# Shostakovich: One of the Greats or One of the Also-Rans



## MagneticGhost

When I was growing up - I took Shostakovich's place in the pantheon of greats as read. I saw his name on album sleeves next to other big musical names. His music was commonly scheduled on the programmes of big name orchestras and performers. We studied him at school and at University. His music was wonderful to me. I think I 'discovered' him for myself in my late teens. My dad had played me his piano concerto's and some other pieces which I've forgotten now. But it was when I played his 5th Symphony with my youth orchestra that I was hooked and my admiration for his music has never really lessened despite the fact that I don't listen to him so much anymore.

Then I joined Talk Classical and find that his greatness has been much overstated and he's not really that good after all. A traditionalist with poor compositional skills and only of worth to those who don't appreciate more cutting edge contemporary music. (Tongue firmly in cheek)

OK - so I'm exaggerating. But Shostakovich does seem to have some high profile detractors. I'm not criticising their right to have this view. Just wondered how prevalent it is. Whether there is a sea-change in attitudes to Shosty. Has his time come and gone? 

Shall I add a Poll?


----------



## elgar's ghost

I love Shostakovich's music but I will be the first to admit that the kind of intelligent dissecting of his compositional expertise as recently seen on this forum can be quite healthy in maintaining a measured perspective of his flaws when set against his achievements. It might be said that Shosters wrote much music which could be considered banal if not downright vulgar but the fact remains that I continue to find myself being beguiled or, at the very least, entertained by the vast majority of it.

The Cult of Shostakovich may not be what it was, but I'm sure he will survive.


----------



## KenOC

Dmitri's a big boy. I'm sure he can take whatever anybody around here throws at him!


----------



## Guest

My only connection with his music was from a recommendation to get his string quartets as I was a fan of Bartok's. I got a box set of them but after persisting with them I finally had to admit I was mostly bored by them and the box set was duly recycled. Not great for me.


----------



## violadude

Well, I wouldn't say that Shostakovich was a talentless hack or anything like that. But I also think it's way of an overstatement when people claim him as the last great composer (or sometimes the last great symphonist). I think when people claim this it causes a lot of backlash because people who love later composers feel a little discredited or something like that.

I think Shostakovich was a talented composer who sadly felt the need to write a lot of crap. He has some great compositons on his belt, but the inconsistency in his writing keeps me from thinking of him as one of the all time greats or however you want to label it. Still, I value his contributions to music for what they are.


----------



## Dim7

dogen said:


> My only connection with his music was from a recommendation to get his string quartets as I was a fan of Bartok's. I got a box set of them but after persisting with them I finally had to admit I was mostly bored by them and the box set was duly recycled. Not great for me.


If you think enjoyment is the purpose of classical music you're completely missing the point, which is to ennoble your spirit by enduring boredom. Get those Shosta quartets back.


----------



## dgee

Round where I live there's a lot less Shostakovich than there was ten years ago (when there was a lot - and stuff like Symphony 8, 11, 12, 15 whereas now it's 5 and 10 and that's about it) - so maybe his popularity is waning. I see a growing focus on more colourful orchestral works - Mahler, Strauss, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Pictures, La Mer - so maybe the shine is coming off the grey noodling now we step a bit further away from the Cold War? I suppose there'll always be a market for it, but perhaps Shos is fading a bit?


----------



## Dim7

7th symphony has some cool moments (the LOUD EPIC stuff) among really boring (the quiet parts) parts, the fast movements of 8th SQ are fun and the rest three movements are good wrist-slitting music. Everything else I've heard from Shostakovich has largely bored me.


----------



## KenOC

dgee said:


> ...so maybe the shine is coming off the grey noodling now we step a bit further away from the Cold War? I suppose there'll always be a market for it, but perhaps Shos is fading a bit?


My impression is that his popularity has been growing since the end of the cold war. Maybe people can more easily listen to his music sans politics now. Certainly the flow of new complete cycles of his symphonies and quartets has been quite healthy. And the statistics for the current US orchestral season show his music being programmed a lot. The number of times a work by each composer was programmed by a major US orchestra in the current season:

Shostakovich -38 times
Prokofiev - 37 times
Bartok - 23 times


----------



## Woodduck

If a composer should be valued primarily with reference to his best work, then Shostakovich was one of the "greats." Consensus is that his work is quite uneven in quality, for various reasons, and that has to knock him down a rung on the "greatness" ladder. Personally, I can live without most of what he wrote, but that's neither here nor there.

There's some striking, beautiful, terrible, bitter, dark, powerful, very _human_ music there, along with (or mixed with) that "other" stuff (whatever stuff that is for you). In all, a potent artist. He won't fade away.


----------



## Saintbert

The reason I always come back to Shostakovich is that he leaves me wondering. Things like: Is the thing he's saying the same thing I'm hearing? But never whether he was any good.


----------



## Bulldog

MagneticGhost said:


> Then I joined Talk Classical and find that his greatness has been much overstated and he's not really that good after all. A traditionalist with poor compositional skills and only of worth to those who don't appreciate more cutting edge contemporary music. (Tongue firmly in cheek)
> 
> OK - so I'm exaggerating. But Shostakovich does seem to have some high profile detractors. I'm not criticising their right to have this view. Just wondered how prevalent it is. Whether there is a sea-change in attitudes to Shosty. Has his time come and gone?


All composers have detractors, especially composers that are well-known. Best not to pay any attention to those who dump on composers. Also, it's good to keep in mind that the criticism of Shostakovich ramped up greatly when ArtMusic declared Shostakovich the last great composer.

Regardless, Shostakovich is one of my favorite composers, and no amount of criticism will change that fact.


----------



## KenOC

I don't feel that clinkers lower the value of a composer. It's the good ones that count and will stay with us and be remembered. Was Beethoven's value diminished by Wellington's Victory, The Glorious Moment, his many (and mostly forgotten) songs, and a few others?

In the case of Shostakovich, at least half his symphonies are "permanent." Who else can claim that many symphonies in the canon in the last hundred years? Most of his quartets, his Trio #2, his Piano Quintet, his Op. 87 Preludes and Fugues, over half (at least) of his six concertos... Not sure what I'm leaving out, but I can certainly forgive Dmitri for some "unevenness."


----------



## Saintbert

KenOC said:


> In the case of Shostakovich, at least half his symphonies are "permanent." Who else can claim that many symphonies in the canon in the last hundred years? Most of his quartets, his Trio #2, his Piano Quintet, his Op. 87 Preludes and Fugues, over half (at least) of his six concertos... Not sure what I'm leaving out, but I can certainly forgive Dmitri for some "unevenness."


That's a fine listing... I just can't help adding that several of his orchestral songs, such as the suite on the poems of Michelangelo or the 6 Poems of Marina Tsvetaeva, are unique and worth mentioning, too.


----------



## AnotherSpin

For me his music is inseparable from Stalinism. It is main reason of attraction and aversion at the same time. It might be he expressed the suffocating essence of his time and place more that any other composer in 20th century.


----------



## KenOC

Saintbert said:


> That's a fine listing... I just can't help adding that several of his orchestral songs, such as the suite on the poems of Michelangelo or the 6 Poems of Marina Tsvetaeva, are unique and worth mentioning, too.


I'm sure you're right. I didn't mention those because I'm not much of a fan of vocal music, and that includes DSCH. I'm sure some would add "The Execution of Stepan Razin."

To my own list I'll add DSCH's sole tone poem "October," which seems little known, the Festive Overture (which is heard all the time), and of course the Cello Sonata. Two of these were written for State functions, which was his job after all, and neither is a clinker.


----------



## violadude

Bulldog said:


> All composers have detractors, especially composers that are well-known. Best not to pay any attention to those who dump on composers. Also, it's good to keep in mind that the criticism of Shostakovich ramped up greatly when ArtMusic declared Shostakovich the last great composer.
> 
> Regardless, Shostakovich is one of my favorite composers, and no amount of criticism will change that fact.


Meh, I find this "Haters gonna hate" attitude toward everything these days a little troubling. Sure, some people are only there to "hate on" certain composers. But when someone has a well thought out criticism of a composer isn't that worth listening to? Is all critiquing just invalid hatred? Isn't that how we grow in our positions, by exposing ourselves to counter-opinions?

I don't know, I just think when people shut themselves in echo chambers it's not good for their development.


----------



## ArtMusic

DS was certainly one of the last great composers of the 20th century. I did a poll on this not long ago. 

Considering he composed his work under duress, needed no gimmicks, no conceptual philosophy - no nonsense, did not appear on TV to do music shows, he wrote music, just that, music.


----------



## Albert7

No need for a poll honestly.

Shostabear was a great composer but rather inconsistent. I prefer his cello concertos and string quartets over his symphonies. I think that Symphonies 13-15 I enjoy the best .

And the Jazz Suite is a fun piece but nothing particularly profound to me there.


----------



## Prodromides

MagneticGhost said:


> Whether there is a sea-change in attitudes to Shosty. Has his time come and gone?


Not being familiar with the term "also-ran" (is that a British expression?), I nonetheless maintain that DS's time has come and gone. Perhaps the phrase "has-been" applies here?

And - yes- as the decades move onwards, generations of folks who never grew up with the promotion of Shosty's greatness will question (and have questioned) his former status in this regard.


----------



## Triplets

KenOC said:


> Dmitri's a big boy. I'm sure he can take whatever anybody around here throws at him!


If he could outlive Stalin, his reputation will survive his detractors on TC


----------



## Triplets

violadude said:


> Meh, I find this "Haters gonna hate" attitude toward everything these days a little troubling. Sure, some people are only there to "hate on" certain composers. But when someone has a well thought out criticism of a composer isn't that worth listening to? Is all critiquing just invalid hatred? Isn't that how we grow in our positions, by exposing ourselves to counter-opinions?
> 
> I don't know, I just think when people shut themselves in echo chambers it's not good for their development.


 He wasn't perfect. Not everything he wrote was a masterpiece, and even some of his masterworks could have benefited from a little editing (I would add that imo this could be said about certain works of Mahler and Bruckner as well).
Certainly reasoned discussion is a good thing. Some of the posters here have not been so reasonable about DSCH and are more into spilling bile (some of them are apparently ex TC Members, as well).


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> If a composer should be valued primarily with reference to his best work, then Shostakovich was one of the "greats." Consensus is that his work is quite uneven in quality, for various reasons, and that has to knock him down a rung on the "greatness" ladder. Personally, I can live without most of what he wrote, but that's neither here nor there.


Well said. I see no reason to disagree here. If consistency is a qualifier, leave Shosty at the door. If not, bring him on in.


----------



## KenOC

Prodromides said:


> And - yes- as the decades move onwards, generations of folks who never grew up with the promotion of Shosty's greatness will question (and have questioned) his former status in this regard.


When I grew up, there was certainly no "promotion" of DSCH's greatness. His music was seldom heard, though you might hear the 5th sometimes and rarely the 1st (Ormandy's recording I think). The 7th had mostly sunk out of sight by that time. Shostakovich was generally shunned in the west as a Party stooge who wrote bloated bureaucratic music for an evil and bloated bureaucracy. It was not until Volkov's "Testimony" was published in 1979 that his image began to change (rightly or wrongly). And in my book, that wasn't a very long time ago.

Since that time it's pretty obvious that his popularity has been growing very substantially, as noted a few posts ago. As to what the future holds...who knows? But I'd put my money on a VERY substantial number of DSCH works remaining in the permanent repertoire and not losing their welcome.


----------



## Vaneyes

It disturbs me when Shostakovich is painted as a bad guy, and "consensus" says he's not a great composer. Over and out of this thread, gladly


----------



## elgar's ghost

Prodromides said:


> Not being familiar with the term "also-ran" (is that a British expression?)...
> 
> 
> 
> Horseracing jargon - it means finishing somewhere down the field rather than, say, the first three.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bulldog

violadude said:


> Meh, I find this "Haters gonna hate" attitude toward everything these days a little troubling. Sure, some people are only there to "hate on" certain composers. But when someone has a well thought out criticism of a composer isn't that worth listening to?


Once is enough. Here on TC, the same criticisms are made over and over again. By the way, it's not just Shostakovich.


----------



## arpeggio

Vaneyes said:


> It disturbs me when Shostakovich is painted as a bad guy, and "consensus" says he's not a great composer. Over and out of this thread, gladly


I agree. I still have difficulty with those who think that Shostakovich is the last great composer.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> When I grew up, there was certainly no "promotion" of DSCH's greatness. His music was seldom heard, though you might hear the 5th sometimes and rarely the 1st (Ormandy's recording I think). The 7th had mostly sunk out of sight by that time. Shostakovich was generally shunned in the west as a Party stooge who wrote bloated bureaucratic music for an evil and bloated bureaucracy.


I remember that back in the 1950's the Boston Public Library had a nice inventory of Shostakovich recordings. As it happens, I was the sole person who checked out any of the LP's; this went on for many months.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Woodduck said:


> If a composer should be valued primarily with reference to his best work, then Shostakovich was one of the "greats." Consensus is that his work is quite uneven in quality, for various reasons, and that has to knock him down a rung on the "greatness" ladder. Personally, I can live without most of what he wrote, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> There's some striking, beautiful, terrible, bitter, dark, powerful, very _human_ music there, along with (or mixed with) that "other" stuff (whatever stuff that is for you). In all, a potent artist. He won't fade away.


Picasso probably painted more truly atrocious paintings than any other artist in history. In no way does this affect his reputation as an artist because he also painted far more than a fair share of absolutely brilliant paintings.

I agree that Shostakovitch could be erratic. Living under Stalin I wonder how many other composers could have done as well at straddling the line between artistic integrity and pandering to the Soviet demands. I love a good many of his works and find his two operas especially suggestive of just how innovative and audacious he could be... and might have been... under different conditions.


----------



## Woodduck

Ranking composers by "greatness" isn't a wholly useless exercise, and can be a fun sport. But lets admit that personal blind spots afflict the most experienced, sensitive, and educated listeners - composers emphatically among them - and that the greatness of a composer may escape any one of us. Most of the composers we argue about here have achieved things that numbers of us find to be remarkable, while others of us simply can't see them that way. We resort to citing various indicators of greatness, the most obvious of which is popularity over time: are lots of people still listening after a century or two? Well, there must be something there. Those of us with technical knowledge of music point to this or that feature of the music and pronounce judgment on it, on the premise that evaluating pieces and sections of the puzzle can help us see how good it is when completely assembled. These are both useful ways of judging a composer's work. But neither will convince anyone of a composer's greatness if he can't feel it.

I think considered criticism is useful and healthy. We not only learn from it, but we learn how to learn, as well as how to speak. The trick is to keep one eye on the thing we're criticizing, and the other on the internal reactions and processes from which our criticisms arise, remembering the difference between emotional response and informed appraisal, but knowing that, when the subject is that immaterial but potent wonder known as music, appraisal will always be colored, however slightly, by emotion. In the end, the music we loathe is probably better than we think, and the music we love may well be worse than we're capable of realizing. Yet even the terms "better" and "worse" are slippery. There's just no absolute objectivity so long as taste affects judgment, which it always does.

So who can say how great Shostakovich is? I can't. I admit to not caring for much of his music. But he composed a very impressive body of it, it sounds to me like the product of a highly accomplished musical mind, it exhibits extraordinary variety of form and content, some of it affects me strongly, a great many people love it and think it's important, and it keeps getting played and recorded and talked about. I want to hear why people like or dislike it and why they think it is or isn't great. That may or may not affect the way I hear it. But it definitely won't affect its greatness.

Which composers are "great," to the degree to which we can reasonably rate them (and I think we can, to some degree, by a variety of criteria), is often a question of where we draw various lines. If only Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are great, then Shostakovich probably isn't. But why would we want to draw the line there? I'd prefer not to draw that line anywhere too specifically or sharply. That doesn't mean suspending judgment. It just means keeping judgment in its place.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Prodromides said:


> Not being familiar with the term "also-ran" (is that a British expression?), I nonetheless maintain that DS's time has come and gone. Perhaps the phrase "has-been" applies here?
> 
> And - yes- as the decades move onwards, generations of folks who never grew up with the promotion of Shosty's greatness will question (and have questioned) his former status in this regard.


There are currently some 5,300 recordings of Shostakovitch available on Amazon. Not bad for a "has been". Assuredly he's not Mozart (who has some 40,000 plus available) but he actually surpasses Stravinsky by a thousand... and Jean Prodromidès by nearly 5,300. Better a "has-been" than a "never was"?


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> There are currently some 5,300 recordings of Shostakovitch available on Amazon. Not bad for a "has been". Assuredly he's not Mozart (who has some 40,000 plus available) but he actually surpasses Stravinsky by a thousand... and Jean Prodromidès by nearly 5,300. Better a "has-been" than a "never was"?


Given that Stravinsky was not nearly as prolific as Shostakovich (Brilliant's complete set runs 48 discs, about double Stravinsky's entire oeuvre, and I think even that's not quite complete), I'd wager that's not really as telling a statistic as one might imagine.

My own feelings towards Shostakovich's work are mixed. I've heard the vast majority of the major works, know his biography, read Testimony with a grain of salt, studied some of his pieces in relative depth, appreciate his innate talent for fluent composition, but still feel that it's just lacking compared to Prokofiev, Copland, or Bartok, to say nothing of Stravinsky or Schoenberg.


----------



## KenOC

A result of a set of polls elsewhere, best composers of the 20th century (actually 1900-1979):

1 - Shostakovich
2 - Bartok
3 - Mahler
4 - Stravinsky
5 - Sibelius
6 - Prokofiev
7 - Messiaen
8 - Lutoslawski
9 - Ravel
10 - Poulenc

Both numbers of qualifying works and their placements in decade-by-decade listings were considered. Certainly Shostakovich's prolific output, large numbers of "hits," and long career helped.

BTW Stravinsky was programmed 51 times in the USA this season, versus Shostakovich's 38.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Given that Stravinsky was not nearly as prolific as Shostakovich (Brilliant's complete set runs 48 discs, about double Stravinsky's entire oeuvre, and I think even that's not quite complete), I'd wager that's not really as telling a statistic as one might imagine.

Of course. And does popularity equate to artistic merit? Of course not. But if one is to suggest that Shostakovitch' is an all but forgotten "has been" it might do to look at just how forgotten he really is. Of the "big three" Russian composers of the 20th century Shostakovitch used to be my favorite and Stravinsky last. Now I find that I prefer Stravinsky... albeit based on a smaller oeuvre... to say nothing of Mahler, Strauss, Puccini, Ravel, Debussy, and a slew of others.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

BTW Stravinsky was programmed 51 times in the USA this season, versus Shostakovich's 38.

How many times was it the _Rite, Petrouschka_, or the _Firebird_?


----------



## brotagonist

I can't believe I'm writing this 

I only really came to love Shostakovich about 3-4 years ago and I acquired all of the standard works: complete symphonies, complete string quartets, complete concertos, some sonatas and a few other works. I was pretty wild about all of it. Now that the dust has settled and I am starting to revisit a lot of these acquisitions (my ongoing play-the-entire-collection project), I am finding that I still love him a lot and I like the way he thinks, but there was a bit of stuff in there, particularly among the symphonies, that isn't quite up to the standard of the rest of it. He can be repetitive and long-winded.


----------



## KenOC

StlukesguildOhio said:


> BTW Stravinsky was programmed 51 times in the USA this season, versus Shostakovich's 38.
> 
> How many times was it the _Rite, Petrouschka_, or the _Firebird_?


27 of the 51 are other than his "Big Three."


----------



## KenOC

Here's a fascinating essay on Shostakovich from Richard Taruskin, in the guise of a New Republic book review. Kind of long but well worth reading.

"The awful thought seized me that they [the Russian audience] valued this music, which I had been taught to despise, more highly than I valued any music, and that Shostakovich meant more to his society (and their society) than any composer meant to my society. For the first time there occurred to me, half-formed, the unbearable suspicion that the ways of listening to music and thinking about music that had been instilled in me and all my peers at home were impoverished ways."

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/double-trouble


----------



## senza sordino

I have always been a big fan of Shostakovich, just check my current listening posts since I joined. I admit too that his output can be inconsistent, I have my favorite pieces and some I listen to very infrequently only because they're on the same CD as something else. 

As I age, however, I'm less inclined to like the bombastic stuff, I'm no longer interesting in being hit on the head repeatedly by the hammer and sickle. And my 20th Century music tastes are expanding, so Shostakovich now sometimes gets second billing. Still love most of his music though.


----------



## Morimur

I was a ravenous fan of Shostakovich's music from my mid to late twenties. As my palate evolved, my taste for his music decreased and I rarely revisit his work anymore-what for? Mind numbing repetition? Banal themes? The list goes on and on. Quality and good taste cannot be faked. Shostakovich's music is mostly pedestrian with minor flashes of brilliance, and there's plenty of _better_ material elsewhere. Bartók, anyone?


----------



## Celloman

My hope is that we judge composers not on their failures, but rather their accomplishments. Shostakovich was inconsistent, I'll grant you, but how many other composers have a claim to that fault? Even Beethoven wrote a stinker once in a while.

I will always remember Shosty as the composer of two cello concertos, two violin concertos, fifteen string quartets, a piano quintet, Lady Macbeth, and symphonies #5 and #10. I probably won't remember him for his 12th symphony, but who cares? His best work is _very_ good, and this makes him as good as the best in my book.


----------



## brotagonist

Celloman said:


> My hope is that we judge composers not on their failures, but rather their accomplishments. Shostakovich was inconsistent, I'll grant you, but how many other composers have a claim to that fault? Even Beethoven wrote a stinker once in a while.
> 
> I will always remember Shosty as the composer of two cello concertos, two violin concertos, fifteen string quartets, a piano quintet, Lady Macbeth, and symphonies #5 and #10. I probably won't remember him for his 12th symphony, but who cares? His best work is _very_ good, and this makes him as good as the best in my book.


I definitely agree and it was exactly the 12th that I was thinking of when I wrote Post #37, since I just listened to it yesterday... and it's not that I don't like it, since I do rather like the militaristic stuff he did, but, after the 11th, the 12th just wasn't all that much, but he sure made up for it with the 13th, the 14th and the 15th!


----------



## arpeggio

Celloman said:


> My hope is that we judge composers not on their failures, but rather their accomplishments. Shostakovich was inconsistent, I'll grant you, but how many other composers have a claim to that fault? Even Beethoven wrote a stinker once in a while.


This is a point many of us have tried to make on many occasions. Shostakovich is no more consistent or inconsistent than any other great composer. Even those composers that we deify have composed their share of commercial garbage.


----------



## science

arpeggio said:


> This is a point many of us have tried to make on many occasions. Shostakovich is no more consistent or inconsistent than any other great composer. Even those composers that we deify have composed their share of commercial garbage.


Why _commercial_ garbage? Why not just garbage?

We have a disagreement here about the nature of commerce and art. Almost all the art, music, literature, whatever that we have ever appreciated has been commercial to one degree or another. Granted, some of it was for nobles, who were usually above grubby words like "commercial." But remuneration is remuneration, no matter how elite the hands that pass it out - no matter how much coercion was involved in its original accumulation!

On the other hand, garbage is garbage, commercial or not.


----------



## arpeggio

Really science. You are going to critique me because I said "commercial garbage" instead of just "garbage"? 

Give me a break.


----------



## science

arpeggio said:


> Really science. You are going to critique me because I said "commercial garbage" instead of just "garbage"?
> 
> Give me a break.


It's not a personal thing; I'm not critiquing you. We have a disagreement.

Edit: That particular issue pushes some of my buttons, so I hope you'll reconsider your ideas about commerce and art. That's all.

More Edit: I'm sorry that you felt critiqued. I didn't mean to make you feel that way.


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> I don't feel that clinkers lower the value of a composer. It's the good ones that count and will stay with us and be remembered. Was Beethoven's value diminished by Wellington's Victory, The Glorious Moment, his many (and mostly forgotten) songs, and a few others?


Beethoven's songs are pretty good, imo--and so are Shosty's!

The recent album with Gerald Finley and Thomas Sanderling is worth hearing, btw. The songs are sung in English and Italian, so more of us will be able to understand them!


----------



## AnotherSpin

Woodduck said:


> So who can say how great Shostakovich is? I can't.


 We should agree what is "great" before we start glueing the label.

I grew up surrounded by Shostakovich music. There was only one TV channel in Brezhnev USSR, one all-country radio channel with 5-minutes news + 25-minutes music blocks, and so-called "tochka" - a kind of radio receiver installed in every home which was receiving a line signal and was assigned for informing, propagating ideas and time-measuring every-day life of people. Shostakovich was one of the few permitted composers. Tchaikovsky from pre-revolution, Shostakovich (and Prokofiev + Khachaturjan in less extent) from after-revolution times. The music of those very few was everyday and everywhere. No documentary or TV program about so-called Great Patriotic War (this was absolute viewers sympathy winner in USSR and still is in Putin's Russia), about "industrialization" or "collectivization" was imaginable without Shostakovich music. Major news everyday program was starting with minor communist composer Sviridov theme (substituted with Prokofiev's later).

Every great tyranny deserves someone capable to provide it with proper soundtrack. 20th century Russia had Shostakovich. Third Reich had nobody who succeed adequately.


----------



## Guest

AnotherSpin said:


> We should agree what is "great" before we start glueing the label.
> 
> I grew up surrounded by Shostakovich music. There was only one TV channel in Brezhnev USSR, one all-country radio channel with 5-minutes news + 25-minutes music blocks, and so-called "tochka" - a kind of radio receiver installed in every home which was receiving a line signal and was assigned for informing, propagating ideas and time-measuring every-day life of people. Shostakovich was one of the few permitted composers. Tchaikovsky from pre-revolution, Shostakovich (and Prokofiev + Khachaturjan in less extent) from after-revolution times. The music of those very few was everyday and everywhere. No documentary or TV program about so-called Great Patriotic War (this was absolute viewers sympathy winner in USSR and still is in Putin's Russia), about "industrialization" or "collectivization" was imaginable without Shostakovich music. Major news everyday program was starting with minor communist composer Sviridov theme (substituted with Prokofiev's later).
> 
> Every great tyranny deserves someone capable to provide it with proper soundtrack. 20th century Russia had Shostakovich. Third Reich had nobody who succeed adequately.


Given this experience, what do you think of the music of Shostakovich now then?


----------



## AnotherSpin

dogen said:


> Given this experience, what do you think of the music of Shostakovich now then?


Love/hate. It was my youth, but it was a country in which I do not want to find myself again. The same with his music, it strangely attracts me, but I can not listen it for a prolonged time.


----------



## Guest

AnotherSpin said:


> Love/hate. It was my youth, but it was a country in which I do not want to find myself again. The same with his music, it strangely attracts me, but I can not listen it for a prolonged time.


Thanks. It's a great shame when enjoyment (or not) of artistic endeavour can be so tainted by external factors.


----------



## Nereffid

Some of us are certain that a great composer should not write music that's bad. Then again, some other of us think a great composer can get away with writing bad music as long as he's also written great music.
If only we could agree on what's good and bad music! Then we'd know for certain whether Shostakovich is a great, good, or bad composer.


----------



## Blancrocher

Nereffid said:


> Some of us are certain that a great composer should not write music that's bad. Then again, some other of us think a great composer can get away with writing bad music as long as he's also written great music.


I, on the contrary, am annoyed by composers who _only_ write great music, such as Brahms. It's enough to make me doubt their greatness.


----------



## sharik

wonder by which standard Shost might seem as 'inconsistent' other than his own? Britten or Vaughan, for instance, could only dream to reach that level of 'inconsistancy' Shost left behind. Shostakovitch and then Khatchaturan are the last great composers, hands down; this is all we've got and there's no composers to write masterpieces coming our way in the future, let's face it.


----------



## dgee

I'd have to be convinced Shos wrote some "truely great" music before I were to consider him a great composer. :devil:

Just a thought - what do the big time Shosty fans think of The Nose? I always thought it had a lot of wit, vitality and interest - but no Shos fan ever seems to mention it


----------



## Polyphemus

Nereffid said:


> Some of us are certain that a great composer should not write music that's bad. Then again, some other of us think a great composer can get away with writing bad music as long as he's also written great music.
> If only we could agree on what's good and bad music! Then we'd know for certain whether Shostakovich is a great, good, or bad composer.


Some of us just might be right. But then no composers complete output is 'great'. There are some composers who have written masterpieces but that does not elevate all of their body of work to that level. I would include Shostakovich in this category.


----------



## sharik

the very fact, that there's so much effort spent on belittling the genius of Shostakovitch and ignoring Khatchaturan's, points to an agenda on the part of those who try to fake progress in arts to carry on, while it is absolutely obvious - art is dead these days.


----------



## Blancrocher

sharik said:


> the very fact, that there's so much effort spent on belittling the genius of Shostakovitch and ignoring Khatchaturan's, points to an agenda on the part of those who try to fake progress in arts to carry on, while it is absolutely obvious - art is dead these days.


I could be wrong, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone on this forum disagreeing with this statement.


----------



## quack

Consistency is for porridge.


----------



## dgee

Blancrocher said:


> I could be wrong, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone on this forum disagreeing with this statement.


Is that because they couldn't understand it?


----------



## Blancrocher

dgee said:


> Is that because they couldn't understand it?


I'm not sure. I've seen and enjoyed The Nose, btw, and I think you're wrong to say that the work is never touted on this forum: there's a member named The Nose, after all.


----------



## dgee

Blancrocher said:


> I'm not sure. I've seen and enjoyed The Nose, btw, and I think you're wrong to say that the work is never touted on this forum: there's a member named The Nose, after all.


That member is seriously the closest to a mention I've seen. There's a sense of delight in the craft of writing music that makes it more attractive than much of the other stuff where it seems like he almost shuts up shop and gives up on really writing - haven't listened to it ages but it's on right now (Gergiev) and I'm enjoying it


----------



## ArtMusic

We shouldn't forget DS was awarded, formally so, numerous times. This was an achievement any contemporary composer should admire.

*Soviet Union*

Hero Of Socialist Labour (1966)
Order of Lenin (1946, 1956, 1966)
Order of the October Revolution (1971)
Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1940)
Order of Friendship of Peoples (1972)
People's Artist of the USSR (1954)
People's Artist of the RSFSR (1948)
International Peace Prize (1954)
Lenin Prize (1958 - for the 11th symphony "1905")
Stalin Prize in arts (1941 - 1st class, for Piano Quintet; 1942 - 1st class, for the 7th ("Leningrad") Symphony; 1946 - 2nd class, for Trio; 1950 - 1st class, for the music for the film Encounter at the Elbe; 1952 - 2nd class, for 10 poems for chorus)
State Prize (1968 - for the poem "The Execution of Stepan Razin" for bass, chorus and orchestra)
Glinka State Prize of the RSFSR (1974 - for the 14th string quartet and choral cycle "Fidelity")
National Prize of Ukraine Taras Shevchenko (posthumously, 1976 - USSR State Prize named after Taras Shevchenko - for the opera "Katerina Ismailov," staged in KUGATOB Shevchenko)

*United Kingdom*

Gold Medal of the Royal Philharmonic Society (1966)

*Finland*

Sibelius Award (1958)

*United States*

Oscar nomination for Khovanshchina, Best Score (Musical) in 1961

*Austria*

Decoration for Services to the Republic of Austria in Silver (1967)

*Denmark*

Léonie Sonning Music Prize (1974)


----------



## Blancrocher

It's often hard to say what's just churned out when you're dealing with someone with such a productive facility for composition as a Shostakovich--or a Schubert, or Mozart for that matter. With Shosty I tend to sense a kind of joy in craft that appears in both of the other two, even if I don't admire everything he did. I'm rather obsessed with the Preludes and Fugues, for example, which seem to have cost him more effort than any of his other works (at least he says as much, though he turned those over pretty quickly as well). It sort of reminds me of Mozart, who was so taken with Bach when he encountered him by chance in the Baron van Swieten's library). Op. 87 is backward looking--a much longer backward than WAM's distance from Bach, obviously--and I can understand it not being everyone's cuppa. Regardless, he was clearly setting himself a deliberate and difficult compositional challenge, and in my view succeeded in creating a set of extraordinary and individual works.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> We shouldn't forget DS was awarded, formally so, numerous times. This was an achievement any contemporary composer should admire.
> 
> *Soviet Union*
> 
> Hero Of Socialist Labour (1966)
> Order of Lenin (1946, 1956, 1966)
> Order of the October Revolution (1971)
> Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1940)
> Order of Friendship of Peoples (1972)
> People's Artist of the USSR (1954)
> People's Artist of the RSFSR (1948)
> International Peace Prize (1954)
> Lenin Prize (1958 - for the 11th symphony "1905")
> Stalin Prize in arts (1941 - 1st class, for Piano Quintet; 1942 - 1st class, for the 7th ("Leningrad") Symphony; 1946 - 2nd class, for Trio; 1950 - 1st class, for the music for the film Encounter at the Elbe; 1952 - 2nd class, for 10 poems for chorus)
> State Prize (1968 - for the poem "The Execution of Stepan Razin" for bass, chorus and orchestra)
> Glinka State Prize of the RSFSR (1974 - for the 14th string quartet and choral cycle "Fidelity")
> National Prize of Ukraine Taras Shevchenko (posthumously, 1976 - USSR State Prize named after Taras Shevchenko - for the opera "Katerina Ismailov," staged in KUGATOB Shevchenko)
> 
> *United Kingdom*
> 
> Gold Medal of the Royal Philharmonic Society (1966)
> 
> *Finland*
> 
> Sibelius Award (1958)
> 
> *United States*
> 
> Oscar nomination for Khovanshchina, Best Score (Musical) in 1961
> 
> *Austria*
> 
> Decoration for Services to the Republic of Austria in Silver (1967)
> 
> *Denmark*
> 
> Léonie Sonning Music Prize (1974)


I think some achievements may be more political in nature than artistic. I'm not sure anyone would want an "award" that has the word "Stalin" in it, except perhaps a psychopathic megalomaniac.


----------



## ArtMusic

dogen said:


> I think some achievements may be more political in nature than artistic. I'm not sure anyone would want an "award" that has the word "Stalin" in it, except perhaps a psychopathic megalomaniac.


Any historian who studied the history of USSR would give credit to some achievements made by Stalin, as well as being a murderous dictator who recognized the importance of culture and awarded high achievers, like Shostakovich (even if partly for political purposes). These are plain facts. The fact that DS could survive the political era and compose great music is proof of his greatness as an artist and as an individual.


----------



## ArtMusic

This is a lovely, very Russian and patriotic.


----------



## dgee

Yo, Art! What do you think of The Nose?


----------



## ArtMusic

dgee said:


> Yo, Art! What do you think of The Nose?


I have not listened to that piece, yet.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Any historian who studied the history of USSR would give credit to some achievements made by Stalin, as well as being a murderous dictator who recognized the importance of culture and awarded high achievers, like Shostakovich (even if partly for political purposes). These are plain facts. The fact that DS could survive the political era and compose great music is proof of his greatness as an artist and as an individual.


Yes, one should certainly balance Stalin's achievements against the millions of deaths.


----------



## dgee

Blancrocher said:


> It's often hard to say what's just churned out when you're dealing with someone with such a productive facility for composition as a Shostakovich--or a Schubert, or Mozart for that matter. With Shosty I tend to sense a kind of joy in craft that appears in both of the other two, even if I don't admire everything he did. I'm rather obsessed with the Preludes and Fugues, for example, which seem to have cost him more effort than any of his other works (at least he says as much, though he turned those over pretty quickly as well). It sort of reminds me of Mozart, who was so taken with Bach when he encountered him by chance in the Baron van Swieten's library). Op. 87 is backward looking--a much longer backward than WAM's distance from Bach, obviously--and I can understand it not being everyone's cuppa. Regardless, he was clearly setting himself a deliberate and difficult compositional challenge, and in my view succeeded in creating a set of extraordinary and individual works.


I really dislike the P&F, but I guess that's where the vagaries of taste take hold! Shos's later music just sounds like that of a broken man - and I really want to hear creative vitality

I do like Prokofiev (although I acknowledge his many failings and miss what he might have been had he continued along the path that was closed as Stalin increased his power) and I wonder how Shosty fans react to Prokofiev who seems to me a much more vital creative force


----------



## Blancrocher

dgee said:


> I really dislike the P&F, but I guess that's where the vagaries of taste take hold! Shos's later music just sounds like that of a broken man - and I really want to hear creative vitality
> 
> I do like Prokofiev (although I acknowledge his many failings and miss what he might have been had he continued along the path that was closed as Stalin increased his power) and I wonder how Shosty fans react to Prokofiev who seems to me a much more vital creative force


I believe you've listened to the op.87 carefully--more carefully than I have, perhaps, given your training :lol:--but before walking away from them forever try P&F #16 one more time!

As as the case with Shosty, I often respond to the human warmth and melodic gloom (and occasional festiveness) that Prokofiev brings to the table. Speaking of neglected works, btw, I'm especially taken with Prokofiev's wonderful 1st Violin Sonata, my favorite of his generally under-esteemed chamber works. Judging by Shosty's Violin Sonata, he was an admirer as well.


----------



## Nereffid

ArtMusic said:


> Any historian who studied the history of USSR would give credit to some achievements made by Stalin, as well as being a murderous dictator who recognized the importance of culture and awarded high achievers, like Shostakovich (even if partly for political purposes).


Remind us, what award did Stalin give Shostakovich's _Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk_?


----------



## dgee

Blancrocher said:


> I believe you've listened to the op.87 carefully--more carefully than I have, perhaps, given your training :lol:--but before walking away from them forever try P&F #16 one more time!


Nope! Probably listened to about half an hour before finding life too short. And, unbelievably, I have played several enthusiastically arranged by a friend Promise to try #16 again


----------



## ArtMusic

dogen said:


> Yes, one should certainly balance Stalin's achievements against the millions of deaths.


I am saying Stalin recognized DS's achievements in music. Stalin wasn't the only one. Anyone has a right to recognize a composer's greatness, including Stalin, including you, including me, including my future children; *anyone*.


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> I am saying Stalin recognized DS's achievements in music. Stalin wasn't the only one. Anyone has a right to recognize a composer's greatness, including Stalin, including you, including me, including my future children; *anyone*.


Art you may do well to consider this link - http://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/mar/26/classicalmusicandopera.russia

Interested in your thoughts as always


----------



## science

ArtMusic said:


> These are plain facts.


I don't think so.


----------



## dgee

I had a listen to p&f 16 and the twists and turns in the prelude were quite enjoyable and I liked how it ended but the fugue was exasperatingly boring. Thanks for the recommendation and I enjoyed the exulted position of "the appealed to" to a certain degree and took it in best faith


----------



## MagneticGhost

dgee said:


> Art you may do well to consider this link - http://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/mar/26/classicalmusicandopera.russia
> 
> Interested in your thoughts as always


Great article thanks. Never heard the anecdote about him asking Rostropovich to record the original in the West.

Some good thoughts coming out in this thread. I don't know why some people seem to feel the need to call him the last of the greats though. It's quite possible for Shostakovich to be brilliant without denigrating composers who came after. As indeed it's equally possible for Shosty to be great even though considered a 'conservative'.

But the main thrust of the OP really was 'Are the attitudes to his music changing as we move further away from the end of the Cold War?' I've read arguments both for and against in this thread so far - so perhaps in reality there has been no real change. Maybe his music appeals to young people more - as I've read a few posts similar to my own experiences of loving and listening to his music a lot when younger but not finding it quite as attractive in maturity.

Anyway - I'm enjoying this thread and it hasn't slipped into a mud slinging contest between 2 camps yet. So keep it up


----------



## sharik

> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/mar/26/classicalmusicandopera.russia 'the nightmarish atmosphere of pre-Revolutionary Russia.'


all of the sudden a one-off case is amounting to 'the nightmarish atmosphere of pre-Revolutionary Russia' not to mention the Revolution took place in 1917 and the book was written in 1865.

what a sweeping generalisation West media outlets are prone to, whenever it comes to the subject of Russia, going out of their way to represent the life there in a bad light.

the same about Shostakovitch and his detractors; had he been a Brit or American, we'd seen him praised and glorified beyond all measure.


----------



## MagneticGhost

sharik said:


> all of the sudden a one-off case is amounting to 'the nightmarish atmosphere of pre-Revolutionary Russia' not to mention the Revolution took place in 1917 and the book was written in 1865.
> 
> what a sweeping generalisation West media outlets are prone to, whenever it comes to the subject of Russia, going out of their way to represent the life there in a bad light.
> 
> the same about Shostakovitch and his detractors; had he been a Brit or American, we'd seen him praised and glorified beyond all measure.


Like all the praise and glorification Britten gets you mean. I can't say for sure because I've done no studies - but I'd guess that Shostakovich is more well known here in the UK than our own Benjamin Britten.


----------



## elgar's ghost

dgee said:


> I'd have to be convinced Shos wrote some "truely great" music before I were to consider him a great composer. :devil:
> 
> Just a thought - what do the big time Shosty fans think of The Nose? I always thought it had a lot of wit, vitality and interest - but no Shos fan ever seems to mention it


I like it (I think it helped my reading the Gogol story first), but it was an early work (op. 15) composed at a time when some elements of the Soviet artistic world were still moving in a more experimental, avant-garde direction and the young Shostakovich not unwillingly found himself at the centre of this cultural milieu.

The Nose is slightly absurdist and knockabout in a 'Les Six' kind of way but also cleverly put together and quite an achievement bearing in mind it was Shostakovich's first work for the stage. The great theatrical maverick Vsevolod Meyerhold was originally designated to stage it but wasn't available. The whole thing was probably too bizarre and frantic for general public consumption, but that was the direction Shostakovich had taken at that time with the ballet The Age of Gold and the incidental music for The Bedbug being written the following year.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I don't think so.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Yeah, I think I'm with you on this one, science. Had to re-educate myself on the definition of "fact" since mah boy Arty is always re-defining stuff.


----------



## JACE

Interesting thread.

Makes me think of an anecdote: Late in his life, one of Arnold Schoenberg's students criticized Shostakovich's music. Schoenberg replied by saying, "Shostakovich was born to write music."

I love that story. Not because I love Shostakovich's music. (Even though I do.) I love it because Schoenberg recognized that Shostakovich had a gift that very, very, very, very few people have.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we'll all respond positively to DSCH's music -- even his _best_ music. That's why I'm much more interested in asking the question "Who are your _favorite_ composers?" rather than the much-more-difficult-to-answer-if-not-impossible-to-answer question "Who are the _great_ composers?"


----------



## Aleksandar

From what I've heard(multiple times) so far (6 symphonies, 2 piano concertos, 1 violin concerto), I'm not impressed with him. It seems as if he's only doing two moods, despair without any kind of emotional release (not that it's wrong to do that) and sometimes playfulness (though it sounds like fake playfulness at the point of a gun, which it might as well be).

While there are parts of his symphonies I appreciate, it seems to me he's somewhere between a classical and a film composer, but somehow unconvincing in both (to many boring moments for a symphony, and no memorable melodies for a film score). So far, I like his violin concerto the best. 

Of course, my opinion of him could change like of many other musicians through my life. Is there some work of his I should especially pay attention to?

From the same period I like Prokofiev better, and I find Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra better than all of the Shostakovich music I've been exposed to so far.


----------



## TradeMark

I kind of feel "meh" about Shostakovich, not that I think he's a bad composer, I just kind of find his music boring. He's the kind of composer whose flaws are visible to even less experienced listeners such as myself, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

I like Shostakovich's music

Sometimes, the political and social background is very important to understanding (and possibly appreciating) his music - such as _Lady Macbeth of Mtensk_, sometimes cultural awareness is important - such as _Songs from Jewish Folk Poetry_, sometimes understanding of his position within musical heritage helps (such as the _24 Preludes and Fugues_), sometimes an awareness of his personality and what helped influence this (such as the fifteen _string quartets_), sometimes it is the links to other forms of artistic expression and collaboration with other creative personalities (for example the many film scores) and many times it is the interaction of many of these elements that is important to realise.

But above all, it is important to go beyond the symphonies and concertos and to recognise the diversity of music that he wrote in and for many contexts.

Is he great? Well, you decide for yourself. I certainly like a lot of his music, and find much more of it interesting and remarkable


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> the same about Shostakovitch and his detractors; had he been a Brit or American, we'd seen him praised and glorified beyond all measure.


That is meaningless speculation, since it is quite obvious he could never have been a Brit or an American. At that time, only in the USSR was there a continuing and unbroken tradition of composition drawing strength directly from its roots in the work of 19th century masters. And only there was allegiance to a 19thc aesthetic enforced with an iron fist. Shostakovich's music is inextricably tied to this tradition and aesthetic.

In any case, Shostakovich is amply rewarded with the praise that matters most: He is among the most prolifically programmed 20th century composers in England and the United States.


----------



## EdwardBast

I judge composers by their best work. Shostakovich produced excellent work in every genre of art music and in every genre there are works of his among my favorites. Although it is irrelevant to this discussion, I am pleased that this music was produced by a man whose personal qualities I hold in equally high esteem.


----------



## AnotherSpin

ArtMusic said:


> Any historian who studied the history of USSR would give credit to some achievements made by Stalin, as well as being a murderous dictator who recognized the importance of culture and awarded high achievers, like Shostakovich (even if partly for political purposes). These are plain facts.


 Any historian who studied the history of Third Reich would give credit to some achievements made by Hitler, as well as being a murderous dictator who recognized the importance of culture... (etc.)


----------



## AnotherSpin

dogen said:


> Thanks. It's a great shame when enjoyment (or not) of artistic endeavour can be so tainted by external factors.


Is there anything we think or feel which is totally free from external factors? I do not think my enjoyment is tainted. I do believe S. is truly great, but my interest shifted to some other composers, mostly 19th century or before.


----------



## Guest

AnotherSpin said:


> Any historian who studied the history of Third Reich would give credit to some achievements made by Hitler, as well as being a murderous dictator who recognized the importance of culture... (etc.)


Well you've complied with Godwin's Law (  ) but yes, I'm reminded of (as a vegetarian) that old popular one "Hitler was a vegetarian you know!"

...and didn't Mussolini get the trains to run on time?


----------



## Guest

AnotherSpin said:


> Is there anything we think or feel which is totally free from external factors? I do not think my enjoyment is tainted. I do believe S. is truly great, but my interest shifted to some other composers, mostly 19th century or before.


OK fair enough.


----------



## clavichorder

I have this feeling that people who downgrade Shostakovich are looking at him through the lense of his bio just as much as they will claim those who rate him highly do. We really need to get away from all this silly Stalinist discussion and just talk about what we hear in the works.

I have heard the 7th symphony cited among the works of his that are crap. I heard it recently and though a part of the finale was indeed interminable, I was on the whole stunned by the power and scope of the piece. I had never heard it before, and it was a live experience that was my first experience. Along with Bruckner 8 that I heard recently, it was one of the most powerful concert experiences I've had in years. And I went to it fully expecting to be underwhelmed, considering what people had said about it.


----------



## AnotherSpin

clavichorder said:


> We really need to get away from all this silly Stalinist discussion and just talk about what we hear in the works.


I hear Stalinism in his works, sorry. And every time I listen to much adored 7th of Bruckner I am trying to imagine what people were feeling while listening to beautiful adagio which was played on German state radio when Hitler death was announced.

I'm writing too often here, go walk.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann

Woodduck said:


> Ranking composers by "greatness" isn't a wholly useless exercise, and can be a fun sport. But lets admit that personal blind spots afflict the most experienced, sensitive, and educated listeners - composers emphatically among them - and that the greatness of a composer may escape any one of us. Most of the composers we argue about here have achieved things that numbers of us find to be remarkable, while others of us simply can't see them that way. We resort to citing various indicators of greatness, the most obvious of which is popularity over time: are lots of people still listening after a century or two? Well, there must be something there. Those of us with technical knowledge of music point to this or that feature of the music and pronounce judgment on it, on the premise that evaluating pieces and sections of the puzzle can help us see how good it is when completely assembled. These are both useful ways of judging a composer's work. But neither will convince anyone of a composer's greatness if he can't feel it.
> 
> I think considered criticism is useful and healthy. We not only learn from it, but we learn how to learn, as well as how to speak. The trick is to keep one eye on the thing we're criticizing, and the other on the internal reactions and processes from which our criticisms arise, remembering the difference between emotional response and informed appraisal, but knowing that, when the subject is that immaterial but potent wonder known as music, appraisal will always be colored, however slightly, by emotion. In the end, the music we loathe is probably better than we think, and the music we love may well be worse than we're capable of realizing. Yet even the terms "better" and "worse" are slippery. There's just no absolute objectivity so long as taste affects judgment, which it always does.
> 
> So who can say how great Shostakovich is? I can't. I admit to not caring for much of his music. But he composed a very impressive body of it, it sounds to me like the product of a highly accomplished musical mind, it exhibits extraordinary variety of form and content, some of it affects me strongly, a great many people love it and think it's important, and it keeps getting played and recorded and talked about. I want to hear why people like or dislike it and why they think it is or isn't great. That may or may not affect the way I hear it. But it definitely won't affect its greatness.
> 
> Which composers are "great," to the degree to which we can reasonably rate them (and I think we can, to some degree, by a variety of criteria), is often a question of where we draw various lines. If only Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are great, then Shostakovich probably isn't. But why would we want to draw the line there? I'd prefer not to draw that line anywhere too specifically or sharply. That doesn't mean suspending judgment. It just means keeping judgment in its place.


As is typical of this poster, a sober and sobering post, which expresses much more eloquently my own opinions about this composer. So;:tiphat:



ArtMusic said:


> Any historian who studied the history of USSR would give credit to some achievements made by Stalin, as well as being a murderous dictator who recognized the importance of culture and awarded high achievers, like Shostakovich (even if partly for political purposes). These are plain facts. The fact that DS could survive the political era and compose great music is proof of his greatness as an artist and as an individual.


Now I happen to be a historian who among other things have studied the history of the USSR, and in a more appropriate place I would be happy to discuss this topic. But seeing that this is an "unpolitical" forum (except when you want to say whatever you will about all things socialist, however unqualified and biased, it would seem) I will limit myself too just say that you are basically right (of course).


----------



## manyene

There is no doubt, in my mind at any rate, that appreciation of Shostakovich's music has been influenced too much by consideration of its biographical background, and similar extra- musical considerations. Yes, he lived through periods when his music was condemned, and he responded appropriately, but I would rather approach it in a more abstract, less 'loaded'way. He shows that he could compose symphonies in the approved format, free from 'formalistic' tendencies, in the case of the 5th and the 10th Symphony, which are technical triumphs, but the essential composer is really be found in such works as the 4th Symphony, and the very underrated 14th, dealing with the issue of death, in which he speaks to the modern listener; and in his final works, the 15th Symphony and the last chamber music compositions.


----------



## Art Rock

To me, he is one of the greatest composers of all time, just behind Bach, Mahler, Brahms and Schubert. This is purely based on my personal preference (and until someone comes with a good objective definition of "great", I will use "great" in this subjective way). Some others may think he sucks, it does not bother me one bit and it will not change the pleasure of listening to his compositions.


----------



## Guest

There are times when I listen to a piece of music and wish that the composer had made different choices - curtail this, extend that, vary and develop the other.

Yet who am I to assert that DSCH or anyone else could have 'improved' their work if only they had heard it through my ears?

I am increasingly inclined to the view that the only way we should define 'greatness' is 'appeals to the widest number of people within any given audience', and not that any specific piece meets some kind of objective criteria of quality.

DSCH appeals to a large enough number of people to be considered 'great', but there are also plenty of people who do not find his work appealing, or who have mixed views. I suspect that there is a smaller number of people who find WAM or LvB or JSB unappealing, putting DSCH down the list of greats.


----------



## Blancrocher

Überstürzter Neumann said:


> As is typical of this poster, a sober and sobering post


One can't be sure, but it's possible that his appreciation for Shosty's music would increase if he consumed more alcohol.


----------



## Woodduck

Blancrocher said:


> One can't be sure, but it's possible that his appreciation for Shosty's music would increase if he consumed more alcohol.


Blancrocher, I fear that would take enough vodka to kill me.

:tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder

A thanks to Magneticghost for NOT making this a poll. I am afraid what the results might have been.


----------



## EdwardBast

dgee said:


> I really dislike the P&F, but I guess that's where the vagaries of taste take hold! Shos's later music just sounds like that of a broken man - and I really want to hear creative vitality
> 
> I do like Prokofiev (although I acknowledge his many failings and miss what he might have been had he continued along the path that was closed as Stalin increased his power) and I wonder how Shosty fans react to Prokofiev who seems to me a much more vital creative force


I really like Prokofiev's music too, especially the piano sonatas. Do you really think he held back in his major instrumental works? I don't get that impression at all in the War Sonatas, Sixth Symphony, and First Violin sonata.

I listen to Shostakovich's preludes and fugues a little as a time. One thing I like about the fugues is that most of them are more like fanciful character pieces than contrapuntal essays.


----------



## sharik

it is to be understood that his 7th Symphony is disparaged today for merely political reasons which have nothing to do with the music as such.


----------



## Dim7

sharik said:


> it is to be understood that his 7th Symphony is disparaged today for merely political reasons which have nothing to do with the music as such.


Really? I think the repetitive Bolero-like part in the first movement is often criticized for being, uh, repetitive and Bolero-like, or superficial or bombastic. I don't mind that part myself and I like the symphony, but let's not pretend that it's criticized for merely political reasons.


----------



## MagneticGhost

sharik said:


> it is to be understood that his 7th Symphony is disparaged today for merely political reasons which have nothing to do with the music as such.


What political reasons? I thought it was mainly disparaged because it is musically weaker - verging on the tedious and certainly one of his poorer efforts. It's the political and historical import that keeps people interested. There are many of his symphonies which I prefer. I wish I could understand why you think the West has it in for Russian music, I can't see that myself. We have close ties with Russian musicians. Vladimir Ashkenazy conducts over here and The latest Proms Festival is saturated with Russian programming.


----------



## clavichorder

MagneticGhost said:


> What political reasons? I thought it was mainly disparaged because it is musically weaker - verging on the tedious and certainly one of his poorer efforts. It's the political and historical import that keeps people interested. There are many of his symphonies which I prefer. I wish I could understand why you think the West has it in for Russian music, I can't see that myself. We have close ties with Russian musicians. Vladimir Ashkenazy conducts over here and The latest Proms Festival is saturated with Russian programming.


See, I think that while the symphony has its comparatively weak points, it is on the whole a very powerful piece of work to behold in the concert hall.


----------



## sharik

Dim7 said:


> the repetitive Bolero-like part in the first movement is often criticized for being, uh, repetitive and Bolero-like, or superficial or bombastic.


if so then we might well say the finale of Beethoven 9th is too 'chaotic' etc.


----------



## Guest

> it is to be understood that his 7th Symphony is disparaged today for merely political reasons which have nothing to do with the music as such.


Whether this is true or not for anyone, the case for me is that the first movement is boring and borderline annoying. Musically.

As for the notion of Shostakovich being praised more if he weren't Russian, this is absolute nonsense. Most of his "detractors" here are avid Prokofiev fans...


----------



## MagneticGhost

clavichorder said:


> See, I think that while the symphony has its comparatively weak points, it is on the whole a very powerful piece of work to behold in the concert hall.


Maybe I need to hear it performed Live. Maybe I've just not allowed it to grow on me. I don't find it satisfying. Maybe it is the whole Military Bolero section that puts me off. I'll keep trying anyway.
The 8th on the other hand is one of the most powerful symphonic works I've ever heard.


----------



## sharik

MagneticGhost said:


> We have close ties with Russian musicians. Vladimir Ashkenazy conducts over here


is he Russian?.. i know Pletnev is sure Russian, but Ashkenazy, well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Ashkenazy


----------



## Dim7

sharik said:


> if so then we might well say the finale of Beethoven 9th is too 'chaotic' etc.


Might as well? That would be totally different kind of criticism...


----------



## sharik

nathanb said:


> the first movement is boring and borderline annoying.


that's a matter of personal liking, but we talk *music*, and musically the 7th is impeccable all the way.


----------



## sharik

Dim7 said:


> Might as well? That would be totally different kind of criticism...


...........why?


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> that's a matter of personal liking, but we talk *music*, and musically the 7th is impeccable all the way.


Please, elaborate.


----------



## Dim7

sharik said:


> that's a matter of personal liking, but we talk *music*, and musically the 7th is impeccable all the way.


How is the question whether the 7th symphony impeccable musically not a matter of personal liking as well?


----------



## AnotherSpin

After very, I mean very long period of time (7-8 years maybe) I listened first CD from Fitzwillam set of string quartets today. To my own surprise I had difficulties getting through the end. It was so... gross and heavy. I was very relieved when it was over and put Mozart piano trios to get light mood back.


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> How is the question whether the 7th symphony impeccable musically not a matter of personal liking as well?


Hush Dim! I want a satisfying 2000 word answer full of theory and stuff.


----------



## Dim7

nathanb said:


> Hush Dim!


I reported your post for calling me dumb.


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> I reported your post for calling me dumb.


I reported your post for discarding crucial elements of Bro Code.


----------



## Guest

Good grief it's quite simple.

1. If it's Russian it's brilliant.
2. If it's not it'll be rubbish.
3. Unless it's modern in which case see 2.


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> I reported your post for discarding crucial elements of Bro Code.


Remind me of this, bro.


----------



## sharik

dogen said:


> Good grief it's quite simple. 1. If it's Russian it's brilliant.


for instance, Tikhon Khrennikov is a lousy Russian composer, except his songs.


----------



## isorhythm

I'm missing the gene that lets you like Shostakovich - like some people can't enjoy cilantro ("coriander" for all you non-Americans). So I should probably not try to say anything about the music.

I can't resist throwing this inflammatory tidbit out, though: might the fact that EVERY discussion of Shostakovich, without exception, turns to his biography and political context suggest that his music does not, by itself, give us all that much to talk about?


----------



## sharik

isorhythm said:


> might the fact that EVERY discussion of Shostakovich, without exception, turns to his biography and political context suggest that his music does not, by itself, give us all that much to talk about?


no, it only sets him next to Wagner.


----------



## Triplets

MagneticGhost said:


> Like all the praise and glorification Britten gets you mean. I can't say for sure because I've done no studies - but I'd guess that Shostakovich is more well known here in the UK than our own Benjamin Britten.


Are you equating DSCH with Britten?


----------



## Triplets

Aleksandar said:


> From what I've heard(multiple times) so far (6 symphonies, 2 piano concertos, 1 violin concerto), I'm not impressed with him. It seems as if he's only doing two moods, despair without any kind of emotional release (not that it's wrong to do that) and sometimes playfulness (though it sounds like fake playfulness at the point of a gun, which it might as well be).
> 
> While there are parts of his symphonies I appreciate, it seems to me he's somewhere between a classical and a film composer, but somehow unconvincing in both (to many boring moments for a symphony, and no memorable melodies for a film score). So far, I like his violin concerto the best.
> 
> Of course, my opinion of him could change like of many other musicians through my life. Is there some work of his I should especially pay attention to?
> 
> From the same period I like Prokofiev better, and I find Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra better than all of the Shostakovich music I've been exposed to so far.


Despair without emotional release? Try listening to the 10th Symphony, the First VC, or the Eight Quartet.


----------



## isorhythm

sharik said:


> no, it only sets him next to Wagner.


This actually doesn't happen with Wagner nearly as much as with Shosty.


----------



## sharik

isorhythm said:


> This actually doesn't happen with Wagner nearly as much as with Shosty.


that is why Shost isn't Wagner and only next to him.


----------



## Triplets

MagneticGhost said:


> Maybe I need to hear it performed Live. Maybe I've just not allowed it to grow on me. I don't find it satisfying. Maybe it is the whole Military Bolero section that puts me off. I'll keep trying anyway.
> The 8th on the other hand is one of the most powerful symphonic works I've ever heard.


It is supposed to put you off. That is the the whole point. You might as well dislike the first movement of Bethoven's 5th for being overly dramatic.


----------



## musicrom

isorhythm said:


> I'm missing the gene that lets you like Shostakovich - like some people can't enjoy cilantro ("coriander" for all you non-Americans). So I should probably not try to say anything about the music.
> 
> I can't resist throwing this inflammatory tidbit out, though:* might the fact that EVERY discussion of Shostakovich, without exception, turns to his biography and political context suggest that his music does not, by itself, give us all that much to talk about?*


Personally, I don't like this argument, because I was really into Shostakovich's music before even learning about the political aspects of his life. There's just something unique to Shostakovich's music that makes it stand out to me in its profundity and its appeal.

The fact that the political stuff seems to always come up is probably more due to the fact that the information is well-known and interesting to discuss. However, this shouldn't need to get in the way of discussing the "greatness" (or not) of his music.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Triplets said:


> Are you equating DSCH with Britten?


Not particularly - although there are superficial similiarities - I was just arguing against Sharik's point that Russian composers are not well regarded in the West.



Triplets said:


> It is supposed to put you off. That is the the whole point. You might as well dislike the first movement of Bethoven's 5th for being overly dramatic.


I'm a big fan of Shostakovich's - I just find the 7th a little tedious and dull as I think I've already mentioned. Fair play if that's what the fella meant. I don't think that was his point though.


----------



## sharik

MagneticGhost said:


> I just find the 7th a little tedious and dull


should be heard as Bernstein put it -


----------



## Fugue Meister

If I can just stick my pretty little nose in here... I'd like to contribute to the Shostakovich is one of the absolute all time greats... even when it's not a masterpiece (and so many of his works are symphonies 1,4,5,7,8,10,11,13 all classics... I don't believe he ever wrote a bad concerto or ballet) it's the work of a master musical craftsman irregardless. 

To those who find him banal and repetitive... I definitely see what you mean, more for repetition than banality (other than the 7th sym where it is crucial to the tone of irony that saturates the entire first movement) but for my money, or to my ear I should say, nearly his entire output is marbled with genius; from fascinating melodic lines to the color of his harmonies and dissonances, not to mention his top notch orchestration and prolificness. One final plug... if you don't find yourself getting into his bigger more popular works try his intensely personal string quartets, they're captivating. 

Not that I have it out for any of the other Russian's but imo ole DSCH is at the top of that pyramid.


----------



## clavichorder

Fugue Meister, why did you omit 6? That is actually my personal favorite and I am always so puzzled why people fail to ever mention it.


----------



## ArtMusic

dgee said:


> Art you may do well to consider this link - http://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/mar/26/classicalmusicandopera.russia
> 
> Interested in your thoughts as always


Thanks, obviously Stalin disliked that piece. everyone will find pieces in composers that they like and dislike. Overall, the evil dictator awarded DS awards as positive recognition, which he has a right to recognize, as much as anyone.


----------



## Guest

Sometimes I imagine ArtMusic as that poptart cat that rides rainbows through space.


----------



## EdwardBast

ArtMusic said:


> Thanks, obviously Stalin disliked that piece. everyone will find pieces in composers that they like and dislike. Overall, the evil dictator awarded DS awards as positive recognition, which he has a right to recognize, as much as anyone.


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I would be very surprised if Stalin even knew the works that received the prize. I think he had people for that.


----------



## ArtMusic

My basic premise is this: Stalin, anyone in the former USSR, anyone on this planet can recognize DS's musical achievements (or lack or). Stalin was a murderous dictator, but he too is entitled to his opinion about DS, even though there obviously may have been political motivations for many of the Soviet awards. In the end, the real winner was Shostakovich, as a composer who survived World War II and the Soviet system, and at one period both concurrently.


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> None of that, that's obviously not musically related.
> 
> My basic premise is this: Stalin, anyone in the former USSR, anyone on this planet can recognize DS's musical achievements (or lack or). Stalin was a murderous dictator, but he too is entitled to his opinion about DS, even though there obviously may have been political motivations for many of the Soviet awards. *In the end, the real winner was Shostakovich*, as a composer who survived World War II and the Soviet system, and at one period both concurrently.


Look, I'm no Shostakovich historian, but I'm not sure this is the general consensus (no matter how many awards he won)


----------



## Albert7

ArtMusic said:


> My basic premise is this: Stalin, anyone in the former USSR, anyone on this planet can recognize DS's musical achievements (or lack or). Stalin was a murderous dictator, but he too is entitled to his opinion about DS, even though there obviously may have been political motivations for many of the Soviet awards. In the end, the real winner was Shostakovich, as a composer who survived World War II and the Soviet system, and at one period both concurrently.


Any sources for this? I am curious.


----------



## KenOC

Shostakovich outlived Stalin, which is more that poor guy Prokofiev could say. So I guess you could say he won.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich outlived Stalin, which is more that poor guy Prokofiev could say. So I guess you could say he won.


In that case, Takemitsu takes the cake here for outliving all three guys in question.

I am still curious about Shosty's relationship to the concept of socialist realism... that is something I need to research a lot more into.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Albert7 said:


> In that case, Takemitsu takes the cake here for outliving all three guys in question.




????


----------



## sharik

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich outlived Stalin, which is more that poor guy Prokofiev could say.


the latter both died on the same day. Stalin was an expert in arts unequalled by any politicians of the time; it is thanks to him we have so many masterpieces written by Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Khtachaturan, Sviridov and others. Stalin supervised the high quality of social and cultural life of the USSR during the toughest period no any other country in history of mankind ever experienced.


----------



## Guest

So, since I last posted, the majority of posts have either been irrelevant to the question (focusing on 'politics') or confirmed my view that greatness is only in the ear of the beholder.

Criticising the 7th symphony for being like Bolero is only a criticism if you don't regard Bolero as a worthy work (or just don't like it!) If you think it's great, that makes the 7th great too, I guess.

As for 'repetition' - much work from across the ages has depended upon repetition: it's a fundamental. Whether you like it depends on your tolerance for extended repetition...


----------



## Fugue Meister

clavichorder said:


> Fugue Meister, why did you omit 6? That is actually my personal favorite and I am always so puzzled why people fail to ever mention it.


I know clavichorder... It's another gem, if I'm being honest the only symphony of his I don't care for is 3, but I feel like the ones I listed are greater than the 6th (the structure is interesting but I for me it didn't work as well as the others)... don't get me wrong I love each individual movement, both the allegro and the presto are great fun, but they don't really live up to the wonder that is that first movement...

All in all the symphony just seems a little caddy-wampus to me.. but I still enjoy it greatly.

by the way KenOC, great article... wonderful read.


----------



## dgee

An interesting contemporary American document on Stalin the music critic. I'm sure is idealogicalicious, but a fun read nonetheless

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol09/no02/sanders.html

It still makes me giggle that the Stalin decree is probably one that many of our esteemed members would heartily agree with! And so you have your Shostakovich today. The tragedy is the loss of the Soviet avant garde and the lost fruits that just might have been very special


----------



## sharik

dgee said:


> https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol09/no02/sanders.html


from hindsight, the article misses the point completely, because it fails to foresee the Western nascent mass culture that indeed was to have _"squeezed the last breath of life out of contemporary .. art"_. Stalin was absolutely spot on to show Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Khatchaturan and others the right direction to avoid banality and talentlessness of so-called 'contemporary art' where lack of quality and amateurish attempts are justified by using a term 'new' like "it isn't for i've no talent my music sounds so bad, but because it's new"



dgee said:


> The tragedy is the loss of the Soviet avant garde


if Soviet avantgarde was so good, then why its not performed today as often?



dgee said:


> https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol09/no02/sanders.html


as for _"the hopelessly dull academism of Soviet painting and sculpture"_ nope -



















and let's see what the West will come up with in response to that.


----------



## MagneticGhost

^^^^^ I didn't realise it was a competition.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

KenOC said:


> Shostakovich outlived Stalin, which is more that poor guy Prokofiev could say. So I guess you could say he won.


Having looked at so many photographs showing Shostakovich as an apparently deeply troubled and unhappy bloke, I'm not sure that I want to 'win' like that


----------



## dgee

sharik said:


> from hindsight, the article misses the point completely, because it fails to foresee the Western nascent mass culture that indeed was to have _"squeezed the last breath of life out of contemporary .. art"_. Stalin was absolutely spot on to show Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Khatchaturan and others the right direction to avoid banality and talentlessness of so-called 'contemporary art' where lack of quality and amateurish attempts are justified by using a term 'new' like "it isn't for i've no talent my music sounds so bad, but because it's new"
> 
> if Soviet avantgarde was so good, then why its not performed today as often?
> 
> as for _"the hopelessly dull academism of Soviet painting and sculpture"_ nope -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and let's see what the West will come up with in response to that.


Let's just say we're interested in very different things!


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> So, since I last posted, the majority of posts have either been irrelevant to the question (focusing on 'politics') or confirmed my view that greatness is only in the ear of the beholder.
> 
> Criticising the 7th symphony for being like Bolero is only a criticism if you don't regard Bolero as a worthy work (or just don't like it!) If you think it's great, that makes the 7th great too, I guess.


I'm inclined to think that the 1st movement of the 7th is something of a litmus test... I'm not quite sure of what, exactly, but there's a particular aesthetic to it that a lot of people just don't accept. I wonder if it's indicative of an acceptance or otherwise of banality and/or blatant populism as an artistic choice in general. Or, seeing as you brought up Reich, if there's any sort of correlation between tolerance of Shostakovich's militaristic Boleroism and interest in minimalism generally.


----------



## sharik

Headphone Hermit said:


> Having looked at so many photographs showing Shostakovich as an apparently deeply troubled and unhappy bloke, I'm not sure that I want to 'win' like that


wish you saw my face... a sour expression is typical for us Russians, we use it out of politeness among ourselves, so that not to offend each other with possible 'doing better than you think' look. Russians think smiling without an obvious reason to be dishonest.


----------



## Blancrocher

Headphone Hermit said:


> Having looked at so many photographs showing Shostakovich as an apparently deeply troubled and unhappy bloke, I'm not sure that I want to 'win' like that


Maybe he simply didn't like being photographed.


----------



## EdwardBast

Albert7 said:


> In that case, Takemitsu takes the cake here for outliving all three guys in question.
> 
> I am still curious about Shosty's relationship to the concept of socialist realism... that is something I need to research a lot more into.


I recommend Richard Taruskin's essay, "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony." It's in Shostakovich Studies, edited by David Fanning, and except for a paragraph or two, easily understood by musical amateurs. Taruskin said socialist realism "has always been an occult subject, especially when applied to music," but by the mid 1930s "the idea had been roughly defined in practice" as a "recipe [of] heroic classicism." This seems to mean that certain quintessential 19th century works with well documented interpretive traditions (Beethoven's 5th and 9th, the late symphonies of Tchaikovsky) were taken as models for the construction and criticism of large-scale instrumental works. He uses the critical debate surrounding the premier of the Fifth Symphony to illustrate how this ideology was applied in one high-profile case.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> the latter both died on the same day. Stalin was an expert in arts unequalled by any politicians of the time; it is thanks to him we have so many masterpieces written by Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Khtachaturan, Sviridov and others. Stalin supervised the high quality of social and cultural life of the USSR during the toughest period no any other country in history of mankind ever experienced.


No, it is due to Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and others who managed to compose great music despite the continual threat to their persons and careers posed by a system that put talentless boot-lickers in the composers' union in positions of power over their more talented peers.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> and let's see what the West will come up with in response to that.


How about this masterpiece? Both friendlier and more colorful! Of course, he seems to be smiling for no reason.


----------



## Sonata

I don't consider Shostakovich one of the greats, but I think he is a talented composer that stimulates me mentally in ways that many of my other preferred composers don't always do.


----------



## Janspe

I love many of Shostakovich's works. The violin and cello concertos, the preludes and fugues, many of the symphonies (4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15 come to mind at first), some of the string quartets (haven't listened to all of them enough to make a proper judgement), the piano trios and the quintet, the second piano sonata, the violin and cello sonatas...

Sure, there are a lot of pieces without which I could easily live, but then again a lot of my favourite composers wrote pieces I don't care much for. So I can still happily count Shosty as one of my favourite composers! I don't say that he's the greatest, or that he's the last great symphonist - I strongly oppose such labels, for it is unfair to both Shostakovich and the composers after him - firstly, it doesn't take note of all the _wonderful_ music written by composers after Shostakovich; in addition, labeling something as 'the greatest' can make people feel defensive about other music and antagonize poor Shosty without a reason...


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> How about this masterpiece? Both friendlier and more colorful! Of course, he seems to be smiling for no reason.
> View attachment 68667


How do you know that pink monstrosity is a "he", Ed?


----------



## elgar's ghost

'The Motherland Calls' monument on top of the Mamayev Kurgan in Volgograd is one of the most incredible and imposing monuments I can think of but without doubt it's the pink dinosaur which would give me the most nightmares. 

:lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

TalkingHead said:


> How do you know that pink monstrosity is a "he", Ed?


The smile, where she has her hand, need I say more?

And I have been to Vernal Utah and had a close look for myself.


----------



## AnotherSpin

To somebody who is deleting my posts in this thread: Please remove all my post here, not selected few. Thank you.


----------



## joen_cph

> For me his music is inseparable from Stalinism. It is main reason of attraction and aversion at the same time. It might be he expressed the suffocating essence of his time and place more that any other composer in 20th century.


The anti-Stalinist chamber cantata "Rayok", written and performed in secrecy, is generally less known among Shosty´s works.

The text is not for the faint-hearted, but an obvious parody of censorship and "anti-formalist" aesthetics under Stalin; NumberOne is considered to be Stalin, NumberTwo is considered to be Zhdanov.

http://russian.psydeshow.org/music/



> * another early post in the thread:*
> ... He shows that he could compose symphonies in the approved format, free from 'formalistic' tendencies, in the case of the 5th and the 10th Symphony, which are technical triumphs, but the essential composer is really be found in such works as the 4th Symphony, and the very underrated 14th, dealing with the issue of death, in which he speaks to the modern listener; and in his final works, the 15th Symphony and the last chamber music compositions.


I agree with this. With time, his earliest works, partly associated with the more liberal experimenting climate of the 20s-early 30s, may perhaps gain further status again too.


----------



## almc

I managed to read some 5-6 pages ... this is the funny side of the internet ... a bunch of nobodies (myself, of course, included) criticizing one of the greatest geniuses of the previous century ...


----------



## EdwardBast

AnotherSpin said:


> To somebody who is deleting my posts in this thread: Please remove all my post here, not selected few. Thank you.


Dear Spin,
I have had parts of my posts deleted as well (and rightly so!) because they had political content but no musical content. I think it is to keep us on topic and to avoid international incidents


----------



## arpeggio

Janspe said:


> I love many of Shostakovich's works. The violin and cello concertos, the preludes and fugues, many of the symphonies (4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15 come to mind at first), some of the string quartets (haven't listened to all of them enough to make a proper judgement), the piano trios and the quintet, the second piano sonata, the violin and cello sonatas...
> 
> Sure, there are a lot of pieces without which I could easily live, but then again a lot of my favourite composers wrote pieces I don't care much for. So I can still happily count Shosty as one of my favourite composers! I don't say that he's the greatest, or that he's the last great symphonist - I strongly oppose such labels, for it is unfair to both Shostakovich and the composers after him - firstly, it doesn't take note of all the _wonderful_ music written by composers after Shostakovich; in addition, labeling something as 'the greatest' can make people feel defensive about other music and antagonize poor Shosty without a reason...


One of the reasons I have difficulty dealing with those who think Shostakovich is the last great symphonist is because Finland, for example, has produced three of the outstanding ones since his death: Einojuhani Rautavaara, Aulis Sallinen and Kalevi Aho.


----------



## Celloman

sharik said:


> the latter both died on the same day. Stalin was an expert in arts unequalled by any politicians of the time; it is thanks to him we have so many masterpieces written by Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Khtachaturan, Sviridov and others. Stalin supervised the high quality of social and cultural life of the USSR during the toughest period no any other country in history of mankind ever experienced.


No, I'd say that it was _in spite_ of him that we have that music. Composers played a dangerous game in order to stay true to their artistic integrity and, fortunately, many of them managed to pull it off.


----------



## science

arpeggio said:


> One of the reasons I have difficulty dealing with those who think Shostakovich is the last great symphonist is because Finland, for example, has produced three of the outstanding ones since his death: Einojuhani Rautavaara, Aulis Sallinen and Kalevi Aho.


Not from Finland, but there is also Henze.


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> it is due to Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and others who managed to compose great music despite the continual threat to their persons and careers


if so, then why there's no Western composer to write equally great music as Shosty's?.. maybe because in this world it's impossible to build a career without it being threatened by circumstances of one sort or another?



EdwardBast said:


> a system that put talentless boot-lickers in the composers' union in positions of power over their more talented peers.


every system does that, Stalinist or not. Western way of handling things is no different than Stalin's, in this case. Britten and Williams certainly did not stand up against the English monarchy, for example; so should we start a witch hunt on them for this?


----------



## sharik

Celloman said:


> No, I'd say that it was _in spite_ of him that we have that music.


might as well say anyone anywhere in the world is getting along in spite of this or that... why it should be Stalin whom Shostakovitch would do anything in spite of, and not, say, Churchill?


----------



## Guest

A helpful article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> "militaristic Boleroism"


Lol! Loved this.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> if so, then why there's no Western composer to write equally great music as Shosty's?.. maybe because in this world it's impossible to build a career without it being threatened by circumstances of one sort or another?


There were: Stravinsky and Prokofiev!  Unfortunately, Prokofiev was stupid enough to go back to the CCCP, where he was hounded into an early grave. And there is quite a difference between being threatened by economic circumstances and being shot in the head for writing the wrong things (as happened to Babel and Meyerhold, who was one of Shostakovich's friends and collaborators). You do know that the man who invented your screen name was banned from publishing his great novels in the CCCP for the whole Stalin era and beyond, right? Wouldn't you have liked to see Shostakovich's opera based on _Heart of a Dog_? I would.



sharik said:


> every system does that, Stalinist or not. Western way of handling things is no different than Stalin's, in this case. Britten and Williams certainly did not stand up against the English monarchy, for example; so should we start a witch hunt on them for this?


Monarchy? You do know the monarchs in England are just tourist attractions, don't you? They don't have any actual power. And you really should come to the United States sometime. No one "handles things" here. No one cares how composers write their music here, certainly no one in positions of power. The government hasn't had any major influence on the arts since the 1950s when they briefly persecuted left-leaning Hollywood types during the "Red Scare."


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> Unfortunately, Prokofiev was stupid enough to go back to the CCCP


he wrote beatiful film scores while in the USSR, namely _Ivan The Terrible_ and _Alexander Nevsky_ besides his operatic works _Betrothal in a Monastery_ & _War and Peace_ and ballets _Cinderella_ & _The Stone Flower_.



EdwardBast said:


> And there is quite a difference between being threatened by economic circumstances and being shot in the head for writing the wrong things


John Lennon.



EdwardBast said:


> And you really should come to the United States sometime. No one "handles things" here.


http://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...ts-a-dangerous-precedent-menon.html?referrer=
http://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-b...to-symphony-orchestra-offensive-tweets-321136


----------



## Kivimees

nathanb said:


> A helpful article:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic


Worth repeating.


----------



## Bulldog

Sharik's "Ukranian" example does not apply. First, the decision was made by a Canadian company. Second, that company is private; the Canadian government was not involved.


----------



## Bulldog

nathanb said:


> A helpful article:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic


That was a very insulting post. You can do better.


----------



## sharik

Bulldog said:


> Sharik's "Ukranian" example does not apply.


it isn't the only example, just most recent one.



Bulldog said:


> the Canadian government was not involved.


how do we know? TSO sponsors might be supporters of the current Canadian government too.


----------



## arpeggio

What? There is actually an insulting post in this thread?


----------



## Kivimees

sharik said:


> how do we know? TSO sponsors might be supporters of the current Canadian government too.











.......................................


----------



## Dedalus

> Quote Originally Posted by EdwardBast View Post
> And there is quite a difference between being threatened by economic circumstances and being shot in the head for writing the wrong things





sharik said:


> John Lennon.


John Lennon was shot by a lunatic obsessed with Catcher in the Rye, and who thought Lennon was the biggest phony of all. Not really comparable to government sanctioned threat of murder.


----------



## sharik

Dedalus said:


> John Lennon was shot by a lunatic obsessed with Catcher in the Rye


but seems like it was a zombie directed by the FBI maybe to prevent Lennon from go touring the USSR where his _Imagine_ album had been released.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> So, since I last posted, the majority of posts have either been irrelevant to the question (focusing on 'politics') or confirmed my view that greatness is only in the ear of the beholder.


Not really. Read the posts carefully to realize that while it may appear "focusing on politics", I was using Stalin as an example whereby *he too*, could recognize the greatness of DS (even if there were political agendas behind it). Stalin disliked one of the operas, which happily coincides indeed with your view that "greatness is only in the ear of the beholder". Pure and simple.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> he wrote beatiful film scores while in the USSR, namely _Ivan The Terrible_ and _Alexander Nevsky_ besides his operatic works _Betrothal in a Monastery_ & _War and Peace_ and ballets _Cinderella_ & _The Stone Flower_.


More important, he wrote the War Sonatas, the First Violin Sonata, and the Fifth and Sixth Symphonies there. But he was tormented by the state from 1948 to his death in 1953, and his family was exiled because his wife was Spanish.



sharik said:


> John Lennon.


Lennon wasn't shot in the head  More to the point, he was not shot by order of our country's leader. Did I really have to specify that?



sharik said:


> http://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...ts-a-dangerous-precedent-menon.html?referrer=
> http://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-b...to-symphony-orchestra-offensive-tweets-321136


Hey, I can't vouch for those crazy Canadians!


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> but seems like it was a zombie directed by the FBI maybe to prevent Lennon from go touring the USSR where his _Imagine_ album had been released.


Sorry, I hadn't read this post before my last one. Of course! How could I have been so naive? It must have been a zombie FBI agent! Probably taking revenge for that "Back in the USSR" song.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Not really.


Yes, really. Here's a small sample of extracts from 5 different posters (posted prior to mine.) I don't see in these very much discussion about the music.

Maybe people can more easily listen to his music sans politics now.

For me his music is inseparable from Stalinism.

If he could outlive Stalin, his reputation will survive his detractors 

Shostakovich was generally shunned in the west as a Party stooge who wrote bloated bureaucratic music for an evil and bloated bureaucracy.

I think some achievements may be more political in nature than artistic.
​
Impure and complicated!


----------



## violadude

ArtMusic said:


> Not really. Read the posts carefully to realize that while it may appear "focusing on politics", I was using Stalin as an example whereby *he too*, could recognize the greatness of DS (even if there were political agendas behind it). Stalin disliked one of the operas, which happily coincides indeed with your view that "greatness is only in the ear of the beholder". Pure and simple.


I think the subjects you are attempting to speak about are a little above your pay grade to be perfectly blunt...no offense.


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> he was tormented by the state from 1948 to his death in 1953, and his family was exiled because his wife was Spanish.


'tormented by the state' - nah, Prokofiev didn't have to pay taxes, as no one in the USSR did, it was a tax free country that didn't even have a Tax Department to levy taxes and tolls. Mira Mendelson was his companion and collaborator, later until his death; his former wife was most likely an NKVD agent, first entrusted to arrange his return to Russia, but punished when she failed to keep him and lost him to a Jewish woman.


----------



## joen_cph

A quite detailed chronology of some late USSR censorship, the Volkov Shostakovich portrait and the many people supporting it:

http://www.siue.edu/~aho/musov/deb/dchron1.html
http://www.siue.edu/~aho/musov/deb/dchron2.html


----------



## MagneticGhost

I listened to Shostakovich's Cello Sonata last night. (Apparently he wrote a lot of music when he wasn't involved in politics)
I think it's my favourite cello sonata. Packed full of melody. I'd forgotten how good it was.
No matter his overall standing he certainly wrote his share of masterpieces.


----------



## sharik

joen_cph said:


> the Volkov Shostakovich portrait


i wouldn't trust Volkov on this; his _Testimony_ is a rather dubious read, rejected as false by everyone when it was published.


----------



## Blancrocher

MagneticGhost said:


> I listened to Shostakovich's Cello Sonata last night. (Apparently he wrote a lot of music when he wasn't involved in politics)
> I think it's my favourite cello sonata. Packed full of melody. I'd forgotten how good it was.
> No matter his overall standing he certainly wrote his share of masterpieces.


Do you have a favorite recording of that one, MG? I've got a great performance from Wispelwey, which is paired with Prokofiev and Britten. I agree that it's a wonderful work.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Yes, really. Here's a small sample of extracts from 5 different posters (posted prior to mine.) I don't see in these very much discussion about the music.
> 
> Maybe people can more easily listen to his music sans politics now.
> 
> For me his music is inseparable from Stalinism.
> 
> If he could outlive Stalin, his reputation will survive his detractors
> 
> Shostakovich was generally shunned in the west as a Party stooge who wrote bloated bureaucratic music for an evil and bloated bureaucracy.
> 
> I think some achievements may be more political in nature than artistic.
> ​
> Impure and complicated!


How come I get pink? :lol:


----------



## MagneticGhost

I can't say I've explored much beyond the disc I own.
It's Shafran and Shostakovich performing on the Russia Relevation label
C/w my other fave Rachmaninov's Sonata.

Great CD


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> How come I get pink? :lol:


You gotta problem with pink, honey??


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> You gotta problem with pink, honey??


Not as long as I don't get an ear cut off!


----------



## elgar's ghost

EdwardBast said:


> Sorry, I hadn't read this post before my last one. Of course! How could I have been so naive? It must have been a zombie FBI agent! Probably taking revenge for that "Back in the USSR" song.


They got the wrong Beatle, then... :devil:


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> 'tormented by the state' - nah, Prokofiev didn't have to pay taxes, as no one in the USSR did, it was a tax free country that didn't even have a Tax Department to levy taxes and tolls. Mira Mendelson was his companion and collaborator, later until his death; his former wife was most likely an NKVD agent, first entrusted to arrange his return to Russia, but punished when she failed to keep him and lost him to a Jewish woman.


Ha! Utter nonsense. Lina didn't want to get Sergei to the USSR. She hated the whole idea and tried to prevent the move with all her power. When she failed and finally agreed to go, it was with great misgivings and as a sacrifice to her own career and well-being. The idea that Lina was an NKVD agent is just stupid (as was the claim in western sources that Mira was an agent.) Lina was framed for meeting some unidentified person. (A friend was forced to make the call from Leningrad that set up the alleged meeting where she was supposed to receive a package.) The NKVD picked her up in front of the train station, informed her that the person she was meeting was a criminal, and dragged her off to Lubyanka Prison. Prokofiev never saw her again. The real reason, of course, is that she sought to maintain relationships with her friends in Europe and the United States, and attended parties at several foreign embassies during years of extreme paranoia and xenophobia.

My question to you is: Where do you get your information? Are there really sources on Prokofiev in Russia that are this far from reality? Or are you just making this stuff up for your own amusement?

From Prokofiev's own statements: He died with pain in his soul. He should have died from shame alone for what he did to his family.


----------



## EdwardBast

elgars ghost said:


> They got the wrong Beatle, then... :devil:


Hey, it's Sharik's theory. Do you think that kind of factual error would bother him? (see ^^^)


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> The NKVD picked her up in front of the train station, informed her that the person she was meeting was a criminal, and dragged her off to Lubyanka Prison. Prokofiev never saw her again.


it wasn't that way. Prokofiev first left her for Mendelson, then she began getting problems.



EdwardBast said:


> My question to you is: Where do you get your information?


the composer's biography.


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> From Prokofiev's own statements: He died with pain in his soul. He should have died from shame alone for what he did to his family.


what is the source for that information?


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> what is the source for that information?


Quoted by Mira. She said he made the statement often over the course of his final illness. She would daily approach him in his sick bed and ask if he had pain. She said he frequently responded with the words "I have pain in my soul," or "My soul hurts."


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> it wasn't that way. Prokofiev first left her for Mendelson, then she began getting problems.


Precisely. He dragged Lina and the children to the USSR against their will and better judgment, and then abandoned them to their fate. Sergei's standing and reputation was the only thing keeping them safe. She spent at least eight years in the camps after her stay in Lubyanka.



sharik said:


> the composer's biography.


You probably mean Nestyev, 1965. There are better and more thorough biographies, and ones that didn't have to pass Soviet censors. You should know not to trust any biography compiled in the 1950s and 1960s in the USSR. You obviously have an excellent command of English, so you could get Harlow Robinson's _Sergei Prokofiev_.


----------



## clavichorder

I have been listening to the 1st mvt of the 15th symphony lately and finding it fascinating. There is a lot of thematic material that weaves around in a maze like fashion, not withstanding the obvious William Tell quote.


----------



## EdwardBast

clavichorder said:


> I have been listening to the 1st mvt of the 15th symphony lately and finding it fascinating. There is a lot of thematic material that weaves around in a maze like fashion, not withstanding the obvious William Tell quote.


I suspect the William Tell thing is an inside joke, probably acknowledging Shostakovich's (arguably) habitual overuse of the "da-da-dum" figure. Yes, a wonderful movement - and symphony.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> Yes, really. Here's a small sample of extracts from 5 different posters (posted prior to mine.) I don't see in these very much discussion about the music.
> 
> Maybe people can more easily listen to his music sans politics now.
> 
> For me his music is inseparable from Stalinism.
> 
> If he could outlive Stalin, his reputation will survive his detractors
> 
> Shostakovich was generally shunned in the west as a Party stooge who wrote bloated bureaucratic music for an evil and bloated bureaucracy.
> 
> I think some achievements may be more political in nature than artistic.
> ​
> Impure and complicated!


I see. None of those quoted were mine though.  Mine were purely and simply on DS and the recognition/awards he received from USSR (corrupt ones or not).


----------



## hpowders

Shostakovich is not one of my all time faves, but I would never classify him as an "also-ran". He was a major composer, no doubt about it. I admire his fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth symphonies, as well as his second piano concerto.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> i wouldn't trust Volkov on this; his _Testimony_ is a rather dubious read, rejected as false by everyone when it was published.


It is clearly fraudulent. Laurel Fay more or less proved this a year after Volkov began pedaling it in the West. The question of whether it is false is more complicated. There is no good reason to believe Shostakovich said what is in the book to Volkov, except for one chapter Shostakovich specifically acknowledged (He wrote "In memory of our talks on …".) Much of the content is probably second (or third) hand gossip.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I see. None of those quoted were mine though.


What made you think that the observation about the direction of this thread was about _you _or _your _posts?

As you can see from the ongoing debate between sharik and edward, now more about Prokofiev than DSCH, the actual music doesn't get much of a look in. MagneticGhost was, I thought, asking if DSCH is/was a great composer, which, you would have thought, should have prompted discussion about his output and how it compares to others considered 'great'.

My own amateur view is that I prefer to listen to DSCH, Mahler, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Beethoven, Satie and Debussy, rather than Mozart, Brahms, Bach, Wagner or Tchaikovsky.

Since I'm choosing from a list of composers with pretty well-established reputations, I don't think I have to justify my selection. If others wish to use the term 'great' so be it.


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> She said he frequently responded with the words "I have pain in my soul," or "My soul hurts."


but that can be interpreted in so many ways it is hard to tell what exactly did he mean.



EdwardBast said:


> There are better and more thorough biographies, and ones that didn't have to pass Soviet censors.


beside censorship, there might be other interests involved that would negate the verity of any biography.



EdwardBast said:


> get Harlow Robinson's _Sergei Prokofiev_.


ok, still i don't see why should we take his or anyone else's word over that of the Soviet official propaganda.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> but that can be interpreted in so many ways it is hard to tell what exactly did he mean.


When Mira asked him to elaborate, he seemed most regretful about not finishing more compositions and about not having performances of some that had been composed.



sharik said:


> beside censorship, there might be other interests involved that would negate the verity of any biography.


Yes, but that isn't the first concern. Completeness is. Robinson had better access to sources in the West than Nestyev, obviously, and many documents were made available and memoirs written in the USSR/Russia that added valuable information since Nestyev wrote the "official" biography. Robinson knew Lina well, had access to what Mira wrote for her biography of Sergei, and had interviews with Khrennikov and others who spoke with more frankness and openness than they ever had in the past. It's just a matter of much more and more current information.



sharik said:


> ok, still i don't see why should we take his or anyone else's word over that of the Soviet official propaganda.


I'm just saying if the Robinson biography is available at your local library, it might be worth a look - if the subject interests you enough.


----------



## sharik

EdwardBast said:


> I suspect the William Tell thing is an inside joke


and lest we forget that _Der Ring_ leitmotif repeating in his 15th as a counteraction to the _Tell_'s.


----------

