# Powerhouse Shostakovich



## Heck148

I've been listening to a lot of Shostakovich recently - comparative listening to the big instrumental symphonies - #s 4, 8, 10, 11….
For my first installment - Sym #4

DS #4 is quite a fascinating piece - This work was written just before the heavy hand of Stalinist censorship fell upon the composer. It is very colorful, flamboyant, even - structurally pretty episodic, sprawling, not very concise in its formal presentation…but it is very powerful, brilliantly orchestrated, and presents a great challenge to any orchestra that attempts it… Top level solo work is required, but this piece also requires great depth within each orchestra section. For the conductor, the challenges are many - not just balance within the orchestra, but keeping the episodes connected and maintaining a flow throughout. There is tremendous contrast in this work…ottomh - the funeral march opening of mvt 3, the enigmatic, mysterious conclusion of the work and the many wild orchestral tuttis throughout..
I ended up listening to 4 recordings in detail - all of these are excellent - "A" rated…with 2 reaching "A+" status:

Rozhdest'sky/USSR Ministry of CultureSO [Praga '85, Live??]
Kondrashin/Moscow PO [Urania '62]
Previn/ChicagoSO [EMI '77]
Haitink/ChicagoSO [CSO Resound Live '08]

The orchestras are terrific in each case - fine solo work, powerful orchestra sonorities, excellent podium leadership…if you have any of these recordings, you have an excellent Shostakovich #4..
My top billing goes to:
Previn/CSO, by the very slightest margin over
Kondrashin/MoscowPO,

Both are amazingly powerful renditions - for Shostakovich, and much of 20th century symphonic repertoire, I freely admit, I go for the big sound, the "at the edge" drama, the all-out push…the huge sonority, the shattering dynamic contrast….
Accordingly, I will consistently favor the big powerhouse orchestras:
Chicago, NYPO, LeningradPO [Mravinsky], MoscowPO [Kondrashin]…believe me, these guys can really play loud!! Lol!! They can play soft, too…which adds so much. More on that later…

It's impossible to cite all of the excellent solo work on these 4 recordings. It is consistently high level and first rate…naturally, I'm interested in the all-important bassoon part, which contains so many solos - they all sound great - different, but excellent - W. Elliot, D. McGill [CSO], Y. Neklyudov?? [MoscowPO], Unknown [USSRSO]


----------



## Olias

I really really try to get into Shostakovich's music, and in some ways I succeed. The 5th and 9th symphonies are two of my all time favorite works. I almost like the 1st, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 13th. My problem though is generally the slow movements. They are so freaking long and my adult undiagnosed ADD just makes my mind wander.

Take the following examples:

Symphony 1 - slowish first movement, the fast second movement is only five minutes, then a ten minute slow movement, then a ten minute slow finale with only a few fast moments

Symphony 6 - A 22 minute largo followed by 7 minute allegro and 7 minute presto

Symphony 7 - a 19 minute adagio (ugh)

Symphony 10 - first movement is a 24 minute slow movement followed by a 4 minute fast movement

Violin Concerto 1 - Slow first movement (12 minutes) fast second movement (5 minutes) slow third movement (15 minutes) fast fourth movement (5 minutes)

Cello Concerto - Fast first movement (6 minutes) Slow second movement (18 minutes) fast third movement (4 minutes)


I'm not against slow movements in and of themselves but when one slow movement is longer than the other movements combined its hard to stay interested, at least for me. I'd love some advice on how to not glaze over when the long slow movements come along.


----------



## Heck148

Olias said:


> I really really try to get into Shostakovich's music, and in some ways I succeed. The 5th and 9th symphonies are two of my all time favorite works. I almost like the 1st, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 13th. My problem though is generally the slow movements. They are so freaking long and my adult undiagnosed ADD just makes my mind wander.
> 
> I'm not against slow movements in and of themselves but when one slow movement is longer than the other movements combined its hard to stay interested, at least for me. I'd love some advice on how to not glaze over when the long slow movements come along.


Long slow movements can be a challenge - Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, etc...but well worth the effort. 
Try just listening to the slow movements by themselves....just that movement. 
of course, the conducting and the playing are crucial.....plodding, dull, logy performance is unbearable...so try different versions....I sometimes do that with Bruckner and occasionally Mahler...No law says you have to listen to a complete symphony at every listening session.
With Shostakovich, conductors like Mravinsky, Solti, Bernstein, Stokowski are going to really put it across...


----------



## amigomatt

If you love the 4th and appreciate a 'powerhouse' worthy approach, I'm amazed you haven't mentioned Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Maybe you haven't heard it? If you haven't, I'd say be sure to seek it out.


----------



## Rogerx

amigomatt said:


> If you love the 4th and appreciate a 'powerhouse' worthy approach, I'm amazed you haven't mentioned Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Maybe you haven't heard it? If you haven't, I'd say be sure to seek it out.


Good point you making, welcome by the way. nice first post.


----------



## david johnson

Ormandy 4 for me


----------



## mbhaub

david johnson said:


> Ormandy 4 for me


People can criticize Ormandy all they want and disparage his accomplishments, but the fact is the man was a fine Shostakovich conductor - the composer certainly thought so. Everything he did was excellent, sometimes astonishingly so. The quality of the Philadelphia Orchestra sure helped. The drawback: the sound is dated. Lord knows it's better than Kondrashin, but there are some composers who really benefited from the invention of the CD, and Shosty is clearly one of them. Regardless, I treasure all of Ormandy's Shostakovich. I sure wish he had recorded the 9th.


----------



## Heck148

amigomatt said:


> If you love the 4th and appreciate a 'powerhouse' worthy approach, I'm amazed you haven't mentioned Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Maybe you haven't heard it? If you haven't, I'd say be sure to seek it out.


Yes, I know the Ormandy, it was my first exposure to the work. It is very good, and there is some excellent solo work...it is one of Ormandy's best...the sound is an issue, the big tuttis don't have the heft, the punch of some other performances.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Olias said:


> I really really try to get into Shostakovich's music, and in some ways I succeed. The 5th and 9th symphonies are two of my all time favorite works. I almost like the 1st, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 13th. My problem though is generally the slow movements. They are so freaking long and my adult undiagnosed ADD just makes my mind wander.
> 
> ---snip---
> 
> Violin Concerto 1 - Slow first movement (12 minutes) fast second movement (5 minutes) slow third movement (15 minutes) fast fourth movement (5 minutes)
> 
> Cello Concerto [1] - Fast first movement (6 minutes) Slow second movement (18 minutes) fast third movement (4 minutes)


I can understand and to some extent share these complaints; but not wrt these concerti. Most of these "slow" movements are not that slow, more like moderato and you also seem to have gotten some really slow interpretations. My recordings with Kogan and Oistrakh are 2-4 min faster in the violin concerto's slow movements than above.


----------



## EdwardBast

Kreisler jr said:


> I can understand and to some extent share these complaints; but not wrt these concerti. Most of these "slow" movements are not that slow, more like moderato and you also seem to have gotten some really slow interpretations. My recordings with Kogan and Oistrakh are 2-4 min faster in the violin concerto's slow movements than above.


Yes. And if you want to shave five minutes off the Sixth's first movement hear Kondrashin.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. And if you want to shave five minutes off the Sixth's first movement hear Kondrashin.


I really must latch onto a complete set of DS symphonies by Kondrashin...he was a great conductor, everything I have by him is excellent. He and Mravinsky certainly present outstanding performances of Shostakovich!! Also - their artistry was not limited to just Russian music...


----------



## Kiki

It is a pity that we do not have a Shostakovich 4 from Mravinsky. "Stately" as he was, it was "allowed" since the 60s, yet he did not perform it... I really like Rozhdestvensky and Kondrashin in this repertoire. They definitely got the hang of it! Not to mention the characterful Soviet/Russian Brass! Love it. Personally I prefer Rozh's slightly more urgent 1981 Live Bolshoi to his 1962 Live Philharmonia and the 1985 USSR Ministry of Culture SO (apparently not live). On the other hand, I would not choose between Kondrashin's 1962 Moscow PO (some literature stated 1966 instead) and his 1963 Live SKD account.


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> ....Personally I prefer Rozh's slightly more urgent 1981 Live Bolshoi to his 1962 Live Philharmonia and the 1985 USSR Ministry of Culture SO (apparently not live).


Yes, the actual recording status of Russian recordings is often confusing and/or dubious...I've read that the Rozh/USSR Shost 4 is actually a studio job, but audience noise was added in?? 
Same questions arise with some of Mravinsky's recordings - I have 2 of his #8s, which I'll address in an upcoming post - one in particular is touted as "live" - yet there is clearly some highlighting/close miking of various solos and section soli...again, a studio recording, with audience noise added later??



> On the other hand, I would not choose between Kondrashin's 1962 Moscow PO (some literature stated 1966 instead) and his 1963 Live SKD account.


Right, recording dates for Russian recordings are often confusing as well...


----------



## RobertJTh

Olias said:


> My problem though is generally the slow movements. They are so freaking long and my adult undiagnosed ADD just makes my mind wander.


Whatever you do, stay away from the 15th String Quartet...

As for a loud, spectacular 4th, look no further than this:


----------



## Heck148

RobertJTh said:


> .....As for a loud, spectacular 4th, look no further than this:
> View attachment 160845


I have several of Jarvi's Prokofiev Symphonies - very well recorded by Chandos, decently played, but none of them are first choices for me....Jarvi, imo, is too often rather straight, bland, lacking in drive and drama....the RSNO is good, but it doesn't have the section depth in the winds and brass, and the strings are no match for the Moscow, Leningrad, Chicago, NYPO orchestras...


----------



## Kiki

Heck148 said:


> Yes, the actual recording status of Russian recordings is often confusing and/or dubious...I've read that the Rozh/USSR Shost 4 is actually a studio job, but audience noise was added in??
> Same questions arise with some of Mravinsky's recordings - I have 2 of his #8s, which I'll address in an upcoming post - one in particular is touted as "live" - yet there is clearly some highlighting/close miking of various solos and section soli...again, a studio recording, with audience noise added later??
> 
> Right, recording dates for Russian recordings are often confusing as well...


I'll wait for your assessment of Mravinsky and others' #8 before I comment on it. 

I'd just say in general that, as I've been trying to work out Mravinsky's discography (out of the frustration that a lot of stated dates, venues, even orchestras are not reliable), I have realised that audience/stage noise/applause are often suspicious, while inconsistent tape/78s playback speed during mastering is also a common problem among different releases of the same recording.

All these have made the detective work difficult. I've even come across two DVD releases of Mravinsky's 1983-03-19 Francesca da Rimini where the footages are identical but the run times differ by some 16s! For a short piece like Francesca da Rimini, such a difference is startling. The result is confusing as well as annoying - a different mastering speed will change not only the pitch and the perceived tempo, but also the character!

OK, the above may sound exaggerated, since Mravinsky's Francesca da Rimini still sounds like Mravinsky's Francesca da Rimini, and it does not sound like Bernstein's Francesca da Rimini, but this is certainly annoying.


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> I'll wait for your assessment of Mravinsky and others' #8 before I comment on it.....


I have 2 Mravinsky DS 8s....one, from '82, claims to be "pitch corrected" !!


----------



## Oortone

Olias said:


> I really really try to get into Shostakovich's music, and in some ways I succeed. The 5th and 9th symphonies are two of my all time favorite works. I almost like the 1st, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 13th. My problem though is generally the slow movements. They are so freaking long and my adult undiagnosed ADD just makes my mind wander.
> 
> Take the following examples:
> 
> Symphony 1 - slowish first movement, the fast second movement is only five minutes, then a ten minute slow movement, then a ten minute slow finale with only a few fast moments
> 
> Symphony 6 - A 22 minute largo followed by 7 minute allegro and 7 minute presto
> 
> Symphony 7 - a 19 minute adagio (ugh)
> 
> Symphony 10 - first movement is a 24 minute slow movement followed by a 4 minute fast movement
> 
> Violin Concerto 1 - Slow first movement (12 minutes) fast second movement (5 minutes) slow third movement (15 minutes) fast fourth movement (5 minutes)
> 
> Cello Concerto - Fast first movement (6 minutes) Slow second movement (18 minutes) fast third movement (4 minutes)
> 
> I'm not against slow movements in and of themselves but when one slow movement is longer than the other movements combined its hard to stay interested, at least for me. I'd love some advice on how to not glaze over when the long slow movements come along.


I'm a great fan of Shostakovich but I agree with you on some of the slow movements. I really don't get them and they feel too long in comparison to their content. Since I respect him so much I still believe I will "understand" them some day.

But there are slow movements which does not feel this way, like the largo in the 8th. That's a breath taking piece.


----------



## Oortone

amigomatt said:


> If you love the 4th and appreciate a 'powerhouse' worthy approach, I'm amazed you haven't mentioned Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Maybe you haven't heard it? If you haven't, I'd say be sure to seek it out.


Well I hadn't heard Normandy and just tried out 2nd movement of the Tenth.

That was a great version, one of the best I've heard. Will check out more Ormandy/Shostakovich. 
Thanks. :tiphat:


----------



## Oortone

mbhaub said:


> People can criticize Ormandy all they want and disparage his accomplishments, but the fact is the man was a fine Shostakovich conductor - the composer certainly thought so. Everything he did was excellent, sometimes astonishingly so. The quality of the Philadelphia Orchestra sure helped. The drawback: the sound is dated. Lord knows it's better than Kondrashin, but there are some composers who really benefited from the invention of the CD, and Shosty is clearly one of them. Regardless, I treasure all of Ormandy's Shostakovich. I sure wish he had recorded the 9th.


Which did he record?
I find 1, 4, 5 and 10 and 13, 14, 15.


----------



## Oortone

Heck148 said:


> Yes, the actual recording status of Russian recordings is often confusing and/or dubious...I've read that the Rozh/USSR Shost 4 is actually a studio job, but audience noise was added in??
> Same questions arise with some of Mravinsky's recordings - I have 2 of his #8s, which I'll address in an upcoming post - one in particular is touted as "live" - yet there is clearly some highlighting/close miking of various solos and section soli...again, a studio recording, with audience noise added later??
> 
> Right, recording dates for Russian recordings are often confusing as well...


But there's no conflict between close miking and live. On the contrary. If the audience is noisy, close miking is a solution to get rid of some noise. If the team has rehearsed properly, highlightning can be made "live".


----------



## Heck148

Oortone said:


> But there's no conflict between close miking and live. On the contrary. If the audience is noisy, close miking is a solution to get rid of some noise. If the team has rehearsed properly, highlightning can be made "live".


Maybe...this one, on BBC Legends is done quite skillfully...there are obvious differences between the solo levels, and the general "mix"...but the effect is not jarring or excessively noticeable.
spot- miking can be very phony sounding - I'm thinking of some of the extreme knob- twiddling that Decca did, esp with the Mehta/LAPO recordings of the 60s...instruments popping in and out of the sound picture with alarming effect...i think DG, and probably most labels did this to some extent, but these LA/London recordings are extreme..


----------



## Heck148

Oortone said:


> Well I hadn't heard Normandy and just tried out 2nd movement of the Tenth.
> That was a great version, one of the best I've heard.


Wait 'til you hear Stokowski/Chicago tear into this one....unbelievable!! Not even Mravinsky, Mitropoulos and Solti match this level of wild abandon...


----------



## Oortone

Heck148 said:


> Maybe...this one, on BBC Legends is done quite skillfully...there are obvious differences between the solo levels, and the general "mix"...but the effect is not jarring or excessively noticeable.
> spot- miking can be very phony sounding - I'm thinking of some of the extreme knob- twiddling that Decca did, esp with the Mehta/LAPO recordings of the 60s...instruments popping in and out of the sound picture with alarming effect...i think DG, and probably most labels did this to some extent, but these LA/London recordings are extreme..


Yes, but does it prove it's fake live?
Extreme mik results can be produced live too, that's what I'm saying.


----------



## Heck148

Oortone said:


> Yes, but does it prove it's fake live?
> Extreme mik results can be produced live too, that's what I'm saying.


I don't know...with Russian recordings of that period it's difficult to tell for sure...there is definitely highlighting..


----------



## Kiki

Heck148 said:


> I have 2 Mravinsky DS 8s....one, from '82, claims to be "pitch corrected" !!


Mravinsky's 82 live #8 is one of the more "nasty" ones from a collector's point of view.

It has been released on CD by Philips, Icone, Regis, Alto, Altus and Russian Disc.

The infamous Philips used a tape transfer speed that is too fast. The Icone is just like the Philips. They have the wrong pitch and sound much faster than Mravinsky intended.

Regis and Alto corrected the transfer speed (and pitch). They are identical. Alto even explicitly stated "pitch corrected" on the back cover (I suppose that would boost sales).

Now the fun bit... Altus also corrected the transfer speed, but it is much slower than Regis and Alto... I found this hard to believe...

The only release that I have not been able to verify is the Russian Disc release. The timings stated on the CD back cover, if correct, are definitely faster than the Altus, but I have no idea if it is identical to Regis and Alto.

Fun, isn't it?

By the way, this is not the only surviving recording from 1982. There is also a 82 dress rehearsal on a Dreamlife DVD (though the musicians were not "dressed up" but there was definitely no audience). It is a bit faster than the 82 live recording, well, if the video/audio transfer speed was correct!

The recording data on the Dreamlife was written in Japanese. And in the Japanese language, words equivalent to "dress rehearsal", "generalprobe" and "répétition générale" are all used interchangeably. In this Dreamlife DVD, it used the equivalent word of "generalprobe".

I always wonder why. Because the musicians were not "dressed up", so they didn't want to use the word "dress rehearsal"? I don't know.

Perhaps a musician can shed some light on this: Is it common for musicians to "dress up" (or "not dress up") in a "dress rehearsal"?

I apologize that I have gone off-topic quite a bit. I am looking forward to your assessment on Shosty #8!


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> ......Perhaps a musician can shed some light on this: Is it common for musicians to "dress up" (or "not dress up") in a "dress rehearsal"?


No, musicians do not don concert attire for dress rehearsals....who knows what that recording venue might have been??
I have the Alto version, the "pitch corrected" one...



> I apologize that I have gone off-topic quite a bit. I am looking forward to your assessment on Shosty #8!


Should be coming up before long!!


----------



## Kiki

Heck148 said:


> No, musicians do not don concert attire for dress rehearsals....who knows what that recording venue might have been??
> I have the Alto version, the "pitch corrected" one...


Thank you for your insight! I got that "dressed up" idea stuck in my head because of a video I watched a long time ago of Karajan and the musicians wearing their tux doing a rehearsal in an otherwise empty concert hall. That was a one-take where he made comments to the musicians only after playing through the whole piece. The footage was like a documentary, certainly not the concert cinematography type, nor the Karajan-style "dramatic" lighting usually seen in his video production, so that must be a genuine rehearsal session... But apparently that (getting dressed up) was an unusual thing to do.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The "dress" in "dress rehearsal" only refers to the costumes of the singers in case of opera (admittedly, I had never thought about this before, but it's not my mother tongue).
I could also imagine that for concerts that have (semi-)public dress rehearsals or where that rehearsal is recorded to have patching material (as in NYD concerts and similar occasions) the musicians do dress up already but I don't know.


----------



## Triplets

Oortone said:


> I'm a great fan of Shostakovich but I agree with you on some of the slow movements. I really don't get them and they feel too long in comparison to their content. Since I respect him so much I still believe I will "understand" them some day.
> 
> But there are slow movements which does not feel this way, like the largo in the 8th. That's a breath taking piece.


It's interesting to see how this thread has veered from the OP's lament-which is that DSCH slow movements are excessively long-and into a discussion of different performers. There is a good reason for this phenomenon, because it really does take a sympathetic conductor to realize the composers vision and hold our attention.
Different composer, but I remember the revelatory feeling hearing Rachmaninov play his 3rd PC. So many passages that simply seemed redundant before now made sense. He had a rhetorical quality that modern performances in particular seem to miss. They can play all the notes but fail but to give us the meaning. It is like the difference between hearing a Shakespeare soliloquy given by a talented student vs. Olivier.
Have you ever heard the recording of Shostakovich and Weinberg playing a two piano reduction of the 10th Symphony? It's worth doing once to get insights into was Shostakovich rhetoric was about.
I tend to prefer Russian Conductors that worked with Shostakovich, excepting Mravinsky, who always makes me feel like I'm hearing the music as I ride off to the Gulag in a NKVD van. Kondrashin and Barshai get the nod. Petrenko is the best of the Moderns, and Haitink did a lot to "internationalize" the Music, making it more Universal


----------



## Heck148

*Shostakovich's great Symphony #8 is next up on my list*…this may be DS' greatest work in the symphony genre….it is certainly a "war-time symphony", but it most certainly isn't a celebration of the Soviet Victory in the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis - #7 more fits that billing, a triumphant finale for a victory that had not yet occurred…

#8 is much more the dark side of war - the terrible destruction, desolation, death, violence of a brutal war that destroyed everything in its path…devastated cities, mass graves, burned out villages, scorched earth…corpses military and civilian by the millions. This is one dark piece of music. 
The first movement fits into Shostakovich's format, established in Sym #5...a long slow buildup, to a climax of shattering intensity…first, in the strings, then he adds in the woodwinds...once the brass and percussion get going, we're in for 8+ on the sonic Richter scale.

The two middle movements are both "scherzi" [sort of], faster tempo. Tho the 2nd mvt can sound more optimistic, playful, even, it is still in a very dark hue, this is not happy music…the turmoil of war is very evident in the 3rd movement, in which the listener can easily hear the terrible grinding, gnashing brutality of modern mechanized war….no glory here, just destruction, death, disruption…the intervening passacaglia [mvt 4] leads us to the enigmatic finale…this almost sounds peaceful at first, but before long, it leads to the ultimate, brutal climax, where seemingly, any hope or optimism is crushed by the snarling, mechanized onslaught….is there some hope left in the haunting closing pages?? Maybe??

I zeroed in on 4 different recordings, again, all of them excellent:

Mravinsky/LenPO - "Live" [Alto '82]
Mravinsky/LenPO - "remastered" [BBC Legends 9/60] 
Solti/CSO - London [Live 2/89]
Haitink/ACGO - Phillips [re-released on Decca??]

Again, all of these are excellent performances - well-played - sound quality is a mixed bag, but generally good. The conducting is excellent - my two favorites are - in a tossup - [these are cosmic!!]:

*Mravinsky 9/60, and Solti '89..*

The sound on the Mravinsky '60 is good, remastered, and there is some obvious highlighting of solo and section passages - I don't know if this is from the original, or from the remastering - it is done quite well, not clumsily, or obtrusively - there's no sudden increase or decrease in the ambient noise level, the soloists [piccolo, flute, oboe, bassoon, trumpet are all highlighted at one point or another] suddenly sound like they're right in the room with you…at the conclusion of the solo, they recede smoothly back into the mix.

Solti's is recorded live, there is no evident highlighting, but it's not needed…the CSO guys project just fine. I heard them play DS #8 in Boston Symphony Hall, right at the time of this recording…it was shattering…really powerful. They alternated DS8 on tour concerts with Mahler 5!!

The solo work for both Mravinsky '60 and Solti is really magnificent, so are the section soli…Big, hefty sounding woodwinds, incredible brass playing…I can't imagine standing on the podium, knowing that amazing barrage of sound is about to hit you….but Solti and Mravinsky loved it - "green light" all the way….still, tho, the orchestras get down nice and soft for the exposed solos…. the Leningrad strings always have this big, resonant sound - all Oistrakh-wannabes?? The CSO's gong shots are wonderful!! I wouldn't want to be without either of these performances. they really dig into the substance of this great score.

The Mravinsky '82 is good with many of the strengths of the earlier effort, but the sound is not as good, and the orchestra plays a bit better on the '60 one.…also, since it does appear to be truly "live", there are some glitches in performance - small, but present - the Leningraders are known for swinging for the fences - and occasionally this goes awry - there are some intonation issues and a clam or two in high unison horn passages, and the fortissimo woodwind unisons in the altissimo range may suffer from questionable intonation…hey, it's live, and these guy are going for it full bore….Haitink's version is well-played, well-recorded, but I miss the all-out, "pedal to the metal" effort of the Leningrad and Chicago guys…I also like the woodwind principals solo work better with Mravinsky and Solti. Haitink is always musical, but sometimes a bit laid back, for me…Mravinsky and Solti are drivers, they give their orchestras the "green light" - geezus!! what a sound - these guys really push!! I'd like to hear the Kondrashin/MoscowPO again - I had it on an old Everest LP, and the sound was kind of thin and tinny, but iirc, it was a powerful rendition….


----------



## Kiki

Well written, Heck.

I suppose very few will dispute that Shostakovich #8 evokes, rather directly, feelings of bleakness, despair, desolation, mockery etc. I think a "powerhouse" orchestra will definitely transcend these emotions.

Unfortunately, there are conductors who, even with a "powerhouse" orchestra at their disposal, saw Shostakovich as nothing but a sound spectacle. There is no emotion. There is nothing underneath the glossy surface. Or perhaps they did not see it this way, but were simply ineffective in this repertoire. Whatever the case is, whenever I heard something like this, I could not help feeling unfulfilled, and very annoyed. 

Fortunately, there are the likes of Mravinsky, Kondrashin, Rozhdestvenky, whom I think definitely "got" it. I would also add V. Petrenko, Solti, Haitink, Barshai to this list, but they did not have that characterful sound of a Soviet/Russian orchestra like the previous three had. Their orchestras, some of them being A-list big bands, sounded a bit too beautiful/glorious to me, even though they are well capable of blowing the roof off, and are probably even more accomplished bands.


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> Well written, Heck.
> I suppose very few will dispute that Shostakovich #8 evokes, rather directly, feelings of bleakness, despair, desolation, mockery etc. I think a "powerhouse" orchestra will definitely transcend these emotions.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are conductors who, even with a "powerhouse" orchestra at their disposal, saw Shostakovich as nothing but a sound spectacle. There is no emotion. There is nothing underneath the glossy surface. Or perhaps they did not see it this way, but were simply ineffective in this repertoire. Whatever the case is, whenever I heard something like this, I could not help feeling unfulfilled, and very annoyed.


I'm glad that I've not heard too many of these "sound spectacular" versions of Shostakovich - tho I've played in a few of them, mainly #5....that glossy, surface approach simply won't work in the heavy-duty DS works...it requires a vision on the part of the conductor, and an alertness, concentration on the part of the musicians to really bring these off....the long slow buildups are crucial, in a way similar to those long mvts of Bruckner and Mahler....one can tell when the music simply bogs down, goes thru the motions, and the audience is simply waiting for the big explosion....this is tedious, for sure. The fast movements must have a relentless forward momentum, a drive, a wild abandon, even...holding back, "covering the brake" subtracts excessively from the needed effect.



> Fortunately, there are the likes of Mravinsky, Kondrashin, Rozhdestvenky, whom I think definitely "got" it.


 Definitely, great conductors, and their effectiveness is not just limited to Russian repertoire.



> I would also add V. Petrenko, Solti, Haitink, Barshai to this list, but they did not have that characterful sound of a Soviet/Russian orchestra like the previous three had.


The Russian sound is certainly evident, esp with LeningradPO and the old MoscowPO...great orchestras with a very characteristic sound....but other orchestras can really excel also in this repertoire, given the right podium leadership...Bernstein is generally very good with Shostakovich, so is Solti, tho he came late to this repertoire, and Stokowski, who certainly "gets it"....Haitink is good, too, never goes for the shallow, glossy approach....sometimes a bit reserved for my taste...but always very musically done.

It's interesting that some conductors have altered DS' tempo markings rather dramatically, with excellent results...and at least on one occasion met with the composer's approval -

Bernstein/NYPO - Sym #5/IV ['59]...Lenny blasts right out of the blocks, at a considerably faster speed than indicated - but it works great - there is an electricity, a drive, that powers thru the entire opening of the movement...iirc, DS liked that approach.
Kurtz/NYPO - Sym #9/II ['47] - Kurtz [a fine conductor too little known in US] takes the 2nd movement quite a bit slower than indicated...to me, this is extremely effective - the entire movement takes on a more mysterious, even haunting quality...a much darker, more pensive effect that works very well....this entire performance is a classic, still the best Shost #9 I've ever heard...the 1947 recording date should not put anyone off, the sound is remarkably good, and the NYPO displays some stellar solo work and riveting excitement.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Shosty rocks. So much great music.


----------



## Heck148

Shostakovich's 10th symphony is hailed by some as his greatest work in this genre….it certainly is a viable contender….again, the Soviet authorities did not get the big rah-rah Patriotic War victory celebration they apparently were expecting….but #10 is a very powerful work, and once more, Shostakovich provides us with an enigmatic work with striking drama, passion and reflection. 
DS' first movement format is again evident - a moody, dark, mysterious atmosphere, with a long buildup….to several climaxes of increasing intensity…the long, quiet denouement is quite striking, and somewhat similar to that of #8. The piccolo duet in the closing pages is a unique touch.
Movement 2 bursts upon us in a blast of unbridled fury and passion…this is Shostakovich at his wildest - in similar mode to the most frenzied parts of Lady Macbeth, The Nose, the big ballet scores…non-stop action, supposedly a musical portrait of Stalin [??]…the listener is pummeled into sonic submission…
Movement 3 is a scherzo [sort of]…that builds gradually in volume and tension until the solo horn bursts upon the scene, with its repeated calls…the waltz-like interlude provides a lively episode, but the horn calls prevail to a quiet ending.
The finale begins with a slow introduction followed by a fast main section that sounds similar to the finale of Sym #9….this increases in dynamic and energy until a slow recap of the opening - the fast final section is introduced by the low staccato bassoon and the wild "noodly" clarinet solo - It's a dash to the finish with the high horns leading the charge in the race to the finish…[like Beethoven #7??] the end comes quickly in a wild outburst….not exactly the triumphant, irresistible surge of the powerful Soviet Army, but a thrilling ride, nonetheless.
I listened to several different versions -

*Mitropoulos/NYPO ['54 CBS]
Mravinsky/LenPO ['76 Leningrad Masters]
Mravinsky/LenPO [3/76 "Live" Erato]
Von Karajan/BPO [Youtube '82(??) Not sure]
Solti/CSO ['90 "Live" London]
Stokowski/CSO ['66 "Live" CSO Archival CSO -Ist 100 yrs]
*
Again, these are all good ones, tho the sound quality is quite variable…Mitropoulos gives us a powerful reading, but the sound is dated - CBS in early 50s could be hit or miss, and this one is a bit on the miss side….the sound in full orchestral tuttis is congested, and sounds "boxy", not spacious….that said, there is some terrific solo work - the woodwinds esp - NYPO had a big sounding WW section - and it comes thru convincingly - the 2ble reeds are esp good - H. Gomberg [Ob] and Wm. Polisi [bssn] sound great in their extended solos…big juicy, hefty tones, molto espressivo…von Karajan gives a very good performance, one of his best, imo…well recorded, well-paced…my big reservation here is that vK tends to "cover the brake" [a driving analogy] when it comes to the big roaring climaxes….it is held back too much, esp when compared with the others represented here. Also, some of the woodwind solo work seems restrained relative to the other versions reviewed.
Solti and Mravinsky [both] are terrific, really excellent - both conductors make the most of the score…both are real drivers, and they let their orchestras rip….fine solo work as well….[both Mravinskys, Solti, Stokowski are all live performances]…the Leningrad Masters version does not have quite as good sound quality - strings and woodwinds are right up front, in your face…the brass is a bit recessed, not excessively, but it has less presence than the Erato version. Mravinsky's horns were not having their best days - both versions feature some clams in the horns, the high unison passages - but this is nervy exposed stuff, the horns must be fearless…things do happen in live performance…Solti's horns don't miss, they sound amazing; but Mravinsky's forces bring off the big moments splendidly, and the section and solo work is excellent. These would be my top selections, except for the amazing live Stokowski/CSO performance - 
This one takes the cake...really exciting, Stoki paces it perfectly, the contrasts between the soft, meditative parts and the big orchestral climaxes is stunning. Again, the woodwind solos are top-notch - this recording has some of the best bassoon playing I've heard, solo [W. Elliot], and section, same with the oboe [R. Still] - this is live, and the horns do clobber a couple along the way. Nothing too serious, but they are there…but the volume and intensity they produce is astounding...this goes for the full orchestra. Mvt 2 is totally wild and over the top - never heard anything like it!! The pounding drums, the whirling, swirling strings and woodwinds, the screaming trumpets are unbelievable….I can't imagine what this sounded like live in the hall…Stoki gets the pacing and contrasts just right in mvts 3 and 4….the horn calls are very dramatic, and the finale comes to a wild finish…the audience understandably goes nuts [I'm assuming they left the actual applause in, not some add-on from another source, tho you never know].


----------



## Enthusiast

I may not get the concept of "powerhouse Shostakovich" but much of his apparently powerhouse aspects to his music seem to me to be on the surface, painted on. When I think, for example, of Sibelius or Mahler the power is generated from the inside the music but this is often not the case with Shostakovich. What drives his music often seems to me to be a bleakness, both emotionally and physically. So I think of much of his work as the music of alienation. There are exceptions - the 1st violin concerto, for example, does seem to generate emotional power and passion from inside.


----------



## Kiki

The extra-musical contents in Shostakovich #10 always interest me (i.e. things that are probably not really in the music; things that could be existing only in our heads) -

I've read many commentaries saying this is Shostakovich's "Stalin" symphony, but there are also many that refute that idea. For me, #7 and #8 sound more like his "Stalin" symphonies (rather than "Nazi/invasion" symphonies) - because the terror sounds like it comes from within.

On the other hand, #10 sounds to me more like an auto-biographical symphony. The un-disguised use of the DSCH motif is a pointer, the obsessive motif of his student Elmira Nəzirova is another, but these alone do not make it auto-biographical. It is the terror, the humour, the humanity, the resilience, the sarcasm, the contemplation/introspection etc. that I hear in the epic emotional journey in this symphony that makes me feel it is more about himself, about what he had been going through, than about the environment that he was living in.

Much as I like listening to a wholeheartedly driven approach to playing Shostakovich, I also like some slow burns that emphasize more on the contemplative, reflective, even introvert side of it. I appreciate the likes of Ančerl, Kondrashin, Mravinsky from the former category, and Jansons, Sanderling, Haitink from the latter, while V. Petrenko has a bit of everything and Karajan is in a class of his own.

By the way, allow me to be pedantic - Mravinsky's two surviving recordings from 1976 were recorded in the same month, on 1976-03-03 and 1976-03-31. The 03-03 is in stereo and has been released by Erato, JVC, Warner Elatus. The 03-31 is in mono and has been released by BMG, JVC, Leningrad Masters, Melodiya. The one release that I have not been able to figure out is the Venezia CDVE64251. It could be either recording.


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> I may not get the concept of "powerhouse Shostakovich" but much of his apparently powerhouse aspects to his music seem to me to be on the surface, painted on. When I think, for example, of Sibelius or Mahler the power is generated from the inside the music but this is often not the case with Shostakovich. What drives his music often seems to me to be a bleakness, both emotionally and physically. So I think of much of his work as the music of alienation. There are exceptions - the 1st violin concerto, for example, does seem to generate emotional power and passion from inside.


Hmm...I don't find the depth of expression in Shostakovich to be "painted on" as such...Like Mahler, Shostakovich was a complex individual, and his artistry displays that complexity to a very great extent... I find the "surface" aspects of music might be more applicable to Richard Strauss....whose splendid and flamboyant orchestration may be an end in itself...Shostakovich certainly expresses plenty of bleakness, a darkness, maybe even hopelessness....His music does contain passages of great beauty, and often a haunting, mysterious, passionate expression...but he also provides plenty of violence, turbulence and disruption. I believe this could be a combination of both his personality, and of the place, time and cultural environment in which he lived.
Some of his music is just plain nasty-sounding, and must be played as such. Trying to smooth it out, beautify it, is faulty interpretation, imo, and misses the point of his work.


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> The extra-musical contents in Shostakovich #10 always interest me (i.e. things that are probably not really in the music; things that could be existing only in our heads) -
> 
> I've read many commentaries saying this is Shostakovich's "Stalin" symphony, but there are also many that refute that idea. For me, #7 and #8 sound more like his "Stalin" symphonies (rather than "Nazi/invasion" symphonies) - because the terror sounds like it comes from within.
> 
> On the other hand, #10 sounds to me more like an auto-biographical symphony. The un-disguised use of the DSCH motif is a pointer, the obsessive motif of his student Elmira Nəzirova is another, but these alone do not make it auto-biographical. It is the terror, the humour, the humanity, the resilience, the sarcasm, the contemplation/introspection etc. that I hear in the epic emotional journey in this symphony that makes me feel it is more about himself, about what he had been going through, than about the environment that he was living in.


You may be right about the autobiographical aspect of sym #10, it makes sense....It certainly is not the _"rah-rah, we won the war party-line triumph"_..
I think he finally provided that in Symphony #11, even tho it is designated as Year 1905....it could certainly fit in with a more traditional "triumph in the Great Patriotic war" symphony....DS continued this for one more round - Sym #12, but I think he had written himself out of this mode by then, and sym #12 comes off as disjointed, empty, with an excessively bombastic, noisy finale.



> By the way, allow me to be pedantic - Mravinsky's two surviving recordings from 1976 were recorded in the same month, on 1976-03-03 and 1976-03-31. The 03-03 is in stereo and has been released by Erato, JVC, Warner Elatus. The 03-31 is in mono and has been released by BMG, JVC, Leningrad Masters, Melodiya. The one release that I have not been able to figure out is the Venezia CDVE64251. It could be either recording.


Thanks, that is good info - I knew that the 2 Mravinskys from '76 were different performances [solos are different, and the horns clobber notes in different places!!]...the sound on 3/3/76 is definitely better....If I had the Venezia recording, I could probably tell from the performance which one it is.


----------



## Enthusiast

Heck148 said:


> Hmm...I don't find the depth of expression in Shostakovich to be "painted on" as such...Like Mahler, Shostakovich was a complex individual, and his artistry displays that complexity to a very great extent... I find the "surface" aspects of music might be more applicable to Richard Strauss....whose splendid and flamboyant orchestration may be an end in itself...Shostakovich certainly expresses plenty of bleakness, a darkness, maybe even hopelessness....His music does contain passages of great beauty, and often a haunting, mysterious, passionate expression...but he also provides plenty of violence, turbulence and disruption. I believe this could be a combination of both his personality, and of the place, time and cultural environment in which he lived.
> Some of his music is just plain nasty-sounding, and must be played as such. Trying to smooth it out, beautify it, is faulty interpretation, imo, and misses the point of his work.


I think you misunderstood what I wrote or maybe read it too quickly. It was not the depth of expression that I find painted on, merely what I take to be the "powerhouse" aspect of it. There is certainly something underneath it and driving the music .. and that is what led me to the bleak, alienated aspect of his music. I think that it is that rather than the "powerhouse" aspect (or even the apparent passion) that is closer to the beating heart of his music.

I'm not sure if you think that _I _am advocating smoothing out or beautifying it? That is not my message at all. I just think that Shostakovich is far more a composer of his time than many give him credit for.


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> I think you misunderstood what I wrote or maybe read it too quickly. It was not the depth of expression that I find painted on, merely what I take to be the "powerhouse" aspect of it. There is certainly something underneath it and driving the music .. and that is what led me to the bleak, alienated aspect of his music. I think that it is that rather than the "powerhouse" aspect (or even the apparent passion) that is closer to the beating heart of his music.


I agree there is much darkness, bleakness in his music...there is also crushing, earth-shaking upheaval and turmoil as well....I think a successful rendition of his works needs to satisfy all aspects of his music. There must be the introverted, brooding, meditative element, and there must be the explosive, pent-up violence as well. "powerhouse" for me, was meant to apply more to the actual performances of his symphonies under review than the essence of the scores themselves....tho Shostakovich, like Mahler, is certainly a powerhouse composer....the sonorities these composers brought forth in their scores is overwhelming, in the right hands...



> I'm not sure if you think that _I _am advocating smoothing out or beautifying it? That is not my message at all. I just think that Shostakovich is far more a composer of his time than many give him credit for.


No, I didn't not mean that at all. DS was most definitely a composer of his time - Russia in the 20th Century??!! gawd, what a horror show - and Shostakovich lived thru it all, in Russia - the Czarist regime, the First World War, the Revolution, the nightmare Civil War, the Stalinist purges and terror, World War II[!!], the Cold War.... 
he is a certainly a composer of his time, perhaps more than any other composer...


----------



## Phil loves classical

I find Shostakovich's 4th extremely ugly, the way he keeps repeating little figures in ugly steps upwards and downwards, and progress to emphasize ugly tones, and juxtaposes to form ugly harmonies with other parts. It doesn't sound challenging to grasp, in fact very simplistic, just very perverse.


----------



## mikeh375

Ahh it's Phil Deutscher....


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

amigomatt said:


> If you love the 4th and appreciate a 'powerhouse' worthy approach, I'm amazed you haven't mentioned Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Maybe you haven't heard it? If you haven't, I'd say be sure to seek it out.


Ormandy's 4th is just about perfect. And the sound is amazing, the age of the recording notwithstanding.


----------



## EdwardBast

Kiki said:


> I've read many commentaries saying this is Shostakovich's "Stalin" symphony, but *there are also many that refute that idea*. For me, #7 and #8 sound more like his "Stalin" symphonies (rather than "Nazi/invasion" symphonies) - because the terror sounds like it comes from within.


What makes people skeptical is the fact that the main documentary evidence cited for the "Stalin scherzo" is Volkov's _Testimony_, a book known to be fraudulent. In this case, however, the Stalin connection is corroborated in another source. Soprano Galina Vishnevskaya, the wife of Rostropovich and a friend of Shostakovich, wrote in her autobiography (_Galina_) that the signature motive in the finale of the Tenth is Shostakovich signing an indictment of Stalin. Given that the music the signature motive cuts off or cancels is the revival of music from the scherzo, this, in light of Vishnevskaya's remarks, supports the contention that the scherzo might indeed be a portrait of Stalin.

Another reason to take this interpretation seriously is that the thematic quotations among movements in Shostakovich's Tenth exactly parallel the cyclic plan of Beethoven's Fifth: Like its model, in the Tenth a theme of the scherzo which is derived from the opening motive of the symphony is reprised in the finale and cut off to signal the final triumph over adversity - "Fate" (reputedly) in Beethoven's case and Stalin in Shostakovich's. Alas, the "struggle with Fate" interpretation of Beethoven's Fifth is based on the writing of Anton Schindler, a scoundrel whose claims are just as dubious and potentially fraudulent as Volkov's. This shouldn't trouble us much, however, since the "Fate" interpretation was broadly accepted, especially in Russia, and it became the archetype and model for optimistic symphonic writing in the aesthetics of "Socialist Realism." Shostakovich and his contemporaries were more or less forced to take it seriously. 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Neo Romanza

Heck148 said:


> I have several of Jarvi's Prokofiev Symphonies - very well recorded by Chandos, decently played, but none of them are first choices for me....Jarvi, imo, is too often rather straight, bland, lacking in drive and drama....the RSNO is good, but it doesn't have the section depth in the winds and brass, and the strings are no match for the Moscow, Leningrad, Chicago, NYPO orchestras...


I disagree. There's plenty of drive in Järvi's performances. I think, if anything, you're just showing your biases here rather than actually listening to what he brings to the musical table. He's an exciting conductor, especially his earlier Chandos and BIS recordings. Have you heard his recording of Sibelius' _Kullervo_ on BIS? If you tell me _that_ performance is bland and lacking in drive, I'd seriously have to ask you whether you were paying attention or not.


----------



## Heck148

Neo Romanza said:


> I disagree. There's plenty of drive in Järvi's performances. I think, if anything, you're just showing your biases here rather than actually listening to what he brings to the musical table. He's an exciting conductor.....


Of course I'm showing my "biases", based upon extensive listening and comparative audition...and yes, i stick to my guns that N. Jarvi is too often providing straight run-thrus, that strike me as well-recorded, decently played, but rather bland, even pedestrian at times....sometimes not, he can be good....
But compare his recording of say, Prokofiev Sym #6 with those of Mravinsky, Ormandy...if you can't hear the difference in drama, flow, drive, then i think you're missing something....yes the RSNO is a good orchestra, but it ain't Philadelphia, or the Leningrad Phil....


----------



## Knorf

If you're going to try to get Heck to admit that there are any performances of anything from British, Austrian, or German orchestras (I think he might be shocked to learn that there are symphony orchestras in France or Italy) that rival, nay, are worthy of being mentined at all compared to the Mightiest Orchestra on Earth, the CSO (mainly under Reiner or Solti), you might as well try to get him to make proper use of ellipses.

Good luck.



ETA: any accusation that Järvi's Shostakovich symphonies are "straight run-throughs" is unmitigated crap. Järvi's Shostakovich isn't quite my favorite, either, but straight run-throughs those recordings certainly are not.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> If you're going to try to get Heck to admit that there are any performances of anything from British, Austrian, or German orchestras....... that rival, nay, are worthy of being mentined at all compared to the Mightiest Orchestra on Earth, the CSO (mainly under Reiner or Solti)......


Come on...i love many orchestras from all over...a lot depends on the repertoire being performed...i post about music and performers that interest me the most.....the VPO, CzechPO, The Russians and English overall, and the LSO and old Philharmonia, especially, are among longtime favorites of mine, and I own many, many recordings of these great ensembles. yes i do like American orchestras - along with CSO, NYPO, Cleveland, Philadelphia, LAPO, SFSO are favorites...



> any accusation that Järvi's Shostakovich symphonies are "straight run-throughs" is unmitigated crap. Järvi's Shostakovich isn't quite my favorite, either, but straight run-throughs those recordings certainly are not.


Jarvi seemed to record everything for awhile, and i sometimes wonder how much preparation time he had available ...I've not heard a lot of his Shostakovich but i do have his complete Prokofiev symphonies, and it is a good set. In comparison to some others [Mravinsky, Ormandy, Rozh'sky] tho, it does sound pretty straight. Järvi's repertoire was certainly widespread!!


----------



## golfer72

Neo Romanza said:


> I disagree. There's plenty of drive in Järvi's performances. I think, if anything, you're just showing your biases here rather than actually listening to what he brings to the musical table. He's an exciting conductor, especially his earlier Chandos and BIS recordings. Have you heard his recording of Sibelius' _Kullervo_ on BIS? If you tell me _that_ performance is bland and lacking in drive, I'd seriously have to ask you whether you were paying attention or not.


Ive always thought BIS was one of the best sounding labels as well


----------



## Heck148

Shostakovich's Sym #11 is often maligned, regarded as a lesser effort by the composer…but I disagree, I think it is a fine work, probably the last in the composer's "war-time" influence works….maybe this is the big triumphant war-time victory symphony that the authorities awaited?? It is labelled "The Year 1905", but the format, and expressive range of the work certainly fit into the composer's war-time scenario….
The first movement is a long, brooding, Adagio, filled with a foreboding, a premonition of things to come…there is a an oft-repeated chant-like motif that recurs throughout - reminiscent of the Orthodox chant-like melody that Tchaikovsky used in the slow mvt of Sym #3…
Violence bursts forth in movement 2!! One of DS' longest "fast" movements….the fury mounts, takes a short breather, then returns with even more force…supposedly, this would depict the violence and disruption of the 1905 riots, but could certainly represent any one of many such eruptions in the Russian experience during the 20th century…
This leads to the long "song" of movement 3 - this to me, is the most "Brucknerian" movement in Shostakovich's symphonic oeuvre - a sustained, poignant melody that sings forth thru the orchestra - formally very straight ahead - all 4 and 8 bar phrases. IMO, the most beautiful movement in DS's symphonies...this builds gradually, in true Bruckner fashion - eventually reaching a shattering climax, before its quiet denouement….
The finale is the "triumph" - a martial theme exploding right from the start...this driving momentum pushed forward to one climax after another…eventually, it rests, temporarily, for a long English horn solo, of marathon dimensions….[Sym #8 has a long one, too]….but the respite is over, the bass clarinet re-introduces the stormy music, and the work comes to a rousing, noisy conclusion…..

Recordings reviewed:

Stokowski/HoustonSO [[4/58, Capitol]
Bychkov/BPO ['87, Philips]
Mravinsky/LenPO ['67, Praga]
Bychkov/CSO ['96, CSO broadcast tape]

These are all good performances - Bychkov/BPO is well-played, well-recorded…the solo work is good, but the big climaxes lack power, at least relative to some others….his CSO broadcast is very good, but the sound is an issue - the brass and percussion are too recessed thru the first couple of movements….they seemed to correct this for the finale…but the sound is an issue for me….Stokowski/Houston is a fine performance, regarded as a sound spectacular when issued, and indeed, the sound is striking…a bit boomy, perhaps - but there is excellent solo work [esp English horn, bassoon, trumpet, horn], and the orchestra plays very well…this is still a strong contender - however, as good as Houston sounds, it does not match:

Mravinsky/LenPO -
this one is a GREAT recording!! We hear the great Leningrad Phil in top form - terrific solo work, section work is superb, the strings are rich, resonant, rough and raucous when necessary, this applies to the whole orchestra!! - the sonic wallop at the big climaxes is stunning!! As always with these Mravinsky recordings, the sound is up close, "in your face". I always feel as if the microphones are placed about 10-12 feet above the podium, so you're getting the "conductor's ear" perspective of the orchestral sound. I wonder if the same team recorded these Mravinsky live performances, using the same setup, and then the state licensed them out for distribution?? I believe that Mravinsky studio recordings ended in the early 60s, everything after is "live" [??]. The whole recording industry in Russia during this period [50s-60s] can be quite convoluted and confusing…anyway - the orchestral balance is excellent - a Mravinsky specialty - and he and his Leningrad colleagues sell this work as I've never heard before….It is a very fine symphony, huge in scale…If you're looking for a fresh, or new view on Shostakovich #11 - this one is highly recommended….


----------



## Knorf

I rather like the Eleventh and always have. In addition to those that Heck mentions, Haitink, Bychkov with WDR (much better imo than Barshai with the same orchestra), and Kondrashin are high on my list.


----------



## Aries

I recently discovered some recordings of Vasily Petrenko and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic. He conducts the Shostakovich symphonies in a lyrical and colorful way, what is very interesting because Shostakovich often sounds rhythmically intense but in soviet-modernist uniform colors.

I recently also heard Shostakovich's Symphony No. 12 a lot. The first movement is something special, 12 minutes of perfection. Mravinsky understands it the best imo with a lot of forwards momentum and intensity: 




Another remarkable recording is The Song of the Forests conducted by Paavo Järvi. It is gorgeous, lyrical, clear, with powerful brasses and great sound quality:


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> I rather like the Eleventh and always have. In addition to those that Heck mentions, Haitink, Bychkov with WDR (much better imo than Barshai with the same orchestra), and Kondrashin are high on my list.


I've been looking for the Kondrashin recordings...he's quite dependable, to say the least!!


----------



## Heck148

I think with #12, Shostakovich may have stayed with the "war-time" format one symphony too long...it seems disjointed, lacks flow...the finale, to me, is too long, bombastic and overdone...DS soon switched to a different symphonic format with #13.


----------



## Knorf

For me, Shostakovich's Thirteenth is his greatest symphonic achievement.

The Twelfth, however ... well, I've tried. There are long stretches I really like, mainly in the first three movements. But then...

RAH RAH LENIN HE'S SO GREAT

No, thanks. I think I might be done with it.


----------



## Kiki

Heck148 said:


> Shostakovich's Sym #11 ….


Great post, Heck!

Shostakovich did not write a victory symphony for winning WWII when he had the opportunity with #9 & #10. Then with #11, he finally wrote a sort-of victory symphony, but to commemorate the Russian Revolution instead. Surely he was walking on a tightrope, but he might have done just enough to avoid (further) infuriating the authority, as there were still tangible political values of this symphony for the authority; while the anti-soviet fraction outside the USSR also got really excited about the speculation of its association with the anti-soviet Hungarian Uprising. Bah humbug!

With #12, The speculation is that he might have been pressured into writing another victory symphony as he had become a party member; and people got excited again because 1) they could bash it because it was considered pro-authority, and 2) since it was considered inferior by some, they wanted to believe that he was not keen on writing it etc. etc.

Whether one believes any of these extra-musical speculations or those "authoritative/authentic" eye-witnesses who told these stories is another matter. Most of these are probably nonsense.

Putting these speculations aside - #11 is like an epic historical movie that had great commercial success, while #12 is like a sequel that was made with commercial success as the only goal but it flopped.

--

And here's tonight's episode of The Pedantic Detective (I suspect you might be expecting this by now) - There are two surviving recordings of Shostakovich #12 from Mravinsky, 1957-11-03 Live and 1959-02-02 Studio.

Praga has produced three CD releases: PR 254016.19 (a 4-CD set that contains Vol. 3 PR 254018), PR 256018 and PR 7254018. I have not got any of these Praga releases to verify, but all discographies I checked said although they claimed to be 1967 Live, they are in fact the 1959 Studio recording. The DSCH Journal even explicitly said audience noise was added. (I suspect these Praga releases could have come from a recording of a broadcast in 1967 of the 1959 Studio recording, but this is no more than a suspicion; as I know Praga did get us, and themselves, confused with exactly such a scenario with other recordings.)

--

And about Mravinsky's studio recordings - it is true that he did not make any studio recordings after 1961. However, after 1961, apart from live recordings, there are several "one-take" dress rehearsal recordings that survived. Some of these are video productions with quite deliberate camera work. They are official, not pirates. Therefore, there are in fact "non-live" recordings after 1961! Exasperating!

--

Both Mravinsky recordings of #12 are excellent. So is Stokowski's 1958 Houston. There is also a Stokowski 1958 live Moscow recording, which pushes even harder. Just brilliant! However, to be honest, I more often listen to modern recordings of #12 from the likes of Petrenko and Jurowski… because, while they are also good, they have far superior sound, which is important when the music blows the roof off!


----------



## GraemeG

I played in my community Orchestra in a performance of Shost 11 a few years ago.
Staggering experience.
A symphony littered with machine guns and corpses.
But are the guns the Czar's or Stalin's?
It is a great symphony though - in his top 3 for me.


----------



## Heck148

#12 just doesn't make it for me...i think he just ran out of gas (ideas) for this one...i have a Mravinsky/LenPO/Praga 4/30/84 - "LIVE" Leningrad PO Large Hall, so the booklet says...they certainly play the piece, but it doesn't sell to me...
DS certainly had not shot his symphonic wad with this misfire...he just changed modes - #s 13 - 15 are extraordinary....


----------



## Kiki

Heck148 said:


> #12 just doesn't make it for me...i think he just ran out of gas (ideas) for this one...i have a Mravinsky/LenPO/Praga 4/30/84 - "LIVE" Leningrad PO Large Hall, so the booklet says...they certainly play the piece, but it doesn't sell to me...
> DS certainly had not shot his symphonic wad with this misfire...he just changed modes - #s 13 - 15 are extraordinary....


There is a Praga Mravinsky/Shosty #12 that claimed 1984? I did not know this release.

Heck, please do me a favour. What is the disc number? I'd like to research it for my Mravinsky discography. Thanks.

All the Praga Mravinsky/Shosty #12 releases that I know are the same 1961 Studio recording, incidentally his last studio recording, which some Praga releases incorrectly claimed 1962 instead.


----------



## HerbertNorman

GraemeG said:


> I played in my community Orchestra in a performance of Shost 11 a few years ago.
> Staggering experience.
> A symphony littered with machine guns and corpses.
> But are the guns the Czar's or Stalin's?
> It is a great symphony though - in his top 3 for me.


I have to agree Graeme, I saw the LPO play it live a few years ago and I was taken aback. It is a great , great work!

Now I have got the Leningrad Symphony to look forward to next year! This doesn't make my top three , but I have only seen it live once before...


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> There is a Praga Mravinsky/Shosty #12 that claimed 1984? I did not know this release.
> 
> Heck, please do me a favour. What is the disc number? I'd like to research it for my Mravinsky discography. Thanks.


Ooops!! my bad - my Mravinsky Shost #12 is an ERATO disc, not Praga....the disc wrappings look very similar...I wasn't looking at the actual disc when I posted - 
It is ERATO 2292-45754-2 - recorded _30/04/84_

Hope this helps...


----------



## Kiki

Heck148 said:


> Ooops!! my bad - my Mravinsky Shost #12 is an ERATO disc, not Praga....the disc wrappings look very similar...I wasn't looking at the actual disc when I posted -
> It is ERATO 2292-45754-2 - recorded _30/04/84_
> 
> Hope this helps...


No problem. Thanks for info. I know this Erato. (By the way, I have seen releases of this recording from other labels stating 4/28, 4/29 or 4/30! :lol


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> No problem. Thanks for info. I know this Erato. (By the way, I have seen releases of this recording from other labels stating 4/28, 4/29 or 4/30! :lol


I've read someplace that Mravinsky/LenPO recorded for the state label MELODIYA - then I guess these recordings were licensed out to various distributors for release in the West...since many of these recordings have a similar sound quality [not all, but the better ones] I'm thinking that the same recording team was used to record the different live performances[??]

That would be consistent with many of the Western labels - Decca/London, RCA, CBS ,DG often had the same teams recording the same orchestras...they'd be familiar with the venues, the concert halls, etc...

I may start a thread on "Russian orchestras" - I know that the major cities and theaters had their own orchestras - Leningrad, Moscow, Bolshoi Theater, Mariinsky Theater, etc....

But the Russians were always putting together "ad hoc" orchestras for recording and touring - the roster of these ensembles is extensive and a bit perplexing: [from Arkiv listing]

USSR Cinematographic Orchestra
USSR Ministry of Culture State Symphony Orchestra
USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra
USSR Radio Symphony Orchestra
USSR Radio/TV Large Symphony Orchestra
USSR Radio/TV Russian Folk Orchestra
USSR State Academic Orchestra
USSR State Academic Symphony Orchestra
USSR State Academy Symphony Orchestra
USSR State Radio Symphony Orchestra
USSR State Radio/TV Orchestra
USSR State Symphony Orchestra
USSR Symphony Orchestra

In my own collection, I have numerous selections from this list....I sometimes wonder if many of these are identical orchestras, just operating under a new moniker??

I remember hearing the USSR State SO [??] when I was in Rochester - we met with the musicians, and - managing to navigate the language barrier to some extent - we learned that many of these orchestras are simply put together by the Soviet state - for touring or recording...the musicians had regular positions with various established city or theater ensembles, and were simply selected to form the new orchestra - rehearsed, and off they went....much like the Soviets did with their Olympic sports teams....you were selected by the powers that be, and sent where they directed...at tours end, the musicians returned to their regular jobs....I don't think this applied to the major orchestras like Leningrad or Moscow, but I'm not positive...I think these major groups kept a pretty constant membership, but again, I'm not certain of this...I would love to learn about the personnel management, contracting procedures practiced in the Soviet Union during this period. Not sure if this info is even available.

The other thing we learned from the Russian bassoonists and oboists was that good cane for reeds was really tough to come by behind the Iron Curtain....the "Commissar for Musical Supplies" or whatever he was called, knew nothing about cane, reeds or anything else - something crude resembling popsicle sticks was provided for the 2ble reed players, and they were expected to make the best of it....when we offered some good French cane, the bassoonists were most grateful and enthusiastic recipients!!


----------



## Kiki

Heck148 said:


> I've read someplace that Mravinsky/LenPO recorded for the state label MELODIYA ...


Mravinsky's studio and live recordings made in Russia were (almost) certainly made by Melodiya.

The only studio recordings that I can think of that were made outside of Russia are DG's two sets of Tchaikovsky. The recording team of the 1956 set have German names. My copy of the 1960 set does not list the recording team so I have no idea. Having German names does not imply they were or were not Melodiya employees. However, these DG recordings have never been released by Melodiya, so they probably are owned by DG and recorded by DG's recording team.

Live recordings outside Russia are a different matter. They were recorded all over Europe and Japan, and were often radio broadcasts produced by local radios, and again most have been released by many labels but NOT Melodiya. Therefore I suppose Melodiya probably have nothing to do with these recordings.

--

Substitute Moscow for USSR and we can double the size of your list of orchestras.... :lol:

Seriously I think some are "real" orchestras going by different names at different times. Although I have no idea how "permanent" their orchestra members are.

E.g.
USSR State Radio and Television Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra
Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra 
Grand Symphony Orchestra of Radio and Television
or
USSR State Symphony Orchestra
State Academic Symphony Orchestra of Russia 'Evgeny Svetlanov'
Russian State Symphony Orchestra

But some others...

Their names do sound rather woolly. :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> Substitute Moscow for USSR and we can double the size of your list of orchestras.... :lol:
> Seriously I think some are "real" orchestras going by different names at different times. Although I have no idea how "permanent" their orchestra members are.


Oh, yeah, when you get into the "Moscow" listings, it becomes astronomical:

Moscow Baroque Soloists
Moscow Chamber Academy
Moscow Chamber Orchestra
Moscow Classical Ballet Orchestra
Moscow Classical Ensemble
Moscow Conservatory Chamber Orchestra
Moscow Conservatory Instrumental Ensemble
Moscow Conservatory Students Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Conservatory Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Conservatory Symphony Orchestra members
Moscow Contemporary Music Ensemble
Moscow Orchestra
Moscow Philharmonia Orchestra
Moscow Philharmonic Chamber Ensemble
Moscow Philharmonic members
Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra
Moscow Philharmonic Society Soloists
Moscow Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Radio & TV Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Radio Symphony Orchestra Soloists Ensemble
Moscow Radio Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Radio Variety Orchestra
Moscow Radio/TV Symphony Orchestra
Moscow State Philharmonic Orchestra
Moscow State Philharmonic Society Symphony Orchestra
Moscow State Radio and Television Symphony Orchestra
Moscow State Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Symphony Orchestra
Moscow Virtuosi Chamber Orchestra
Moscow Youth Symphony Orchestra

I'm guessing that many of these USSR/Moscow orchestras are pickup, select orchestras organized for touring and/or recording - with members selected from "regular", permanent orchestras for the particular project. Some or many of them may be virtually identical, just under different names [??].This would be consistent with the info we got from the USSR StateSO members we spoke to post-concert.
The US equivalent would be something like the Columbia SOs, or RCA Victor SOs that were formed to record for Walter, Stokowski, Reiner, Stravinsky, Kondrashin, Bernstein, etc....
The English also have had such ensembles - London Festival Orchestra, National Philharmonic, London Classical, London Session Orch, etc, etc - in fact, there are more "London" listings than there are "Moscow"!!
I'm wondering if the Russian orchestral scene was similar to the English/London or NYC scene - a veritable potpourri of musicians performing with all sorts of regular season orchestras, and a myriad of pickup groups [??]


----------



## Vasks

Heck148 said:


> The other thing we learned from the Russian bassoonists and oboists was that good cane for reeds was really tough to come by behind the Iron Curtain....


Sorry to go off on a tangent, but a year or two ago a friend of mine who traveled to Cuba as part of an ambassador jazz ensemble told me about how the Cuban musicians that attended their concerts were hard up for parts, valve oil, etc, so he and his fellow band members gave the Cubans supplies as much as they could


----------



## Heck148

Vasks said:


> Sorry to go off on a tangent, but a year or two ago a friend of mine who traveled to Cuba as part of an ambassador jazz ensemble told me about how the Cuban musicians that attended their concerts were hard up for parts, valve oil, etc, so he and his fellow band members gave the Cubans supplies as much as they could


Yes, I believe it!! access to decent equipment and supplies was a real challenge for the musicians living in these nations...it's amazing they are/were able to achieve such great results given this most basic handicap. Those Russian bassoonists virtually fell all over us in gratitude for a few pieces of good cane...


----------



## Snowbrain

I haven't looked through all the posts in this thread yet so I don't know if this one has been mentioned (it probably has) but as for a "powerhouse" Shostakovich performance, nothing beats Von Karajan's BPO's Shostakovich 10th, it'll knock your socks off... power to spare as the great BPO blows the roof off on this one:








The other powerhouse Shostakovich performance for me is the Haitink Chicago SO's version of the 4th on CSO Resound which comes with a fascinating DVD entitled "Beyond the Score: Is Music Dangerous?"... definitely another barn burner of a reading of this powerful work of art:


----------



## Heck148

Snowbrain said:


> I haven't looked through all the posts in this thread yet so I don't know if this one has been mentioned (it probably has) but as for a "powerhouse" Shostakovich performance, nothing beats Von Karajan's BPO's Shostakovich 10th, .....


I did consider this one...it's good, one of Karajan's better efforts, but doesn't match the top ones - Mravinsky and Solti are really powerful, excellent, but Stokowski/CSO is the best I've heard, live recording, really incredible


> The other powerhouse Shostakovich performance for me is the Haitink Chicago SO's version of the 4th on CSO Resound...


Yes, this one is very fine, and it's in my top 4 for this fascinating work....my top picks are Previn/CSO, and Kondrashin/MoscowPO...but Haitink/CSO and Rozh'sky/USSR are terrific as well.


----------

