# 20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Five - Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

20th Century Symphonic Masterpieces: Part Five - Shostakovich's _Symphony No. 5_



















In 1936, the Soviet government launched an official attack against Dmitri Shostakovich's music, calling it "vulgar, formalistic, [and] neurotic." He became an example to other Soviet composers, who rightfully interpreted these events as a broad campaign against musical modernism. This constituted a crisis, both in Shostakovich's career and in Soviet music as a whole; composers had no choice but to write simple, optimistic music that spoke directly (especially through folk idioms and patriotic programs) to the people and glorified the state.

In light of these circumstances, Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony (first performed in 1937) is a bold composition that seems to fly in the face of his critics. Although the musical language is pared down from that of his earlier symphonies, the Fifth eschews any hint of a patriotic program and, instead, dwells on undeniably somber and tragic affects -- wholly unacceptable public emotions at the time. According to the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, the government would certainly have had Shostakovich executed for writing such a work had the public ovation at the first performance not lasted 40 minutes. The official story, however, is quite different. An unknown commentator dubbed the symphony "the creative reply of a Soviet artist to justified criticism," and to the work was attached an autobiographical program focusing on the composer's metamorphosis from incomprehensible formalist to standard-bearer of the communist party. Publicly, Shostakovich accepted the official interpretation of his work; however, in the controversial collection of his memoirs (Testimony, by Solomon Volkov) he is quoted as saying: "I think it is clear to everyone what happens in the Fifth. The rejoicing is forced, created under threat...you have to be a complete oaf not to hear that."

Regardless of its philosophical underpinnings, Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5 is a masterpiece of the orchestral repertory, poignant and economical in its conception. There is no sign of the excess of ideas so common in the Fourth Symphony. Instead, Shostakovich deploys the orchestra sparingly and allows the entire work to grow naturally out of just a few motives. Given some of his earlier works, the Fifth is conservative in language. Throughout the work he allows the strings to be the dominant orchestral force, making soloistic use of the woodwinds and horn especially effective. The Moderato begins with a jagged, foreboding canon in the strings that forms the motivic basis for the entire movement. The impassioned mood is occasionally interrupted by a lyrical melody with string ostinato, later the subject of a duet for flute and horn.

The second movement (Allegretto) is a grotesque 3/4 dance which, at times, can't help but mock itself; the brass section is featured prominently. The following Largo, a sincere and personal outpouring of musical emotion, is said to have left the audience at the work's premiere in tears. Significantly, it was composed during an intensely creative period following the arrest and execution of one of Shostakovich's teachers.

The concluding Allegro non troppo has been the center of much debate: some critics consider it a poorly constructed concession to political pressure, while others have made note of its possible irony. While the prevailing mood is triumphant, there is some diversion to the somber and foreboding, and it is not until the end that it takes on the overtly "big-finishy" character for which it is so noted.

[Article take from All Music Guide]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I decided to feature this Shostakovich symphony first for the simple reason that this work saved his life and was an incredibly important to his career at this particular point in time. He literally created a completely new style overnight and he never fully returned to his more sardonic avant-garde beginnings from this point forward. Anyway, it's a masterpiece and one of the great symphonies of the 20th Century. Any favorite recordings of this work? I still think Bernstein's _Live in Japan_ recording with the New York Philharmonic from 1979 is the best recording ever made of this symphony, but you're free to disagree.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

The title says No. 4 when the post is about No. 5. Wonderful symphony, I’ve always been satisfied with the Bernstein recording on Sony.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Great, powerful, even frightening symphony. I still cherish the old Ormandy/Philadelphia recording. It can stand up against all newcomers. But for modern sound there another one from Philly that I like - Chung conducting on DG. And the Rostropovich in EMI is excellent, too.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The 5th is a great work, no doubt. Personally, and despite the what is said in the write up, I find it very conservative compared to what went before it and also more interesting musically. There are many fine recordings - Previn, Bernstein, Stokowski, Caetani, Kondrashin and many many more. 

I do get a little tired of our endless fascination with seeing Shostakovich as a political animal (I really don't think he was) or speculating (often on ambiguous evidence) about his relationship with the authorities. The basics we all know very well and the rest seems open to debate. Many of us seem almost to need Shostakovich to be opposed to Soviet governments, which probably many Russians were in a similarly quiet way. But it seems insulting to pick Shostakovich out as a political hero - or even to focus too strongly on his periods of victimhood - rather than as a composer of a good number of seminal works. He wasn't the only composer to be constrained under totalitarianism but he is the only one we seem always to go straight to the political history rather than the musical achievement.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

I agree with the main points made by *Enthusiast. *The 4th symphony is indeed a radical masterpiece -- the 5th, despite its undoubted merits, is less interesting musically and doesn't really deserve to be played far more than any of the others. Having said that, most of the cycle is in the standard repertoire these days. I also find it a bit of a pity that the Shostakovich symphonies, fascinating as they are, have had the political element overplayed in comparison to the purely musical. His friend Weinberg, arguably an even greater symphonist and certainly a more varied one, stayed out of the political limelight and as a result is far less well-known.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Error corrected in the title of this thread. Thanks to all for pointing it out.

As for Shostakovich being some kind of "political hero", well, this is nonsense. All he was trying to do is not get killed. That's all --- he was trying to be a composer in an artistic environment that stifled any kind of forward-thinking musical vision. The music that was written had to be written for the people and written in a style that they could understand and embrace wholeheartedly. What I don't agree with is the need that some people have to try and distance his music from this particular political environment. I'm sorry, but Shostakovich's history is heavily intertwined with Soviet history. If he didn't care and wrote what he wanted, then there's little doubt that he would either have been shot on the spot or sent to The Gulag. This doesn't make him a political hero of any kind, but it does show that in order for him to survive he would have to be rather careful about what he wrote. He did, however, make quite a stir from time to time like with his 6th, 8th and 9th symphonies. The Soviet government were displeased with each of these symphonies. By the time Stalin died, the damage had already been done to Shostakovich --- he was a broken man and this is due to years of being in fear of his own life and for losing so many friends and family to Stalin's tyrannical reign. In my mind, it is difficult to not attach his music to that political environment, because this is the environment in which his mature musical style was born and also where the majority of his masterpieces were created. I admire the hell out of him for being able to still write interesting music that retained his compositional voice and how, from time to time, like with the 8th symphony, he was able to express himself in such a compelling way that he didn't care about the political stakes that were stacked against him. So, again, he wasn't a political hero, but he was a man that had a remarkable career working under one of the most oppressive governments of the 20th Century.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

This symphony made me love Shostakovich forever. I had this LP in the late 80's 💚


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> Error corrected in the title of this thread. Thanks to all for pointing it out.
> 
> As for Shostakovich being some kind of "political hero", well, this is nonsense. All he was trying to do is not get killed. That's all --- he was trying to be a composer in an artistic environment that stifled any kind of forward-thinking musical vision. The music that was written had to be written for the people and written in a style that they could understand and embrace wholeheartedly. What I don't agree with is the need that some people have to try and distance his music from this particular political environment. I'm sorry, but Shostakovich's history is heavily intertwined with Soviet history. If he didn't care and wrote what he wanted, then there's little doubt that he would either have been shot on the spot or sent to The Gulag. This doesn't make him a political hero of any kind, but it does show that in order for him to survive he would have to be rather careful about what he wrote. He did, however, make quite a stir from time to time like with his 6th, 8th and 9th symphonies. The Soviet government were displeased with each of these symphonies. By the time Stalin died, the damage had already been done to Shostakovich --- he was a broken man and this is due to years of being in fear of his own life and for losing so many friends and family to Stalin's tyrannical reign. In my mind, it is difficult to not attach his music to that political environment, because this is the environment in which his mature musical style was born and also where the majority of his masterpieces were created. I admire the hell out of him for being able to still write interesting music that retained his compositional voice and how, from time to time, like with the 8th symphony, he was able to express himself in such a compelling way that he didn't care about the political stakes that were stacked against him. So, again, he wasn't a political hero, but he was a man that had a remarkable career working under one of the most oppressive governments of the 20th Century.


No need to argue but really much of what you say continues in the same vein that I was complaining about (what you choose to call my "rubbish"). There's no doubt Shostakovich and other composers who lived in the USSR were constrained by the authorities as were other composers and artists who lived under this and other totalitarian regimes. In the USSR. We don't know much about the likely consequences for him of falling foul of the authorities - apart from what actually happened to him (basically disapproval from people he had no respect for and a feeling of peril) - but I don't accept that he was broken by responses to some of his works. Indeed the evidence is that he was quite skilled at navigating his way through those times and I think he was bigger than simply a victim. His music testifies to that. Yes, some of his life was hard - but that seems to be true of so many great composers: was his life harder than Beethoven's or Schubert's or Tchaikovsky's? If you can compare such things the answer is probably not. We are aware of their suffering but it doesn't dominate our discourse about them to such an extent.

We do Shostakovich no favours by continuing to select his suffering and persecution as a propaganda tool against a regime that fell decades ago. In the scale of these things, that persecution was not so great - consider Ai Weiwei's persecution for one recent example of genuinely destructive persecution of an artist. The cost of this continuing focus on one aspect or influence of his art is that we seem to know so little about his influences, his musical likes and dislikes or even his personality: all is tainted by sources seeking to make political points.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Fantastic symphony. No political thoughts enter my mind whenever I listen to it. My favorite recording is Haitink with the Concertgebouw on Decca in outstanding sound.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

While other of his symphonies may be "greater" in a musical sense, there is no question of the 5ths popularity with audiences all over. If you're my age, you got to know it with recordings from Bernstein, Ormandy and others who took the "fast" ending. Then sometime in the '70s some conductors got word that it was all wrong - that the ending was to go slower and make it more threatening: "You will be happy, you will be happy" and all that political baggage crept in. Rostropovich was the first recording I heard that dragged it out so long. I think it was a mistake; the quicker tempo makes much more musical sense and some more recent recordings I've heard are reverting back to the older style. I've played the 5th a number of times and that last page in the bassoon part with that repeated high note is just miserable at the slower tempo. It doesn't lack for great recordings, either. My favorite in the digital era has been Lorin Maazel with the Cleveland Orchestra on Telarc. Stunning sound, great playing and perfectly judged conducting. But for sheer visceral excitement, Bernstein's original Columbia recording is hard to beat.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I can’t believe no one has mentioned Mravinsky, who conducted the premiere and sat down with Shostakovich and discussed details about how the symphony should be played. His recordings (he made multiple) are amazing, you really feel the soul in the music and the strings play with a sadness that I can’t really describe that is unique. Everyone who loves this symphony should at least hear it


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

While the 5th is one of the few Shostakovich symphonies which I (occasionally) care to listen to, I do not see it as a masterpiece and think that its reputation is a bit overblown due to the backstory.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> No need to argue but really much of what you say continues in the same vein that I was complaining about (what you choose to call my "rubbish"). There's no doubt Shostakovich and other composers who lived in the USSR were constrained by the authorities as were other composers and artists who lived under this and other totalitarian regimes. In the USSR. We don't know much about the likely consequences for him of falling foul of the authorities - apart from what actually happened to him (basically disapproval from people he had no respect for and a feeling of peril) - but I don't accept that he was broken by responses to some of his works. Indeed the evidence is that he was quite skilled at navigating his way through those times and I think he was bigger than simply a victim. His music testifies to that. Yes, some of his life was hard - but that seems to be true of so many great composers: was his life harder than Beethoven's or Schubert's or Tchaikovsky's? If you can compare such things the answer is probably not. We are aware of their suffering but it doesn't dominate our discourse about them to such an extent.
> 
> We do Shostakovich no favours by continuing to select his suffering and persecution as a propaganda tool against a regime that fell decades ago. In the scale of these things, that persecution was not so great - consider Ai Weiwei's persecution for one recent example of genuinely destructive persecution of an artist. The cost of this continuing focus on one aspect or influence of his art is that we seem to know so little about his influences, his musical likes and dislikes or even his personality: all is tainted by sources seeking to make political points.


For me, Shostakovich always retained his own voice as a composer, because he was unique with or without the Soviet government. My point was that Shostakovich was in the spotlight and was an internationally revered composer, but it _is_ difficult for me to not somehow associate his music with the political system in which he came from much like if a first-rate composer came from Nazi Germany and achieved international fame, you have to wonder what their life was like behind the closed doors? My other point was that if we were to not worry about the political environment, which doesn't actually come into play until _Symphony No. 5_, then there still was a change a style and general compositional attitude _after_ his 4th symphony. My ears can't ignore this stylistic change and I find it deeply fascinating. Others may feel differently and that's fine, but I'm just sharing my own impressions of what I'm hearing.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I like the fast finale....of course, i grew up on the great Bernstein/NYPO 1959 version (recorded in Boston Symphony Hall, iirc). Lenny really sells the fast tempi andvthe NYPO is all over it...
I've heard several slower tempo performances, and i think it is detrimental to the musicians at the very end....the phrases are drawn out so long that the trumpets and trombones literally run out of gas...when they finally get to the climactic high concert C there just isn't a lot left in the tank....a faster tempo helps significantly...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> For me, Shostakovich always retained his own voice as a composer, because he was unique with or without the Soviet government. My point was that Shostakovich was in the spotlight and was an internationally revered composer, but it _is_ difficult for me to not somehow associate his music with the political system in which he came from much like if a first-rate composer came from Nazi Germany and achieved international fame, you have to wonder what their life was like behind the closed doors? My other point was that if we were to not worry about the political environment, which doesn't actually come into play until _Symphony No. 5_, then there still was a change a style and general compositional attitude _after_ his 4th symphony. My ears can't ignore this stylistic change and I find it deeply fascinating. Others may feel differently and that's fine, but I'm just sharing my own impressions of what I'm hearing.


OK. Fair enough. But was Shostakovich so unique or was he, like other greats (Bartok, Stravinsky ...), "merely" distinctive? We know his musical language and styles were developed under governmental pressure concerning what was desired (he wrote lots to please the authorities) and what was permitted (he managed to get many more personal works accepted or tolerated - including quartets and symphonies - sometimes accompanied by official disappointment). He also withheld some works until he felt the climate would be open to them - the 1st violin concerto being an example, I think - and as the permitted possibilities grew he moved with them into new (for him) territory. That much we know. 

We may also see that his earlier works (before the 5th symphony) were written under the influence of a different politics - the tendency then was for musicians to equate Bolshevism with quite experimental and modern music, and the early days of the soviets involved a break with the old traditions. Shostakovich was a part of that. Then things changed - particularly with the ascension of Stalin and his rejection of the Lady Macbeth opera (which had been enjoying a success until Stalin walked out on it) - and Shostakovich felt he needed to abandon his 4th symphony, which remains unfinished. But was the change in his music so radical? You can hear the Shostakovich we know in what we have of the 4th symphony and in Lady Macbeth. They are obviously works by the composer of the next four symphonies. 

It seems to me that he was very skilled in remaining true to his voice while navigating the new "rules" with some skill. You could almost speculate that Bartok's change towards a softer and less radical style in America was a more radical change, a change forced upon him by poverty. Bartok's American breakthrough work (the Concerto for Orchestra) - in fact one of his last - made him something of a hero in America. Shostakovich was also something of a hero in Russia for much of his time. He enjoyed many privileges for most of his life.

I don't object per se to looking at the influence of the Russian state (a state that killed very large numbers of its citizens) on his work and life - after all he was a real artist and needed to be true and sincere (which must have involved rejecting the gross excesses of the state) - but we do have to be careful because much of the "information" out there is disputed. It was important during the cold war for the West to explain him as a victim of the state. Historical sources that focus more widely than just music suggest that the Russian authorities were _*relatively *_gentle with music and musicians. But I don't think that is the only story (even if it is the one we are always served up): I would like to be able to place him better in the development of Russian and 20th century music. Who were his favourite composers of the past? Who influenced him? What did he think of what other composers were writing? I'd like to clear away the political to see more of the personal and the musical. 

You mention our lack of comparable examples from Nazi Germany. The development of the full nastiness of the 3rd Reich was more incremental that Russia's chaotic revolutionary early days and many musicians, seeing the way things were going, had the opportunity to flee Germany. Carl Orff remained and managed to reach some sort of accommodation with the authorities, perhaps by writing music that they liked. The Nazis occasionally had high hopes for Hindemith (and he courted them, too) but they were never comfortable with him and in the end (mid-30s) he was persuaded by the Nazis to leave Germany (he took up a position in Turkey). I wonder how things would have been if Shostakovich had been a German?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> OK. Fair enough. But was Shostakovich so unique or was he, like other greats (Bartok, Stravinsky ...), "merely" distinctive? We know his musical language and styles were developed under governmental pressure concerning what was desired (he wrote lots to please the authorities) and what was permitted (he managed to get many more personal works accepted or tolerated - including quartets and symphonies - sometimes accompanied by official disappointment). He also withheld some works until he felt the climate would be open to them - the 1st violin concerto being an example, I think - and as the permitted possibilities grew he moved with them into new (for him) territory. That much we know.
> 
> We may also see that his earlier works (before the 5th symphony) were written under the influence of a different politics - the tendency then was for musicians to equate Bolshevism with quite experimental and modern music, and the early days of the soviets involved a break with the old traditions. Shostakovich was a part of that. Then things changed - particularly with the ascension of Stalin and his rejection of the Lady Macbeth opera (which had been enjoying a success until Stalin walked out on it) - and Shostakovich felt he needed to abandon his 4th symphony, which remains unfinished. But was the change in his music so radical? You can hear the Shostakovich we know in what we have of the 4th symphony and in Lady Macbeth. They are obviously works by the composer of the next four symphonies.
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is that Shostakovich still sounds like Shostakovich and would have with or without the political environment he was born in. He was as unique a composer as Mahler or Debussy. His own voice was already intact by his 1st symphony. His influences were all over the place from Haydn and Beethoven to Mahler and Berg. Also, as we know, he was great friends with Mieczysław Weinberg with whom he helped get into the USSR and escape the Nazis. We also know that both composers influenced each other in some way or another. Shostakovich's interest in Jewish music was brought on by Weinberg. Shostakovich was hugely supportive of many composers from Weinberg to Ustvolskaya (one of his students with whom he was also interested in romantically but rejected his advances). Anyway, one can learn a lot about Shostakovich simply by reading past the political mumbo jumbo.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

A magnificent symphony, among the best of any from the 20th century. For the record regarding Volkov's claim about forced rejoicing at the end Galina Vishnevskaya said the finale was, "...the sons and daughters of Russia being torn from the soil."


----------



## LKB (Jul 27, 2021)

I've always been very impressed with Shostakovich's Fifth. Indeed, it was the work which made him approachable after over a decade of avoidance on my part. 

The slow movement, in particular, seems to have a unique, _wounded_ quality. And that movement ends with a fascinating inversion of Bruckner's frequent massed tremolos with an overarching melody, where Shostakovich has only one line tremolo, and gentle string chords below, with magical results. 

Incidently, there are some bars of this movement which were " borrowed " by James Horner for one of the " Jack Ryan " films. I don't know the title, but years ago while watching a hotel TV l happened by chance on the scene where the Admiral Greer character is being interred, and was surprised to hear the familiar music ( Horner had a reputation for using others' music without attribution ).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The first 20th century symphony I listened to back in 1984. And only because I had just purchased a CD player at an audio dealer and I needed a disc to take home with me so the sales person said "here, try this one, it's a great symphony." I trusted him so I bought it. It was the Cleveland Orchestra recording on Telarc. I didn't completely warm up to it at the time but grew to appreciate after a while.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

It was the first Shostakovich symphony I ever heard and I fell in love with it, just my kind of music. The recording that opened my ears to it was this:


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

MusicSybarite said:


> It was the first Shostakovich symphony I ever heard and I fell in love with it, just my kind of music. The recording that opened my ears to it was this:


I LOVE Rozhdestvensky's Shostakovich cycle, but I seldom listen to it because of the audio quality --- the strings are just too recessed for my tastes.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> I LOVE Rozhdestvensky's Shostakovich cycle, but I seldom listen to it because of the audio quality --- the strings are just too recessed for my tastes.


It could be, but one feature I love of this performance (apart from the overall pacing) is the timpani. They sound particularly potent and make the experience more exciting.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

MusicSybarite said:


> It could be, but one feature I love of this performance (apart from the overall pacing) is the timpani. They sound particularly potent and make the experience more exciting.


You should definitely give a listen to the Bernstein 'Live in Japan' performance. It will knock your socks off! The timpani is the loudest I've heard on record and I've a bucketload of Shostakovich's 5th performances over the years.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> You should definitely give a listen to the Bernstein 'Live in Japan' performance. It will knock your socks off! The timpani is the loudest I've heard on record and I've a bucketload of Shostakovich's 5th performances over the years.


I'll give it a listen soon then. I'm a sucker for ferocious timpani playing!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mbhaub said:


> While other of his symphonies may be "greater" in a musical sense, there is no question of the 5ths popularity with audiences all over. If you're my age, you got to know it with recordings from Bernstein, Ormandy and others who took the "fast" ending. Then sometime in the '70s some conductors got word that it was all wrong - that the ending was to go slower and make it more threatening: "You will be happy, you will be happy" and all that political baggage crept in. Rostropovich was the first recording I heard that dragged it out so long. I think it was a mistake; the quicker tempo makes much more musical sense and some more recent recordings I've heard are reverting back to the older style. I've played the 5th a number of times and that last page in the bassoon part with that repeated high note is just miserable at the slower tempo. It doesn't lack for great recordings, either. My favorite in the digital era has been Lorin Maazel with the Cleveland Orchestra on Telarc. Stunning sound, great playing and perfectly judged conducting. But for sheer visceral excitement, Bernstein's original Columbia recording is hard to beat.





Heck148 said:


> I like the fast finale....of course, i grew up on the great Bernstein/NYPO 1959 version (recorded in Boston Symphony Hall, iirc). Lenny really sells the fast tempi andvthe NYPO is all over it...
> I've heard several slower tempo performances, and i think it is detrimental to the musicians at the very end....the phrases are drawn out so long that the trumpets and trombones literally run out of gas...when they finally get to the climactic high concert C there just isn't a lot left in the tank....a faster tempo helps significantly...


The tempo of the coda has long been a point of contention. The original 1939 edition had the faster tempo, which was affirmed in the 1980 edition. However, the 1947 edition has the slower tempo, which some who worked with the composer (including Maxim Shostakovich) say was a correction of an error in the original edition.

Generally speaking, European conductors have favoured the slower coda while those of the USA tend to play the faster one. Bernstein went beyond even the faster edition, he was super fast, nevertheless Shostakovich liked his performance.

I've heard Maxim Shostakovich's performance with the LSO. I think his interpretation does convey something dark, probably even menacing, which is more than just the composer's trademark sarcasm. I got to know the work by listening to Neeme Jarvi's interpretation with RSNO. I'm not sure which edition he used.

Oddly enough, I've settled on Bernstein's 1959 account. It's strange that by breaking the rules, he ends up with quite a literal interpretation, in terms of downplaying irony and simply conveying a classic darkness to light sort of narrative. Apart from the coda, there are other memorable moments in the piece, which I think this performance brings across quite well. The first movement has this epic, film score quality to it, and I especially like the slow movement where the strings, flute and harp impart a mysterious, otherworldly quality.


----------

