# Favourite Shostakovich symphony?



## cellobabe

My top five would be:

1) No. 10 - where it all seems to come together
2) No. 8 - The first movement is possibly his finest symphonic creation
3) No. 4 - A teeming 'off-the-wall' masterpiece!
4) No. 1 - alive with the freshness of youth
5) No. 5 - a great piece despite the hollow finale


----------



## david johnson

5, followed closely by 10 & 4.

dj


----------



## joen_cph

8/Haitink. Sums up the essential of his oeuvre, the tragic as well as the
satirical and the somewhat overt/cinematic effects. My preferred one, 
though it is often not on the top list.
5 - Especially because of its historical importance.
9/Järvi. Captivating in its humour and mood changes.
14 - A tough one indeed, but many-facetted and ambitious in its literary content.
15/Haitink. A strange and ambivalent work pointing to new directions.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

O.K.-- let me look... ::

Yup, just as I thought- this poll is still open...

And (yes) I recognize it's imperfect (especially to fans of the 4th)- but I was limited to ten options.

At any rate, it has some material for people who are interested in this topic...


----------



## cw4257

My favourite is No.10 by far. Been listening to it since aged around 10. The 1st movement is epic.


----------



## Weston

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Yup, just as I thought- this poll is still open...


I was interested in that thread, but felt weird contributing to a three year old conversation. I was going to post there about how the soundtrack to Carl Sagan's _Cosmos _has made the no. 11 my favorite for nostalgic reasons, but I couldn't find the time lately to wade through all those pages to see if it had already been mentioned several times.

So I won't post the comment here either


----------



## weinermr

My favorite is No. 10. I hate having to choose one of anything though. I love so many things about so many of them.


----------



## Sid James

I've got Nos. 1, 4, 10 & I've heard 5, 7, 9, 13 & 15 as well. I'm not a huge fan of his more "propagandistic" efforts (like 5 & 7). Generally, the more you get to know his symphonies, the more you begin to like them.

I really like the story behind _Symphony No. 4_, let alone the work itself. It was supposedly destroyed by Shostakovich at the height of the _Lady Macbeth of Mtzensk_ controversy during the Stalin era (mid 1930's). Then in the early 1960's it was reconstructed from the piano reduction, and (finally) premiered. The tonality is very vague (a bit like the music of Frank Martin), the music just refuses to resolve. Shostakovich never (dared?) to compose anything like this ever again.

I also like No. 10, except for the cheesy ending (ding-dong the witch (Stalin) is dead!). But even despite that, I think it's a masterpiece for the first two movements alone, the first a brooding, melancholic meditation (possibly) on the atrocities of the Stalin era that had just finished, and the second (supposedly) a portrait of the dictator himself, with all of his brutality and menace...


----------



## JAKE WYB

*Symphony 11* - I think its underestimated for its overt cinemeatic sound world but live, and with a serious profound performance and the historic contexts in mind, the genuinely moving uncompromising visceral power of the work as a whole is unsurpassed in the cycle and the continuous symphonic flow of the programmatic content make the work a very convincing fully programmatic symphony in which the flow and unity of the programme advances the symphonic qualities rather than detract like most programmatic or half programmatic symphonies.

Anyway any music *more dramatic *and alarming than the percussive episode in the second movement and the bells of the toscin at the very end i am unaware of.


----------



## Art Rock

14 (I have them all on CD).


----------



## SuperTonic

5 is the best in my opinion, followed closely by 10 and 1.
I also like 9. I didn't like 4 at first, but it has grown on me as well.


----------



## Chris

I got a complete boxed set of Shostakovich symphonies for £7.99 in Superdrug 

I find the end of no. 13 (Babi Yar) tear-jerkingly beautiful


----------



## gmubandgeek

The 5th most definitely followed by the 10th. Though my favorite work by Shostakovich isn't his symphonies it's "Festive Overture," but my God the way some of these conductors race through it makes it a bear to play :/


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Don't anyone like no. 12? Has a great final movement, very beautiful to me in its tranquil moments.


----------



## JAKE WYB

12 gets rather a bad deal along with 2 & 3 as a low point in the cycle but it isnt so bad its not worth taking seriously, its just a bit mediocre and laboured. _I_ enjoy it however especially the 'aurora' movmenet. Apparently the openenig motif was taken from Sibelius Lemminkainen in Tuonela as Shostakovich had just gone to pay his respects to sibelius grave just before writing the 12th. Thats the most interesting thing about it - if its true - certianly is a motif found in Lemminkainen in tuonela - though two pieces a world apart - in terms of atmosphere _and_ profundity...


----------



## GraemeG

I should investigate these works more - really. Especially 10, which I don't know at all. Hearing 4 live was a staggering experience (Mark Elder here in Sydney about ten years ago). I'v played in 5 and 9, but loved performing in 11, which I didn't know at all prior to rehearsals. Hair-raising stuff.

Yes, must listen to more Shostakovich symphonies...
cheers,
G


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Or maybe no one really likes the 12th because it's one of his more tonal symphonies? It's very friendly in that sense...


----------



## JAKE WYB

not as much as 9 though 9 doesnt ever seem to get a bad press - even though i hate the 9th because its naff and feeble


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I like the ending of the 9th, because it's positively manic. Especially when the tempo gets really fast. haha!


----------



## Conor71

I like them all  - 5th is probably my favourite and 13/14 the most difficult to listen to!


----------



## altosax

I like the 10th, followed by the 4th, and then by the 7th.


----------



## afterpostjack

I'm really starting to get into his other symphonies now. Although the 11th still is my favorite, I'm really starting to get into his fourth (not to mention his 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th which I've also listened to), it is very unique in its orchestration and really strange (but great!), probably the most humorous or satirical work that I've ever listened to.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I wish DSCH was given a break over 2 and 3 - he was fairly young and idealistic when they were written and at a time when it looked like his country was starting afresh. Surely they only seem inadequate because of the circumstances that led him to raise the bar.


----------



## tahnak

cellobabe said:


> My top five would be:
> 
> 1) No. 10 - where it all seems to come together
> 2) No. 8 - The first movement is possibly his finest symphonic creation
> 3) No. 4 - A teeming 'off-the-wall' masterpiece!
> 4) No. 1 - alive with the freshness of youth
> 5) No. 5 - a great piece despite the hollow finale


Yes my favourite is the Tenth
Then Leningrad Seventh
Fifth
First
Fourth


----------



## elgar's ghost

I like them all but listening to 4 throught to 10 as a cycle is for me the true essence of symphonic DSCH especially bearing in mind the circumstances of their composition - 4 he had to hide after incurring Uncle Joe's displeasure and 10 was the first post-Stalin one where he could almost breathe a little easier. The time between was psychodrama of the highest order.


----------



## tgtr0660

I just acquired the entire cycle with Barshai and the WDR Symphony. A bargain and a great collection! I already had all symphonies but with different conductors. Shostakovich is one of my top composers. 

1. 5th
2. 10th
3. 11th
4. 7th
5. 1st


----------



## Charon

I've only heard the 5th, but this isn't necessarily on purpose. I really do like the 5th and want to listen to more of them.


----------



## MattTheTubaGuy

I have played the first, which isn't too bad.
My favourite is definitely #7.
all except #14 are generally ok. I can't really think what each is like at the moment


----------



## elgar's ghost

Although I like it the 14th strikes me as anomalous - I always find it difficult to accept it as a symphony when strictly speaking it's a redesignated orchestral song cycle.


----------



## Ravellian

I have heard 1-5, 7, 8, and 10. No. 2 is possibly the strangest thing I've ever heard - the opening almost sounds like something out of Penderecki's _Threnody..._, then it gets "pretty," then there's a completely random political anthem sung by choir at the end. It's really neat to listen to if you're really, really drunk.


----------



## Chris

I've voted on this already but after listening through all fifteen again on CD I'm changing my preference to no. 14. It sounds a little harsh on first hearing but I find it more powerful, imaginative and original than any of the others.


----------



## Olias

The 5th and 9th are my personal favorites. The 5th has so many wonderful horn parts that I've played. The 9th is so tongue and cheek its brilliant.


----------



## Delicious Manager

A hard choice - and it changes day-to-day:

1. No 4
2. No 8
3. No 10
4. No 13
5. No 14
6. No 15
7. No 5
8. No 9
9. No 6
10. No 11
11. No 7
12. No 1
13. No 2
14. No 3
15. No 12


----------



## tro shink

*Stiil Exploring*

My top 5 at this time:

1-#10 for sure is a masterpiece. Just the opening with the low ominous strings set you up for a mystery. The clarinet theme in the 1st movement makes me cry, as he knows finally Stalin is dead, and the grieve is beginning to come out; all his lost ftiends,living in fear, at any moment... The anger is revealed in the 2nd movement, in the 3rd he sees it is a new beginning, in the 4th he begins to take new steps.

2- #5,what more can I say?

3- #9. The last movement is awesome, especially with Bernstein.

4- #11. I can feel this music as a soundtrack without a film, with no visual to distract.

5- #7 or 8.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Tro - re: Stalin's death. For grief read guarded relief, even though no-one really knew what was going to happen afterwards. For all they knew things could have got even worse but all the same DSCH must have been thankful that his main tormentor was no more. That just left Tikhon Khrennikov who eventually became more of a toothless tiger during the ensuing tentative 'thaw'. His other bugbear was Andrei Zhdanov and he had died in 1948.


----------



## starthrower

No.8 by the London Symphony/Andre Previn 1973

No.5 by Cleveland Orchestra/Lorin Maazel


----------



## Sarabande

The 8th is my personal favorite


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*my favourite*

No. 16

Martin


----------



## janw

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  

By the way, I have a private hypothesis regarding DS's 4th symphony, and I cannot find anyone else having noticed what I have. 

The symphony ends with the three distinct celesta notes g-a-d. "Gad" in Russian means "*******" or "scumbag". The symphony was written in the repressive years 1935-36, and when it was halfway finished, three Pravda articles attacking his work were published. A major wave of arrests occured in 1936, the 1st Moscow Trial was held in August, and the atmosphere was very tense. Shostakovich scheduled the premiere for 11 December 1936, but withdrew after a few rehersals, saying the finale needed reworking. 

Is it possible that the final "gad", which sounds as if pronounced out into the open air and left hanging there, is a concealed "last word" aimed at Stalin? Schostakovich later designed his signature DEsCH, so it should not be considered unlikely that he could have used note letters for stating something else. 

It would be very fun to hear someone else's view on this.


----------



## Musicbox

Why is the 6th so under-rated? - its an absolute masterpiece IMO, the glacial 1st movement is terrifying then sudden juxtaposition into two of the best scherzi in the C.20th canon.

I couldn't choose between 4,6,10 & 15 as a favourite. 4 & 15 might come out tops I suppose.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Musicbox said:


> Why is the 6th so under-rated? - its an absolute masterpiece IMO, the glacial 1st movement is terrifying then sudden juxtaposition into two of the best scherzi in the C.20th canon.


I admire the 6th too, but it needs an understanding performance to bring it off. And I've heard the last movement hashed-up to by even fine professional forces and an ignorant conductor. The 1964 live Mravinsky performance is great, but marred by terminally bronchial audience members and a concertmaster who messes-up the little violin solo in the 3rd movement. Berglund and the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra are very fine. Although the first movement is too fast for some, Kondrashin's studio recording with the Moscow Phil is outstanding - and they play the socks off the 2nd and 3rd movements. The live Concertgebouw performance is not nearly so good.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Thinking of 'benchmark' recordings of Shostakovich symphonies, these are the ones I consider essential for any collector (not all symphonies included):

No 4 - Kirill Kondrashin/Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra
No 5 - Maxim Shsotakovich/USSR Symphony Orchestra (LP only - never (!!) issued on CD)
No 7 - Kirill Kondrashin/ Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra
No 8 - Yevgeni Mravinsky/ Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra
No 9 - Kirill Kondrashin/Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra
No 10 - Yevgeny Svetlanov/USSR Symphony Orchestra
No 12 - Yevgeny Mravinsky/Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra
No 13 - Kirill Kondrashin/Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra/Vitaly Gromadsky (bass)/Yurlov Choir
No 14 - Rudolf Barshai/Moscow Chamber Orchestra/Galina Vishnevskaya (sop)/Mark Reshetin (bass)
No 15 - Kirill Kondrashin/Dresden Staatskapelle


----------



## the_emptier

No love for the 6th?? It was the first one that I heard so maybe I'm biased but I love it to death. The first movement is just deep in the bowels of the string section, much like a lot of his works though. Second movement is my favorite though, so great! Other than that 1,4,5,10,13 are my favorites right now. He is my favorite composer at the moment so i've been going through all of his works, im sure my list will change in no time


----------



## Musicbox

the_emptier said:


> No love for the 6th?... Second movement is my favorite though, so great!...


That 2nd movement, the central climax I find absolutely riveting in its build up, it is palpably terrifying, the only other piece of music like it that also makes me feel physically scared is the end of the Rite of Spring. Absolute Genius.


----------



## Nyarlathotep

My favorites are:
4-violent and provocative
8-deep and moving
10-the high point of his symphonic writing


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Well, I hope this topic isn't "dead"... My favorite symphonies are 4,5,8,10,11 and 15. It's difficult for me to speak about each symphony, but I don't think that the 5th has some propaganda aspect, I think the end is pessimistic (suprisingly a famous Soviet writer Alexandr Fadeev felt the same after listening to the premiere).

The 11th is always neglected, but I like it too. *I even like his 2,3 - they have a youthful drive!* So, I listen to them not like some propaganda, but just like some fast hard-rock music. 

But I don't like the *13th symphony*. It's difficult to explain to non-Russians why I don't like... First of all, I don't like *Yevtushenko.* I just don't take him seriously. He always have been like a pop-star speaking about actual problems just to PR himself among liberal intelligentsia. He is like Bono from U2 speaking about ecology.

So, even a lot of Russian Jews don't like the poem Babi Yar. They don't belive Yevtushenko really cared about it, they though he just wanted to PR himself. And if you know Russian you will understand that the poetry is not Mandelstamm or Akhmatova at all. It's too much _estrada_-poetry.


----------



## Delicious Manager

> I don't think that the 5th has some propaganda aspect, I think the end is pessimistic (suprisingly a famous Soviet writer Alexandr Fadeev felt the same after listening to the premiere).


You seem to contradict yourself here. The forced optimism of the end of the symphony (the 'pessimistic quality' you write about) was all part of the political irony within the work. You deny its existence, yet sense its ambitions very strongly.

Shostakovich also 'recycled' a theme from the second movement of the forcibly-withdrawn Fourth Symphony in the guise of the opening violin melody of the Fifth. You don't think Shostakovich had a political agenda here?


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

*Delicious Manager*
Sure, I agree with you about the forced optimism and I'm sure that he had a politcal irony there. I was just suprised with *Andre * worlds about this symphony on the first page.

http://www.amazon.de/Dmitri-Schostakowitsch-Sein-Leben-seine/dp/3254083768/


----------



## Delicious Manager

Moscow-Mahler said:


> *Delicious Manager*
> Sure, I agree with you about the forced optimism and I'm sure that he had a politcal irony there. I was just suprised with *Andre * worlds about this symphony on the first page.


I hadn't remembered Andre's post - it was a long time ago. The Fifth Symphony was, in Shostakovich's own words, used as a subtitle for the Symphony, "A Soviet artist's reply to justified criticism" (ie the debacle over _The Lady Macbeth from Mtsensk_ and (to a much lesser degree) _The Limpid Brook_) which precipitated Shostakovich's withdrawal of the Fourth Symphony from rehearsal - he never destroyed it as far as I am aware, merely held it back until such a time that he thought the Soviet Politburo cronies could take it.

It was propaganda inasmuch as it was Shostakovich's way of 'apologising' for his musical misdemeanours. That it turned out to still be a work of great substance testifies to Shostakovich's abilities as a composer and politician.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Delicious Manager said:


> the Fourth Symphony from rehearsal - he never destroyed it as far as I am aware, merely held it back until such a time that he thought the Soviet Politburo cronies could take it.


Yes, Shostakovich won the intellectual battle with the Party here (in the 5th) and found a two-layer ending.

The Forth wasn't destroyed but unfortunately the original orchestral score was lost or stolen in Leningrad during the Blockade (as far as I remember from Krzysztof Meyer's book).


----------



## Vaneyes

No. 4, with Rozhdestvensky.


----------



## itisyouranthem

My favourite Shostakovich symphony tends to change a bit, it started with the 4th, then the 10th, then the 13th, and now it's the 11th. I love pretty much all of them though (I suppose having four different boxsets of the complete symphonies helps :'D), and have recently started really loving the 2nd symphony. The only ones I'm not _that_ into yet are the 1st, 3rd and 12th, but I'll probably love them one day.


----------



## the_emptier

I enjoy the 1st the most out of his early ones, 2nd is also good but I think it isn't really polished, and shows a lot of youth in it, which may be a good thing to some.


----------



## DTut

*Favourite Shostakovich Symphony?*

5 is good but 10 is extraordinary. You've got the DSCH theme and the ferocious "Stalin Mov't" Just a wonderful piece of music.


----------



## starthrower

Any opinions on best overall complete set on CD? f there is already an existing thread, please advise. Thanks!


----------



## samurai

starthrower said:


> Any opinions on best overall complete set on CD? f there is already an existing thread, please advise. Thanks!


I'm in the same boat as starthrower--and hopefully it isn't sinking--in that I'd like to acquire a complete boxed set of Shostakovich's symphonies. Since they aren't cheap--at least here in America--any recommendations from our fellow members with knowledge on this about the best one in which to invest would be greatly appreciated indeed!


----------



## Olias

starthrower said:


> Any opinions on best overall complete set on CD? f there is already an existing thread, please advise. Thanks!


Can't help with an overall set but the one CD that is an absolute must have is Bernstein's recording with the Chicago Symphony of Shostakovich's 1st and 7th. It is spectacular and quite probably Bernstein's best recording ever.


----------



## samurai

@Olias, I had just borrowed that very cd from my father, and you are absolutely spot on in your assessment. Very powerful renditions of these works indeed!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Anyone like the First Symphony? I think it's a really great piece. The Finale is very moving.


----------



## Olias

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Anyone like the First Symphony? I think it's a really great piece. The Finale is very moving.


YES, love the 1st. There is a MARVELOUS DVD of Bernstein rehearsing and performing the symphony with the Schleswig-Holstein Music Festival Orchestra here:

http://www.amazon.com/Bernstein-Reh...ZI/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1309404586&sr=8-10

You can't watch this DVD and NOT be impressed by the craftsmanship of the work and the talent of Bernstein in working with youth.


----------



## Stasou

I haven't heard all of them so I'm not entirely qualified to have a say, but the first movement of Leningrad is pure genius.


----------



## PhillipPark

10th....I love Karajan's take


----------



## samurai

PhillipPark said:


> 10th....I love Karajan's take


That second movement is "over the top" {in a good way, of course}.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Nah! Karajan in Shostakovich? Too sanitised. If you think Karajan 'over the top', try Mravinsky or Svetlanov. Only the Russians understand!


----------



## TxllxT

Delicious Manager said:


> Nah! Karajan in Shostakovich? Too sanitised. If you think Karajan 'over the top', try Mravinsky or Svetlanov. Only the Russians understand!


My favourite overall & to No 10:









Not bad too:


----------



## jgrv

Chiming in here to say that since I've always heard such horrible things about Nos. 2 and 3, I decided to give No. 2 a listen.

I find this work fascinating, based on my one-time listening and limited knowledge of its roots. Yes, DSCH rejected it himself in later years. Regardless, I think it's quite interesting. Can anyone share more light on this work? I'd prefer to discuss it not for what it isn't, but for what it is.


----------



## Delicious Manager

TxllxT said:


> My favourite overall & to No 10:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad too:


Rozhdestvensky's 10th is indeed very fine, but it is hampered by a terrible recording plagued with artificial reverb and unnecessary spotlighting of instruments or sections of the orchestra. It makes repeated listening tiring. You really need to hear Svetlanov's towering 1966 recording of this great symphony.


----------



## Ukko

9th. Used to like the 5th, but it doesn't wear well.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Nos. 7, 11 and 14 and don't like the rest ...


----------



## Vesteralen

Olias said:


> YES, love the 1st. There is a MARVELOUS DVD of Bernstein rehearsing and performing the symphony with the Schleswig-Holstein Music Festival Orchestra here:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bernstein-Reh...ZI/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1309404586&sr=8-10
> 
> You can't watch this DVD and NOT be impressed by the craftsmanship of the work and the talent of Bernstein in working with youth.


Agreed.

I read through this whole thread just to see if anyone would rate the first first. I've gotten to like more of his symphonies lately, but the first is still special for me.


----------



## samurai

I believe Shostakovich composed that when he was all of 19!  I stll have yet to listen to it, but intend to soon.


----------



## haydnfan

My favorite for along time has been #8. But you know #5, 10 are very close though as well.


----------



## TxllxT

Delicious Manager said:


> Rozhdestvensky's 10th is indeed very fine, but it is hampered by a terrible recording plagued with artificial reverb and unnecessary spotlighting of instruments or sections of the orchestra. It makes repeated listening tiring. You really need to hear Svetlanov's towering 1966 recording of this great symphony.


I agree about the recording's overbrightness & highlighting, but what I would like to know is whether Rozhdestvensky's signature is there too to be found (as Herbert did in the recordingstudio). Svetlanov as conductor I know: too heavyhanded, not acerbic enough when needed and not as lyrical as Rozdestvensky (who knows where to make the music dance tiptoe and where to march with military boots).


----------



## Delicious Manager

TxllxT said:


> I agree about the recording's overbrightness & highlighting, but what I would like to know is whether Rozhdestvensky's signature is there too to be found (as Herbert did in the recordingstudio). Svetlanov as conductor I know: too heavyhanded, not acerbic enough when needed and not as lyrical as Rozdestvensky (who knows where to make the music dance tiptoe and where to march with military boots).


Yes, I think Rozhdestvensky's signature is there loud and clear. While I agree with your comment about Svetlanov in some contexts, I would urge caution in assuming this is the case with all his recordings - it's not. Listen to his Shos 10 - it really is magnificent. The most acerbic 2nd movement I have heard.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Don't anyone like no. 12? Has a great final movement, very beautiful to me in its tranquil moments.


I do. There is history behind this symphony...dedicated to Lenin

=====================================
Shostakovich had attempted, or at least announced his intent, to compose a symphony depicting Lenin as far back as the latter 1930s, elaborating on the subject in more than half a dozen interviews over a two-and-a-half-year period. He had planned this symphony as a biographical drama, tracing Lenin from his youth to the new Russian society he had created and using text by such writers as Vladimir Mayakovsky. In December 1940 Shostakovich admitted that he had overreached himself and failed to write a Lenin cantata based on Mayakovsky's text. Reports of a Lenin symphony continued well into 1941, however, dissipating only with the German invasion that May.[3]

By the summer of 1959, Shostakovich again mentioned that he was at work on a major work commemorating Lenin. "What form my idea will take, whether it will be an oratorio, a cantata, a symphony, or a symphonic poem, I don't want to predict. One thing is clear: the effort to embody the mighty image of the greatest man of our most complex epoch will demand the exertion of all creative resources."[4] Though Shostakovich expressed the desire to have this work ready for the ninetieth anniversary of Lenin's birth in April 1960, this date came and passed without its completion. Progress was slowed further when the composer fell and broke his left leg at his son Maxim's wedding in October 1960. He completed the work the following year.[
======================================================
I love the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th. I don't like the 14th nor the 15th very much

Martin


----------



## lovetheclassics

The 5th. I love the 3rd movement (largo).


----------



## deinoslogos

jgrv said:


> Chiming in here to say that since I've always heard such horrible things about Nos. 2 and 3, I decided to give No. 2 a listen.
> 
> I find this work fascinating, based on my one-time listening and limited knowledge of its roots. Yes, DSCH rejected it himself in later years. Regardless, I think it's quite interesting. Can anyone share more light on this work? I'd prefer to discuss it not for what it isn't, but for what it is.


Funny, I just gave #2 a listen after not listening to it for about 7-8 years and was surprised at how powerful and engaging it is. I think sometimes Shostakovich's music gets over-politicized. Certainly the political and social dimension of any work of art is interesting and important, but it shouldn't make the work in-itself obsolete. Looking at it as just a piece of music I think #2 sounds excellent.

As for my favorites I'd probably go 4, 10, 7, 8, 5 in that order. Really need to spend more time with 11, 12, 14 and 15 though.


----------



## sbmonty

JAKE WYB said:


> 12 gets rather a bad deal along with 2 & 3 as a low point in the cycle but it isnt so bad its not worth taking seriously, its just a bit mediocre and laboured. _I_ enjoy it however especially the 'aurora' movmenet. Apparently the openenig motif was taken from Sibelius Lemminkainen in Tuonela as Shostakovich had just gone to pay his respects to sibelius grave just before writing the 12th. Thats the most interesting thing about it - if its true - certianly is a motif found in Lemminkainen in tuonela - though two pieces a world apart - in terms of atmosphere _and_ profundity...


I'm quite curious about this comment. Is the Sibelius motif from Lemminkainen found in the first movement of Shostakovich's No. 12 or in the Aurora 3rd movement? It's a bit unclear from the post but I'd love to do some comparative listening.


----------



## njk345

I'm a huge Shostakovich fan and like most of his symphonies. Favorites are 7,8,10,11,15 (5th is a little monotonous and I think gets too much attention). But to pick one, it would have to be his 10th—he's finally not afraid of saying what he means to and it has one of the most exciting finales out there. I think the best recordings are actually more modern ones: Royal Liverpool Philharmonic w/ Vasily Petrenko and Boston Symphony Orchestra w/ Andris Nelsons (this one won a Grammy in 2015).


----------



## Heck148

njk345 said:


> I'm a huge Shostakovich fan and like most of his symphonies. ..... But to pick one, it would have to be his 10th-he's finally not afraid of saying what he means to and it has one of the most exciting finales out there..


#10 is a great work, and has fared quite well on recordings - check out Stokowski/CSO from 3/'66 [Archival set CSO - 1st 100 Years]. my favorite - an amazing live performance tape...Mitropoulos/NYPO from '54 is really excellent, too. Solti and Mravinsky both recorded excellent versions as well.


----------



## KenOC

I believe the 10th was the only Shostakovich symphony von Karajan recorded. He did a good job, though there are others I prefer. Recently, Andris Nelsons with the Boston SO is very very good.


----------



## JACE

Choosing one DSCH favorite is tough. I think the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th and 15th are all excellent.

Forced to pick just one, I might go with the 15th. It's so strange and dark, like Gogol set to music -- but even more absurd.

But I love the 5th too. It may be more traditional, but it's also powerful and direct in a way that reminds me of Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC

Nice to see another fan of the 15th! A great and unexpected work from Shostakovich.


----------



## msr13

The Tenth is my all-time favorite piece. And, I love the Seventh, the Fifth, and Ninth. Frankly, they are all great.


----------



## Heck148

msr13 said:


> The Tenth is my all-time favorite piece. And, I love the Seventh, the Fifth, and Ninth. Frankly, they are all great.


Really - my favorite Shostakovich symphony changes frequently, depending on the one to which I'm listening....same with Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler.....


----------



## Blancrocher

At the moment, #5. It's always been the most mysterious symphony in the oeuvre, for me. Many tend to remark on the bathetic finale, but I've always found the tone of the previous movements--especially the largo--to be incredibly difficult to pin down (especially retrospectively after having heard the finale). I'm continually amazed and mystified by Shostakovich's sense of narrative.


----------



## EdwardBast

sbmonty said:


> I'm quite curious about this comment. Is the Sibelius motif from Lemminkainen found in the first movement of Shostakovich's No. 12 or in the Aurora 3rd movement? It's a bit unclear from the post but I'd love to do some comparative listening.


Don't know about Sibelius. But the main motive of the whole symphony (do - ma re fa do) is the same as that in the slow movement of Myaskovsky's 24th symphony.

My current favorite is probably 8, but 10, 15, 13, 6, and 4 are my other favorites.


----------



## msr13

Heck148 said:


> Really - my favorite Shostakovich symphony changes frequently, depending on the one to which I'm listening....same with Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler.....


Certainly one component defining a composers greatness.


----------



## Rhinotop

I prefer the 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11, although the 6th and 9th are very funny, too.


----------



## Heck148

Rhinotop said:


> I prefer the 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11, although the 6th and 9th are very funny, too.


#9 got him into trouble - Stalin and the Party Bigwigs were expecting Shostakovich to produce some brilliant, glorious anthem to Victory in the Great Patriotic War, instead, DS presented #9, a brilliant, smaller scale Haydnesque gem....filled with jokes, sarcasm and wry humor...

#10 is a great piece, for sure - just listened to Mvt II by Stokowski/Chicago - live concert from 3/66[Archival set - _CSO-First 100 Years_] - amazing -nothing like it. Shostakovich at his most wild, and Stoki/CSO just drive it home with unbridled intensity and energy - the frenetic strings, the thundering percussion and the screaming trumpets are amazing - can't imagine what this was like live in the hall!!


----------



## KenOC

The 9th was criticized for political reasons even in the US: "The Russian composer should not have expressed his feelings about the defeat of Nazism in such a childish manner." --New York World-Telegram, 27 July 1946


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> #9 got him into trouble - Stalin and the Party Bigwigs were expecting Shostakovich to produce some brilliant, glorious anthem to Victory in the Great Patriotic War, instead, DS presented #9, a brilliant, smaller scale Haydnesque gem....filled with jokes, sarcasm and wry humor...


Like Beethoven, Shostakovich seems to have preferred each successive work in a genre to contrast with those before and after it, as one sees with the quartets. So after two enormous war symphonies, the 7th and 8th, perhaps he just needed a change? This always struck me as normal composer behavior coming up against ideological expectations.



Heck148 said:


> #10 is a great piece, for sure - just listened to Mvt II by Stokowski/Chicago - live concert from 3/66[Archival set - _CSO-First 100 Years_] - amazing *-nothing like it.* Shostakovich at his most wild, and Stoki/CSO just drive it home with unbridled intensity and energy - the frenetic strings, the thundering percussion and the screaming trumpets are amazing - *can't imagine what this was like live in the hall!!*


This was no doubt meant as an expression of enthusiasm rather than a factual statement, but the third movement of the Eight Symphony and especially the scherzo of the 10th quartet are quite like it in their unrelenting fury and violence.  In every live performance I've heard, the scherzo of the 10th Symphony has been extremely loud and intense.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> Like Beethoven, Shostakovich seems to have preferred each successive work in a genre to contrast with those before and after it, as one sees with the quartets. So after two enormous war symphonies, the 7th and 8th, perhaps he just needed a change? This always struck me as normal composer behavior coming up against ideological expectations.


Yes, DS obviously felt that way....#9 is a gem, and a stark contrast to the massive war symphonies.



> ....the third movement of the Eight Symphony and especially the scherzo of the 10th quartet are quite like it in their unrelenting fury and violence.


Yes, mvt III of Sym #8 is really nasty - We used to call it "Soviet Tank music" - masses of battle tanks advancing relentlessly - treads grinding, gears gnashing, the monsters just chewing up the opposition....the irresistible advance.....
Another really wild Shostakovich piece is the Old Wino scene from Lady Macbeth/Mztensk - the old drunk is looking around in the cellar for booze, instead finds the dead bodies of Katerina's & Sergei's victims/ He goes increasingly nuts in a wild scene of psychotic frenzy....the orchestra goes completely crazy....



> In every live performance I've heard, the scherzo of the 10th Symphony has been extremely loud and intense


It doesn't always come off on recording....this one does...in spades, really "at [over??] the edge"


----------



## Rhinotop

Heck148 said:


> #9 got him into trouble - Stalin and the Party Bigwigs were expecting Shostakovich to produce some brilliant, glorious anthem to Victory in the Great Patriotic War, instead, DS presented #9, a brilliant, smaller scale Haydnesque gem....filled with jokes, sarcasm and wry humor...
> 
> #10 is a great piece, for sure - just listened to Mvt II by Stokowski/Chicago - live concert from 3/66[Archival set - _CSO-First 100 Years_] - amazing -nothing like it. Shostakovich at his most wild, and Stoki/CSO just drive it home with unbridled intensity and energy - the frenetic strings, the thundering percussion and the screaming trumpets are amazing - can't imagine what this was like live in the hall!!


Yes, that's right. There are several frenetic moments in his symphonies and other works. I think Shostakovich was very satiric in his compositions, he wasn't agreed with that terrible regime and he manifested it. Fortunately he was not murdered for his ideas.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

1-15. :lol:

Preferrably Kiril Kondrashin if we're talking interpretations. He was the only conductor to ever manage the 6th symphony. Give it a hear if you've got half an hour to kill.

I could talk for ages about every single one, but I think Symphony No. 12 really has the best conclusion to a symphony ever. I've never recommended a piece more than this one. The 4th Mvmt. "Dawn of Humanity" really lives up to the title.


----------



## EdwardBast

Richard Macduff said:


> 1-15. :lol:
> 
> Preferrably Kiril Kondrashin if we're talking interpretations. He was the only conductor to ever manage the 6th symphony. Give it a hear if you've got half an hour to kill.
> 
> I could talk for ages about every single one, but I think Symphony No. 12 really has the best conclusion to a symphony ever. I've never recommended a piece more than this one. The 4th Mvmt. "Dawn of Humanity" really lives up to the title.


To my ears, the main thing that sets Kondrashin's performance of the Sixth apart is the tempo of the first movement, which is considerably faster than any other performance I've heard. Is that what does it for you, or is it other qualities?


----------



## GodotsArrived

Many years ago, at a time when the work was entirely unfamiliar to me conditioned as I then was to "heavyweight" Shostakovich (8, 13, etc. -- all of which I knew well ) I saw Lenny conduct 9. You can imagine the assumptions I had about what I was going to hear. 

I was blown away. That, for me, is an example of why recorded music simply comes nowhere close to what you experience in the concert hall; those magic moments where you, the score, the orchestra and the conductor simply come together. I have loved the Ninth ever since; quite an astonishing piece of work (and who says music can't be just as explicit as words, though I'm unsure whether Stalin got the point.)


----------



## Delicious Manager

Richard Macduff said:


> Preferrably Kiril Kondrashin if we're talking interpretations. He was the only conductor to ever manage the 6th symphony. Give it a hear if you've got half an hour to kill.


Quite refreshing to read this. Kondrashin's was the first 6th I ever got to know and so it was imprinted in my brain from a relatively early age. His versions (there's a live 6th with the Concertgebouw Orchestra as well) have been criticised for the 'fast' opening movement, but I feel that slower interpretations can drag, given that the actual music (irrespective of tempo) is quite slow in its progress. I still like Kondrashin's opening. His 2nd and 3rd movements are terrific and have never been bettered to my ears.


----------



## Heck148

Richard Macduff said:


> 1-15.
> Preferrably Kiril Kondrashin if we're talking interpretations. He was the only conductor to ever manage the 6th symphony. Give it a hear if you've got half an hour to kill..


Kondrashin was a fine conductor, very excellent in Shostakovich and Prokofieff, for sure...
but #6 has fared pretty well on recording -

Bernstein/NYPO is very good, and my own favorite, in surprisingly good sound:
Reiner/PittsburghSO, from 3/45


----------



## hpowders

For me, still the Fourth Symphony of Shostakovich. The peak of his symphonic output minus voices.


----------



## DavidA

Just bought the set of Barshai conducting the cycle. Heard the 1st and 7th already. Looking forward to the rest


----------



## TwoPhotons

For me I'd say it's the 8th. One of those works which feels like not a single note is wasted. 1st movement has a terrifying climax. 2nd movement has a thrilling finale. With the 3rd-4th movement, I can't help but visualize an atomic bomb being dropped on a city; a very hurried, excited episode culminating in an almighty crash, followed by an incredibly despairing, "dead" atmosphere representing nothing but dust and destruction. The 5th movement starts out hopeful, but suddenly, out of nowhere, comes that terrifying climax from the 1st movement (the return of which multiplies its terror aspect ten-fold in my opinion), before finally ending quietly, yet with a tinge of hope. I am not one for making up stories alongside musical pieces, but the drama in this symphony, and so many other Shostakovitch works, is just so gripping and intense that one can't help it.


----------



## Rhinotop

TwoPhotons said:


> For me I'd say it's the 8th. One of those works which feels like not a single note is wasted. 1st movement has a terrifying climax. 2nd movement has a thrilling finale. With the 3rd-4th movement, I can't help but visualize an atomic bomb being dropped on a city; a very hurried, excited episode culminating in an almighty crash, followed by an incredibly despairing, "dead" atmosphere representing nothing but dust and destruction. The 5th movement starts out hopeful, but suddenly, out of nowhere, comes that terrifying climax from the 1st movement (the return of which multiplies its terror aspect ten-fold in my opinion), before finally ending quietly, yet with a tinge of hope. I am not one for making up stories alongside musical pieces, but the drama in this symphony, and so many other Shostakovitch works, is just so gripping and intense that one can't help it.


I think the same. It's a symphony too desolate, but is tremendous too. I really enjoy it a lot!


----------



## Heck148

hpowders said:


> For me, still the Fourth Symphony of Shostakovich. The peak of his symphonic output minus voices.


The 4th is really fine, brilliantly orchestrated - still the pre-#5 Shostakovich, when his orchestrations are very colorful, flamboyant even - Lady Macbeth/Mtzensk, the big ballets [Age of Au, The Bolt], movie scores. after #4, his orchestrations, still brilliant, take on a much darker hue, overall. 
I find #4 to be structurally disjointed, episodic, almost falling apart it seems....great ideas, really effective, but almost more of an orchestral "fantasia". Structurally, not one of his most cohesive.....still great to hear....


----------



## Heck148

TwoPhotons said:


> I am not one for making up stories alongside musical pieces, but the drama in this symphony, and so many other Shostakovitch works, is just so gripping and intense that one can't help it.


Yes, #8 is one powerful work - dark, bleak, despairing.....I always think of the devastation of Russia from the terrible War 1941-45 - the unspeakable horror and tragedy of the events on so many different levels. There is none of the glorious paeans, triumphant glories of the Red Army victory over the Nazis....#8 is the burned out shells, the blasted hulks, the devastated villages, the dead frozen bodies left after the terrible machinery of war ground the nation to bits. It is one dark piece of music.


----------



## GodotsArrived

Heck148 said:


> Yes, #8 is one powerful work - dark, bleak, despairing.....I always think of the devastation of Russia from the terrible War 1941-45 - the unspeakable horror and tragedy of the events on so many different levels. There is none of the glorious paeans, triumphant glories of the Red Army victory over the Nazis....#8 is the burned out shells, the blasted hulks, the devastated villages, the dead frozen bodies left after the terrible machinery of war ground the nation to bits. It is one dark piece of music.


I think this raises a couple of interesting points. First, and perhaps more than with any other composer, does a knowledge of history increase the ability to appreciate/understand the music in the case of Shostakovich? I would argue that reading, for instance, Figes (A People's Tragedy) provides considerable insight into and engenders an enhanced response to the score (of the 8th). Second, while it was hugely successful, I'm not sure I would describe Bagration as a "triumphant glory", particularly for the inhabitants of Warsaw who might have expected Soviet protection. There's a defensible argument to be made (indeed it has been made) that the Red Army's willingness to sacrifice was because the alternative -- living under Stalin -- didn't provide a much more appealing alternative than death. Brave and heroic? Yes. Triumphant glory? I'd say not. But I do think the Russian psyche is deeply embedded in the score, extremely complex as it is.


----------



## Heck148

GodotsArrived said:


> I think this raises a couple of interesting points. First, and perhaps more than with any other composer, does a knowledge of history increase the ability to appreciate/understand the music in the case of Shostakovich? I would argue that reading, for instance, Figes (A People's Tragedy) provides considerable insight into and engenders an enhanced response to the score (of the 8th). Second, while it was hugely successful, I'm not sure I would describe Bagration as a "triumphant glory", particularly for the inhabitants of Warsaw who might have expected Soviet protection. There's a defensible argument to be made (indeed it has been made) that the Red Army's willingness to sacrifice was because the alternative -- living under Stalin -- didn't provide a much more appealing alternative than death. Brave and heroic? Yes. Triumphant glory? I'd say not. But I do think the Russian psyche is deeply embedded in the score, extremely complex as it is.


The "triumphant glory" - would be more like that expressed in Sym #7 - which DS claimed [ according to Volkov -take that for what it's worth] represented victory over tyranny in general, not just the defeat of the Nazis...in any case - Sym #7 certainly ends in a much more glorious, triumphant mode than does Sym #8....there is no rejoicing in Sym #8, at least to my ears...

of the three great Russian composers of the 20th century - Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofieff - DS is the only one who stayed in Russia the whole time....I've got to think that its stormy, violent history during that century certainly affected Shostakovich, and what he composed in his music. The pre-War Czarist regime, the terrible First World War, the Revolution, the Civil War, the Stalinist years of police-state terror - the incredible ordeal of WWII, the Cold War years....what other nation - perhaps China, or Poland?? - endured such violence and upheaval during his lifetime??


----------



## GodotsArrived

Heck148 said:


> The "triumphant glory" - would be more like that expressed in Sym #7 - which DS claimed [ according to Volkov -take that for what it's worth] represented victory over tyranny in general, not just the defeat of the Nazis...in any case - Sym #7 certainly ends in a much more glorious, triumphant mode than does Sym #8....there is no rejoicing in Sym #8, at least to my ears...
> 
> of the three great Russian composers of the 20th century - Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofieff - DS is the only one who stayed in Russia the whole time....I've got to think that its stormy, violent history during that century certainly affected Shostakovich, and what he composed in his music. The pre-War Czarist regime, the terrible First World War, the Revolution, the Civil War, the Stalinist years of police-state terror - the incredible ordeal of WWII, the Cold War years....what other nation - perhaps China, or Poland?? - endured such violence and upheaval during his lifetime??


I would say only Poland (unfamiliar as I am with Chinese history.) If music (culture generally) is an window opened on the world then you're absolutely right; Shostakovich's oeuvre can be seen as a sort of history book.


----------



## Vaneyes

Who gives a damn about history or politics, just enjoy all the good sounds.


----------



## ahinton

Vaneyes said:


> Who gives a damn about history or politics, just enjoy all the good sounds.


It's important to appreciate both, having said which Shostakovich's best work would have been as good as it is (even perhaps if somewhat different) irrespective of the politics that surrounded him; why? - because Shostakovich was Shostakovich, that's why!


----------



## EdwardBast

TwoPhotons said:


> For me I'd say it's the 8th. One of those works which feels like not a single note is wasted. 1st movement has a terrifying climax. 2nd movement has a thrilling finale. With the 3rd-4th movement, I can't help but visualize an atomic bomb being dropped on a city; a very hurried, excited episode culminating in an almighty crash, followed by an incredibly despairing, "dead" atmosphere representing nothing but dust and destruction. The 5th movement starts out hopeful, but suddenly, out of nowhere, comes that terrifying climax from the 1st movement (the return of which multiplies its terror aspect ten-fold in my opinion), before finally ending quietly, yet with a tinge of hope. I am not one for making up stories alongside musical pieces, but the drama in this symphony, and so many other Shostakovitch works, is just so gripping and intense that one can't help it.


Shostakovich's assessment, from an interview, 18 Sept 1943:

"I can sum up the philosophical conception of my new work in these words: life is beautiful. Everything that is dark and gloomy will rot away, vanish, and the beautiful will triumph."

My reaction to this is: Really??? Anyway, taking it at face value for the sake of argument, perhaps he thought of the reprise of the climax from the first movement in a more retrospective light, as only an oppressive memory rather than a return to the earlier state? And that the finale material heard afterward is, while tempered and saddened by this memory, nevertheless secure in its earlier optimism? Okay, I tried …

The odd thing about this symphony and its relation to the 7th is that by the time Shostakovich started the 8th (July 43) the war had completely turned around. The siege of Stalingrad had been broken six months earlier and the Germans were being driven westward and decimated. While finishing the finale in August the future was more hopeful still. By contrast, when the 7th was composed the prospects for the USSR were grim indeed. The symphonies seem precisely out of sync with events, but then this makes sense in a way. When reality was grimmer and the situation desperate it was impossible (and unpatriotic) to write a work that ended any way but triumphantly. At the time of the 8th, when optimism and the scent of impending victory were everywhere, perhaps it was possible to indulge the darkness more?


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> The odd thing about this symphony and its relation to the 7th is that by the time Shostakovich started the 8th (July 43) the war had completely turned around.


Not quite...the Nazis still mounted their huge "Operation Citadelle" [Kursk offensive] in July/August 1943....this was a huge battle, eventually won by the Soviets...but the German still had one huge offensive left to give.



> The siege of Stalingrad had been broken six months earlier and the Germans were being driven westward


Yes, the decisive Battle for Stalingrad [costliest in history] had been won, and the Germans were driven back, but the issue was still in doubt. The Wehrmacht was not done yet...the Soviets over-extended themselves after Stalingrad, and were defeated at the 3rd Battle of Kharkov, where the Germans drove them out of the city. establishing a salient that led to the Kursk offensive...
By summer of 1943, the devastation of Russia and its cities was pretty rampant. 
Still tho, the situation did look better for the Russians than it ever had....after Kursk, the Germans never mount any sizable or effective offensive on the Eastern front. How Shostakovich incorporated all of these events into his war-time composing psyche is certainly open to speculation.


----------



## GodotsArrived

Heck148 said:


> Not quite...the Nazis still mounted their huge "Operation Citadelle" [Kursk offensive] in July/August 1943....this was a huge battle, eventually won by the Soviets...


I'm not sure I'd say "won" to describe Kursk. The battle itself was mainly a draw, but in so far as it decisively halted Germany's offensive and depleted her resources, it had the effect of a victory.

I can't remember if it was Hastings or Beevor, but one of them aptly described Stalingrad as "the end of the begining" (of the war) and Kursk as "the begining of the end."


----------



## Heck148

GodotsArrived said:


> I'm not sure I'd say "won" to describe Kursk. The battle itself was mainly a draw, but in so far as it decisively halted Germany's offensive and depleted her resources, it had the effect of a victory.


Well, the Nazi offensive, to break thru at Kursk failed, with heavy losses...



> I can't remember if it was Hastings or Beevor, but one of them aptly described Stalingrad as "the end of the begining" (of the war) and Kursk as "the begining of the end."


yes, Stalingrad was the tipping point. Hitler stupidly lost an entire army for no reason at all...other than his vain need to capture Stalin's namesake city. He could have had the 6th Army simply dig in on the Volga, and block any Soviet attempt to attack his Caucasus oil offensive from the west. Highly doubtful that the Russians would have ever broken thru...
late 1942-early'43 was the turning of the tide in every theater - Stalingrad, El Alamein and Guadalcanal.


----------



## JACE

EdwardBast said:


> Shostakovich's assessment, from an interview, 18 Sept 1943:
> 
> "I can sum up the philosophical conception of my new work in these words: life is beautiful. Everything that is dark and gloomy will rot away, vanish, and the beautiful will triumph."
> 
> My reaction to this is: Really??? Anyway, taking it at face value for the sake of argument, perhaps he thought of the reprise of the climax from the first movement in a more retrospective light, as only an oppressive memory rather than a return to the earlier state? And that the finale material heard afterward is, while tempered and saddened by this memory, nevertheless secure in its earlier optimism? Okay, I tried …
> 
> The odd thing about this symphony and its relation to the 7th is that by the time Shostakovich started the 8th (July 43) the war had completely turned around. The siege of Stalingrad had been broken six months earlier and the Germans were being driven westward and decimated. While finishing the finale in August the future was more hopeful still. By contrast, when the 7th was composed the prospects for the USSR were grim indeed. The symphonies seem precisely out of sync with events, but then this makes sense in a way. When reality was grimmer and the situation desperate it was impossible (and unpatriotic) to write a work that ended any way but triumphantly. At the time of the 8th, when optimism and the scent of impending victory were everywhere, perhaps it was possible to indulge the darkness more?


I'd be skeptical of anything DSCH said "officially" at this point in the history of the Soviet Union. It wouldn't have been acceptable for him to discuss the tragic and horrific aspects of the war openly. That's why he did it through his music.

Or least that's how I look at it.


----------



## EdwardBast

GodotsArrived said:


> I'm not sure I'd say "won" to describe Kursk. *The battle itself was mainly a draw, but in so far as it decisively halted Germany's offensive and depleted her resources, it had the effect of a victory.*
> 
> I can't remember if it was Hastings or Beevor, but one of them aptly described Stalingrad as "the end of the begining" (of the war) and Kursk as "the begining of the end."


When one has virtually unlimited industrial capacity and slave labor and the enemy has long supply lines and is running out of human and material resources, draws _are_ victories. Borodino was a draw too, wasn't it?



JACE said:


> I'd be skeptical of anything DSCH said "officially" at this point in the history of the Soviet Union. It wouldn't have been acceptable for him to discuss the tragic and horrific aspects of the war openly. That's why he did it through his music.
> 
> Or least that's how I look at it.


Well, yeah! That's the way I look at it too. Did my skepticism not come through strongly enough?


----------



## chalkpie

Four, but honestly I like 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15 just as much


----------



## flamencosketches

Bump for a new crowd...

I've only heard a few of Shostakovich's symphonies, but I like them all. 5, 7, 9, and 10 which I just heard today, and it might be the best of them all. But so far I'd have to rate 5 as my favorite. 7 is also phenomenal, but I can't decide whether the extended repetitive section of the first movement (the "war sequence") detracts from it or adds to its power.


----------



## CnC Bartok

It detracts, as far as I'm concerned....!

No.10 is my favourite, followed closely by No.13, and then No.6.


----------



## flamencosketches

CnC Bartok said:


> It detracts, as far as I'm concerned....!
> 
> No.10 is my favourite, followed closely by No.13, and then No.6.


Have you seen it live (no.7)? It was a lot more powerful in that context than on recording. But I'm still undecided. And surely even in a live setting not everyone is going to appreciate it.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I've only seen 5, 7, 10 and 15 performed live. The thing with the Leningrad is it is "an Event", and performing it is a major thing, and thus special as a result (I've seen Mahler 8 three times live, and doing so has elevated that piece beyond the standard criticism it tends to get!). So I suppose we are talking the same idea here?

I don't think it is a good symphony, he wrote many that were better - its two neighbours for a start; but it is an important one. Whatever it may actually "mean", whatever Shostakovich's real intentions, and where ever that annoying war theme came from, it raised spirits in its home city, and perhaps more significantly, made a lot in the Allied parts of the world that the Soviet Union were allies fighting a common enemy. I know that's all very simplistic, but doesn't make these things anything other than fundamental facts.


----------



## Enthusiast

My favourite may be 14 (at least that's what I feel when I listen to the Currentzis recording). I also value 4, 5. 6, 10 and 13 and feel that they cover most of what I would want to take away from his symphonic output. But I am not so much in a Shostakovich phase at the moment and right now find a lot of his music boring. But I'll probably return to it all at some point (I often have fallow periods with great composers who I may have overplayed but I usually return after a year or two).


----------



## flamencosketches

Going to bump this thread because I've been listening to a lot of Shostakovich lately, slowly working my way through the symphony cycle. I bought the Vasily Petrenko/Royal Liverpool Philharmonic set back in January, and I've made it through the first 11 symphonies, trying to listen to each of them at least a couple of times before moving onto the next. My overall impression is that Shostakovich was a damn fine symphonist, surely one of the greatest of his century, but it's hard for me to pick favorites. 

I'm surprised how much I liked the first symphony, and I think it might be one of my favorites in the cycle. Solid music all around. Great orchestration, memorable themes, good sense of momentum. Others I would rate as standouts are 4 (perhaps the most challenging of the bunch), 5, 7 (the only one I've heard in concert—I know the first movement is controversial, but I love it) & 9 . 10 is good but I don't like it as much as others seem to. 11 I just heard this morning. And then 8 I think I need to spend more time with to fully wrap my head around it. I'm excited to hear the last four, though I've heard nothing but bad things about the 12th. 

The symphonies I don't like: well, none of them, but 3 "The First of May" didn't leave much impression on me and I have no desire to go back. 2 "October" is a lot better than its reputation would suggest, it's actually kind of radical for its time, or at least the first two movements are—it's as if he wrote the socialist realist choral finale to win back the favor he lost among the authorities with the first two movements. It's also so much shorter than the other two, which is odd, but not a fault in itself.

Anyone else listening to Shostakovich's symphonies lately? Maybe in a few months I'll be able to narrow it down further to 1 or 2 favorites. 

PS. the Petrenko cycle on Naxos is REALLY good! Great sound, great playing.


----------



## Shosty

flamencosketches said:


> Going to bump this thread because I've been listening to a lot of Shostakovich lately, slowly working my way through the symphony cycle. I bought the Vasily Petrenko/Royal Liverpool Philharmonic set back in January, and I've made it through the first 11 symphonies, trying to listen to each of them at least a couple of times before moving onto the next. My overall impression is that Shostakovich was a damn fine symphonist, surely one of the greatest of his century, but it's hard for me to pick favorites.
> 
> I'm surprised how much I liked the first symphony, and I think it might be one of my favorites in the cycle. Solid music all around. Great orchestration, memorable themes, good sense of momentum. Others I would rate as standouts are 4 (perhaps the most challenging of the bunch), 5, 7 (the only one I've heard in concert-I know the first movement is controversial, but I love it) & 9 . 10 is good but I don't like it as much as others seem to. 11 I just heard this morning. And then 8 I think I need to spend more time with to fully wrap my head around it. I'm excited to hear the last four, though I've heard nothing but bad things about the 12th.
> 
> The symphonies I don't like: well, none of them, but 3 "The First of May" didn't leave much impression on me and I have no desire to go back. 2 "October" is a lot better than its reputation would suggest, it's actually kind of radical for its time, or at least the first two movements are-it's as if he wrote the socialist realist choral finale to win back the favor he lost among the authorities with the first two movements. It's also so much shorter than the other two, which is odd, but not a fault in itself.
> 
> Anyone else listening to Shostakovich's symphonies lately? Maybe in a few months I'll be able to narrow it down further to 1 or 2 favorites.
> 
> PS. the Petrenko cycle on Naxos is REALLY good! Great sound, great playing.


I totally agree about the first. I think it's a great symphony and the fact that he was only 19 by the time he finished composing it is crazy, but it also meant that he was under far less pressure from the authorities since he was a relatively unknown composer then, so he had more freedom than he was going to have for his next two symphonies. In my musically uneducated opinion it's one of the best first symphonies anyone's ever composed.
Regarding the second and third symphonies it might be fair to consider that they were both composed under pressure from the authorities and apparently with reluctance. Having lived all my life in a country where art is censored, suppressed and bent to the will and desire of the authorities puts things in perspective regarding artists who lived in authoritarian states. I'm surely not the first to wonder what Shostakovich's musical path would have been like, had he lived under better conditions.

Anyway nos. 1, 4, 5, 10, and 15 are my favorites.

And I agree about the Petrenko cycle, it's great.


----------



## maestro267

My top 5, currently:

No. 11
No. 4
No. 6
No. 7
No. 15


----------



## Bill Cooke

I'm glad to start seeing love for the first symphony. While I recognize it's not Shostakovich's greatest symphony, to me it is his most entertaining from start to finish. 

My top five: 4, 1, 8, 5, 6 (and shouldn't 10 be in there, too?)

The last movement of his symphony #11 is also very dear to me.


----------



## Heck148

I agree completely that Shost Sym #1 is one of the best "first" symphonies by anyone...a truly remarkable effort...great piece, full of fresh ideas, shows clearly the genius of its creator.


----------



## mahlernerd

My list for all of them:

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


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

And the 15th? Even so, that order as it stands isn't too different to mine.


----------



## mahlernerd

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> And the 15th? Even so, that order as it stands isn't too different to mine.


Ahhh, I knew I was missing one, that goes in between the 9 and the 13.


----------



## perdido34

My list is 1, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15. I don't listen much to the others (and I've never heard the 12th).


----------



## MrMeatScience

I've been spending a lot of time on Shostakovich lately. My preferences shift around (and I always love the one I've last heard!) but No. 15 is probably going to come out on top most days. Others I love are 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13. I hadn't heard the Eighth somehow before I saw it in concert, and it just blew me away. The slow burn of the first movement is overwhelming if it's executed well. Of the big, heavy-hitting middle symphonies (5, 7, 8, 10), I like it best.


----------



## Luchesi

I'm grateful that many of the moving scores to the symphonies are here in this playlist;

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD_6HY12f_0kUSEGfLq5NZMlt6N5Vb0fJ


----------



## sstucky

10–The king of them all. Listen to the Czech PO and Ancerl do the second movement.
1–One of the two greatest first symphonies in the 20th c. (the Walton is the other.) Given the conditions under which it was written, it’s also probably the most remarkable.
4–It is said to sound like Mahler. It sounds better than any Mahler I know.


----------

