose_). There are some good ideas and interesting material in the purely orchestral movements of nos. 2 and 3 even if the finales are comparatively mundane and upset the structure of both works as a whole.

For me, the real masterworks are nos. 4, 8 and 10. I rate no. 14 very highly as well but I can't help thinking of it as more of an orchestral song cycle than symphony.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

None are poor, but 4 - 12 is the meat. That'll be $50, please.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Perhaps the greatest symphonic composer just short of Beethoven and Mahler. #7 and #10 are incredible masterpieces. Several others come close. #15, still quite under-rated, might be the greatest work of the entire 20th century.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Zhdanov said:


> sure he did and cared that Russian culture & history to be not maligned.


Oh, right....we've noticed the great concern shown by Stalin for his people.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Love his seventh-Leningrad. 

There was a documentary on the BBC a while ago about this symphony!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please keep politics out of the thread content.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

And a wonderful book as well.-- regarding the Linningrad Symphony


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> Please keep politics out of the thread content.


Funny how Politics and Shostakovich seem to go together...and may I ask, when do politics stop being contemporary and become History? Stalin has been dead for over 60 years. History isn't forbidden on this site is it? Especially when it is directly related to music?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Only events become history. Politics will always be with us.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Where's the controversy? Just follow the simple formula:

Mix one part Wagner's Fate motif from the Ring, add 2 parts Rossini's William Tell Overture, blend for 12 seconds and 

instant profundity!!


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Where's the controversy? Just follow the simple formula:
> 
> Mix one part Wagner's Fate motif from the Ring, add 2 parts Rossini's William Tell Overture, blend for 12 seconds and
> 
> instant profundity!!


For me, the 15th is one of Shostakovich's most deeply heartfelt works - albeit a very dark one - and the quotations he uses is just a small part of it. Maybe it was a symptom of an old man, summing up the musical experiences of his life in a very late work? Who knows. Shame if his personal sense of humor - yes, humor! - in the work makes you blind to all the other wonderful stuff that's going on in it. Well, to each their own I guess!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Suggested by another thread… Shostakovich wrote 15 symphonies, the first 92 years ago and the last 46 years ago. Opinions on their merits, and on which ones are good or less than good, vary a lot.
> 
> What do you think? Which are his finest, and why? Which ones are misfires? Will his reputation grow, or will he fade? Let us know!


DS was the last or among the very last of the great composer line who inherited the Late Romantic school and composed symphonies in that influence. His reputation is firm.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Judith said:


> Love his seventh-Leningrad.
> There was a documentary on the BBC a while ago about this symphony!


Shost #7 is a great piece....I've gotten to perform it twice - definitely a thrill...it has some of the biggest loudest sonorities in the entire repertoire, but it also has some delicious chamber music sections, where only a few instruments are playing.....very effective use of orchestra. 
just recently [this last February] heard Nelsons/BSO perform it live @ Boston Symphony Hall...very excellent, exciting concert


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> DS was the last or among the very last of the great composer line who inherited the Late Romantic school and composed symphonies in that influence. His reputation is firm.


The oracle has spoken, no further discussion is necessary.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Zhdanov said:


> not only his, but also every Russian's... watch the opera before making comments about it.


I did, and found it worth the watch (and listen.) Apparently, so did many critics and audiences until Stalin weighed in, then there was an abrupt about face, prompted by a justifiable fear of offending the dictator. However, the opera probably was counter to the sensibilities of the basically conservative Soviet era workers and peasants, so I can understand how so many, along with Stalin, would have been scandalized by it. But the cognoscenti recognized its worth, and it later became part of the Russian operatic repertoire. I love it, although not even a Russian worker, peasant or cognescient.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have lately come to terms with the Leningrad due to the Bernstein/Chicago recording. It's very special. If you have Amazon Prime, you can stream it for free.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

znapschatz said:


> the opera probably was counter to the sensibilities of the basically conservative sensibilities of Soviet era workers and peasants


of the Christian Orthodox Church too, and not only conservative but *common sense* as well; the opera distorts the meaning of Leskov's book completely, making the heroine a victim, instead of clear *perpetrator* as in the book where she commits *infanticide*, an episode deliberately omitted in the opera's libretto.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Zhdanov said:


> of the Christian Orthodox Church too, and not only conservative but *common sense* as well; the opera distorts the meaning of Leskov's book completely, making the heroine a victim, instead of clear *perpetrator* as in the book where she commits *infanticide*, an episode deliberately omitted in the opera's libretto.


Works from one medium are commonly adapted to another with changes and omissions. If we insist that the protagonist of an opera be morally sound, then what of "Don Giovanni?" I saw Katerina Ismailova as a perpetrator, but also as a victim of her time and place, never excusing her as selfish and a murderer, but also sympathizing with her fate. Human motivations can be very complex, and the best of art does not avoid these issues but illuminates them. Otherwise, it would be simply entertainment.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

znapschatz said:


> I saw Katerina Ismailova as a perpetrator, but also as a victim of her time and place


that is the point, there was nothing wrong with 'time & place' to base such racist views upon.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I have lately come to terms with the Leningrad due to the Bernstein/Chicago recording. It's very special. If you have Amazon Prime, you can stream it for free.


This is a great recording - of both symphonies - one of the best symphony recordings of anything, ever....can't imagine what the live performances were like.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

My favorites are 8, 10, 6, 4, 15, 13, 9, 5 & 14 - which is to say, I think most of them are excellent. The first is a promising youthful effort which I like a good deal, especially in live performance. I would never turn down a chance to hear 11 either.

On the other hand, I think 12 is pretty bad. It is banal and repetitive, and the main theme, the one that appears in all movements, was borrowed from the slow movement of Miaskovsky's 24th (_Molto sostenuto_). I think the Miaskovsky is better than anything in Shostakovich's 12th.

I find 2 and 3 intermittently interesting. I really actively hate the first movement of 7 - which is my personal problem, of course.

Hey Zhdanov, do you have any special favorites? You've posted multiple times without really expressing anything personal and we, well I, at least, am curious.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Hey Zhdanov, do you have any special favorites?


sure i do - symph 4th, 7th & 8th; ballets The Golden Age, The Bright Stream & The Bolt.


----------



## padraic (Feb 26, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I really actively hate the first movement of 7 - which is my personal problem, of course.


Me too. I've yet to get through the whole thing.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> .......I think 12 is pretty bad. It is banal and repetitive, and the main theme, the one that appears in all movements, was borrowed from the slow movement of Miaskovsky's 24th (_Molto sostenuto_). I think the Miaskovsky is better than anything in Shostakovich's 12th.


I agree about #12....unfocused....If we are to believe Volkhov [??] supposedly DS said he lost his way with this work - changed objectives in mid-stream, while he was writing it...that may or may not be true, but the work itself tends to confirm this, at least IMO.

[quite]I find 2 and 3 intermittently interesting.[/quote]

#3 esp is quite interesting....but both 2 and 3 are burdened with the party-line choral mvt finales

#4 is really fine, but it is structurally a bit disjointed, episodic, sprawling..still a most notable effort. the orchestration is quite stunning. DS seemed to tighten up structurally after #4, starting with #5....his orchestrations also take on a darker hue.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

padraic said:


> Me too. I've yet to get through the whole thing.


I've gotten through it but not without laughing. Apparently Bartok had the same problem.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I've gotten through it but not without laughing. Apparently Bartok had the same problem.


As far as I know, no. 7 is widely considered to be one of Shostakovich's less successful efforts. It made for great propaganda at the time, but great propaganda isn't necessarily great art. 

I personally didn't care much for it either. Perhaps it's just a bit too long. But it did raise a smile when it got to that bit that Bartok poked fun at.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

#7 has always been a matter of fashion. Hemlines are rising right now...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

#7 is not considered unsuccessful by and large...it seems to get lots performances....not easy to bring off tho....it is a huge work, and presents some great challenges...mvt I is indeed difficult....the long "march of oppression" csn be trite or tedious...try Bernstein/CSO, tho - very convincing....I fully expected a Mk IV Panzer to come crashing thru my house at the climax!! The closing section of mvt IV is incredible...one of music's great sound soectaculars.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

#7: "It seems to have been written for the slow-witted, the not very musical and the distracted.” --Virgil Thomson

"Well, and now let's have some tea." --Sergei Rachmaninoff

Others heard it as “nothing more than a bombastic accompaniment for a bad war movie.”

However, we are now in what critics call a ”re-evaluation phase.”


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> #7: "It seems to have been written for the slow-witted, the not very musical and the distracted." --Virgil Thomson
> 
> "Well, and now let's have some tea." --Sergei Rachmaninoff


"Yes, very exciting and tomorrow we go to the zoo." 



> However, we are now in what critics call a "re-evaluation phase."


That usually happens when a work (or artist, or composer) remains stubbornly popular despite the fact that critics have been panning it/him/her for ages. Even critics have to eat, and thus cannot hold opinions that are too persistently unpopular.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

KenOC said:


> #7: "It seems to have been written for the slow-witted, the not very musical and the distracted." --Virgil Thomson
> "Well, and now let's have some tea." --Sergei Rachmaninoff


I don't pay much attention to critics. The music speaks for itself..DS #7 is a fine work...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

brianvds said:


> "Yes, very exciting and tomorrow we go to the zoo."
> 
> "That usually happens when a work (or artist, or composer) remains stubbornly popular"...


because it is a fine work worthy of performance and exposure. Who cares what critics think?? not me...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

brianvds said:


> no. 7 is widely considered to be one of Shostakovich's less successful efforts.


since when hired opinion hacks job is called 'widely'?



brianvds said:


> It made for great propaganda at the time,


don't know as to propaganda, but the 7th made for a great piece of art.

propaganda is what going on in the West now they desperately attempt to downplay this piece.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

KenOC said:


> #7: "It seems to have been written for the slow-witted, the not very musical and the distracted." --Virgil Thomson


because Thomson was a second rate composer and thus jealous of 7th success.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

To reiterate, the other oracle already spoke. The meat is in 4 - 12. 7's on firm ground. :tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> since when hired opinion hacks job is called 'widely'?
> 
> don't know as to propaganda, but the 7th made for a great piece of art.
> 
> propaganda is what going on in the West now they desperately attempt to downplay this piece.


I have tried in the past to correct your bizarre impression that anyone in the West cares enough about art music to launch a propaganda campaign against Shostakovich, let alone against a specific work. That is just silly. Shostakovich is among the most popular 20thc composers in the U.S. and Europe. Everyone in the West, except Bartok, apparently , lauded the 7th during WWII and its current fame is in part fueled by this initial exposure. However, there are a number of Shostakovich lovers, me among them, who don't think the 7th is representative of his best work. Not everyone likes the same Shostakovich symphonies you do. This is not because we are part of a grand conspiracy spurred on by subversive propaganda. It is because we have different tastes than you do - although, apparently not so different since we are all writing in this thread because we like the same composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Prompted by this discussion to listen to the first movement of S's 7th for the first time in about 50 years (yes, it's true), I have to say that the vulgarity of the march section literally made me laugh. It's rather like sitting through Ravel's "Bolero" would be if Ravel hadn't come up with a great melody. But then I don't care to sit through that these days either.

When S was good, he was very, very good, but when he was bad he was horrid.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Prompted by this discussion to listen to the first movement of S's 7th for the first time in about 50 years (yes, it's true),* I have to say that the vulgarity of the march section literally made me laugh*. It's rather like sitting through Ravel's "Bolero" would be if Ravel hadn't come up with a great melody. But then I don't care to sit through that these days either.
> 
> When S was good, he was very, very good, but when he was bad he was horrid.


But isn't that what it's supposed to be? I think Shostakovich's seventh is one of his best symphonies, because it shows the horrors and the mocking qualities of war- which is what this march is intended to be. The seventh encompasses the humanity of war, and I think Shostakovich intended for it to sound silly, therefore making the pain that is to come even more mocking and jeering.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Prompted by this discussion to listen to the first movement of S's 7th for the first time in about 50 years (yes, it's true), I have to say that the vulgarity of the march section literally made me laugh. It's rather like sitting through Ravel's "Bolero" would be if Ravel hadn't come up with a great melody. But then I don't care to sit through that these days either.
> 
> When S was good, he was very, very good, but when he was bad he was horrid.


I have wondered if the vulgarity is fully intentional in the way Tchaikov6 is suggesting. The point, presumably, would be illustrating the absurdity of hordes of Lehar loving, sausage eating, largely self-satisfied lumpen turned into a merciless war machine. If so, I would say it was a dreadful miscalculation. The dangers of such an aesthetic goal should be obvious. It's like writing a novel that exhaustively explores the human state of boredom. If one succeeds, the result is likely to be boring. In any case, listening to the 7th with the idea that the vulgarity is intentional doesn't help my appreciation.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> I have wondered if the vulgarity is fully intentional in the way Tchaikov6 is suggesting. The point, presumably, would be illustrating the absurdity of hordes of Lehar loving, sausage eating, largely self-satisfied lumpen turned into a merciless war machine. If so, I would say it was a dreadful miscalculation. The dangers of such an aesthetic goal should be obvious. It's like writing a novel that exhaustively explores the human state of boredom. If one succeeds, the result is likely to be boring. In any case, listening to the 7th with the idea that the vulgarity is intentional doesn't help my appreciation.


Whew, that's a lot to digest.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tchaikov6 said:


> But isn't that what it's supposed to be? I think Shostakovich's seventh is one of his best symphonies, because it shows the horrors and the mocking qualities of war- which is what this march is intended to be. The seventh encompasses the humanity of war, and I think Shostakovich intended for it to sound silly, therefore making the pain that is to come even more mocking and jeering.


That's the usual justification when art is used as propaganda: it's "bad on purpose" in order to depict something bad. But as someone said, a writer writing about boring people doesn't have to be boring. Music speaks for itself and shouldn't need to be justified; triteness is not an artistic quality, and drawn out to such lengths it's extremely irritating to listen to no matter what propagandist purpose it's intended to serve. I know the symphony is supposed to be about war, but I don't hear war when I listen to it; I hear music, and that music had better be appealing if I'm going to spend time with it. Besides, what's silly about the Nazis marching on Leningrad? I'm sure the threat was very serious, and that no one was laughing.

In Shostakovich's defense, the history of music for and about war doesn't turn up many masterworks I can think of, and I do hear some attractive ideas elsewhere in the "Leningrad," even if I can't feel they add up to a consistent or cohesive work. In any case I'll take his first, fourth and fifth symphonies, and even the enigmatic fifteenth, over this one.

PS: Upon posting this I see that EdwardBast, damn him, has got there ahead of me. :kiss:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> That's the usual justification when art is used as propaganda: it's "bad on purpose" in order to depict something bad. But as someone said, a writer writing about boring people doesn't have to be boring. Music speaks for itself and shouldn't need to be justified; triteness is not an artistic quality, and drawn out to such lengths it's extremely irritating to listen to no matter what propagandist purpose it's intended to serve. I know the symphony is supposed to be about war, but I don't hear war when I listen to it; I hear music, and that music had better be appealing if I'm going to spend time with it. Besides, what's silly about the Nazis marching on Leningrad? I'm sure the threat was very serious, and that no one was laughing.
> 
> In Shostakovich's defense, the history of music for and about war doesn't turn up many masterworks I can think of, and I do hear some attractive ideas elsewhere in the "Leningrad," even if I can't feel they add up to a consistent or cohesive work. In any case I'll take his first, fourth and fifth symphonies, and even the enigmatic fifteenth, over this one.
> 
> PS: Upon posting this I see that EdwardBast, damn him, has got there ahead of me. :kiss:


Fair enough, both Woodduck and EdwardBlast... but I still prefer it to many pieces by atonalists, Cage, and minalimist composers. It's definitely not his greatest work, or my favorite of his, but I still think it's a creative attempt at the very least.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

(Deleted on the advice of my spiritual counselor)


----------



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

I admit that the 7th isn't one of DSCH's favourites of many people if taken purely on musical merit, but that's never seemed to be a reason to deter conductors from all over the world the opportunity to helm it either in the concert hall or in the recording studio. 

Whatever the perceived limitations of the work or whatever Shostakovich himself intended the symphony to represent, the fact remains that its significance still resonates to this day in the Russian psyche - back in 1941 it was the right music for the right time but even in the different political climate of our age its impact has not really diminished, and if I were ever to see Russian tears being silently shed in a concert hall during a performance of it then I'd like to think that I could appreciate why.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Taruskin wrote a long piece for The Atlantic some years back that revolved around his hearing this piece in Russia. He expected to see his friends, musical experts all, sneer a bit at it. He was, instead, amazed at the way the music moved them. It caused him to reflect on the way people in our own culture are taught to listen to music, and to question those ways.

His piece is no longer available online, unfortunately.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> But isn't that what it's supposed to be? I think Shostakovich's seventh is one of his best symphonies, because it shows the horrors and the mocking qualities of war- which is what this march is intended to be. .


Good point. The "oppressor's march" section of mvt I is supposed to be relentless, crushing, insistent, vulgar, obnoxious....DS succeeds very well, when it's played correctly...It's not really _theme and variations_, it's more "theme plus additions" - he adds voices, rhythmic figures, increases instrumentation, and of course, increases the volume and intensity....It's not supposed to be nice, peaceful, gentle or settling. It is mechanized war, grinding forward relentlessly, chewing up everything in its path...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> I admit that the 7th isn't one of DSCH's favourites of many people if taken purely on musical merit, but that's never seemed to be a reason to deter conductors from all over the world the opportunity to helm it either in the concert hall or in the recording studio.
> 
> Whatever the perceived limitations of the work or whatever Shostakovich himself intended the symphony to represent, the fact remains that its significance still resonates to this day in the Russian psyche - back in 1941 it was the right music for the right time but even in the different political climate of our age its impact has not really diminished, and if I were ever to see Russian tears being silently shed in a concert hall during a performance of it then I'd like to think that I could appreciate why.


Last time I saw Russian tears shed at a concert was in Pittsburgh just after the disintegration of the Soviet Union - during the bread chorus in Boris Godunov. There is, or was, a large Russian ex-pat population there.

I can "appreciate why," and enjoy Taruskin's writing on the issue (which I did, Ken  ), and still find the first movement ridiculous-relentlessly, crushingly, insistently, vulgarly, obnoxiously ridiculous (Didn't want you to feel left out Heck 148). Can't help it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, as the thread title says, some of his symphonies at least are still controversial!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> since when hired opinion hacks job is called 'widely'?


I'm not just talking about critics (I wouldn't take them too seriously either).



> don't know as to propaganda, but the 7th made for a great piece of art.
> propaganda is what going on in the West now they desperately attempt to downplay this piece.


There is no propaganda campaign against the work in the west. Just a fairly widespread (but by no means universal) feeling that it is not his best symphony. Perhaps the Russians all love it.

The mere fact that it was a propaganda piece is not what bothers me about it anyway. I don't reject art works based on why they were created (I am in fact quite fond of a lot of the paintings of the Soviet Realism movement). But in the case of the Shostakovich 7, it strikes me as a bit overwrought, overlong and rambling.

Anyway, when I have time I'll give it another listen; it might grow on me. I am a huge fan of Shostakovich in general. He was surely one of the greatest composers of the 20th century.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2017)

I like the 7th. It's the only one I've seen at a live concert.

I also like the 11th.

There. I've picked the two that the DSCH cognoscenti tend to like the least.

Not one of the others stirs my blood to the same degree. That said, I also like the 10th, 5th, 9th...and the rest I'm working on, though I tend to skip the ones with choral (I mean who can listen to the Baba Yar, seriously, come on).


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I think 1, 5 and 9 are the most fun to listen to. 10 and 13 have moments but neither succeed as a whole to my ears. 4 is a kinda hot mess but I don't want to listen to it (I've played it tho). I've never heard much in any of the others to recommend them and I'm surprised that 6,8 and 15 have the reputations they do

I did 7 with a known Russian conductor and it made no impression on most of the band other than it was a long tough night at the office

Shostakovich is definitely not for everyone, although his music is certainly riding a wave of popularity alongside Mahler. Looking forward to seeing who is next


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> and still find the first movement ridiculous-relentlessly, crushingly, insistently, vulgarly, obnoxiously ridiculous (Didn't want you to feel left out Heck 148). Can't help it.


So, it worked on you!!  you find it ridiculous, but others may take DS at his [musical] word....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> I like the 7th. It's the only one I've seen at a live concert.
> I also like the 11th.
> There. I've picked the two that the DSCH cognoscenti tend to like the least.


7 and 11 are excellent...I don't know if they are his "best", but they are certainly very fine works...DS has a very good batting average for excellence in the symphonies....


----------

