# Shostakovich symphonies



## Davila

Which are your favorite shostakovich symphonies? Which ones are over or underrated in your opinion?


----------



## Joe B

My favorite Shostakovich symphony is "Symphony #10". As to which are over or underrated I'll leave that to others. Symphony #10, String Quartet #8, and Piano Concerto #2 are at the top of my list for this composer.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Fourth to tenth - whatever their moods and strengths/weaknesses for me this a cycle within a cycle, and a powerful one at that.


----------



## KenOC

People's tastes in Shostakovich vary a lot in my experience. The symphonies I especially enjoy are 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15.


----------



## KJ von NNJ

It would be difficult for me to say which ones are overrated. I do think that #12 is underrated. 
My favorite is probably #4. Out of all of them I have listened to 5 and 7 the most.

I feel his masterpieces of the genre are 4, 5, 10 and 13. A case for the same stature can be made for 1, 8, 11, 14 and 15.
6 is very interesting in itself. 9 was a guffaw to those great and grand 9th's of history. I think it's a great work.
2 and 3 were experimental and are worth listening to. I only have one recording of these works. The Rostropovich/Teldec which represents each of them very nicely.

I like 7 very much. The Bernstein/Chicago/DG recording spoiled me quickly. It was the first recording of 7 I purchased. One of Lenny's greatest in my opinion.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

The Fourth and Seventh are my faves. I prefer Kondrashin in both as well as Haitink for the Seventh.


----------



## Bulldog

Aside from nos. 2 and 3, I love them all. I'd probably give top position to no. 10.


----------



## KenOC

Ones I like less:

2 & 3, naturally.
4 I've listened to it many times and it still annoys me.
8 Too long, too grim.
11 Like a movie score. Simply not eventful enough.
12 Pedestrian.
13 & 14 Somehow, I could never get into either one.


----------



## Davila

Interesting, my favorite recording of the 7th is with Gergiev conducting the Kirov Orchestra. The last movement is unbelievably powerful.


----------



## KenOC

My all-time favorite Leningrad is Bernstein/Chicago. Very long, very massive. This one never lets up.


----------



## MusicSybarite

I love all the Shostakovich's symphonies, except the #14. Vocal soloists in symphonies are not my cup of tea (there are some exceptions). My overall favorite is the #8.

An eventual order: 8, 5, 11, 10, 4, 13, 12, 6, 7, 15, 9, 1, 3, 2, 14


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

#4 is my favorite, perhaps because it was the one most inspired by Mahler. I also really like #14. 

Beyond that, I think the rest of them are problematic at best. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10 all have some good stuff, but are flawed in various ways. 2-3 are awful, 11-13 and 15 are forgettable also-rans. I've actually come to prefer the more smaller-scale stuff like 6 and 9; perhaps I've come to think Shosta was best when he wasn't striving after romantic grandness but allowed his humorous, more concise and classical side to shine. Maybe also why I prefer his string quartets to his symphonies.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

The finale of the 7th is one of my favorite finales. The 5th has lots of heart wrenching moments and honestly some parts I find so eerie and sinister...I'm thinking the flute solo toward the end of the first movement. It's so tortured. It gives me the chills.


----------



## Art Rock

Roughly my order would be

7,14* - 10,13 - 4,5 - 1,6,8,9 - 11,12,15 - 2,3

but even 2 and 3 I like to hear.

* although for me this is more a (great) song cycle than a symphony.


----------



## Woodduck

#1 (a brashly wonderful, concise and characterful first effort) and #5 (except for that finale). #4 is intense, and #15 is enigmatic and fascinating, but not too often please. In general I have little taste for S's symphonies.


----------



## agoukass

The Fifth is the only Shostakovich symphony that I listen to on a regular basis. I do like the Eighth and the Tenth as well, but I don't have enough experience with the others to say whether I like them a lot or not.


----------



## Guest

11th, 5th, 9th, 7th, 10th, 15th...I'm still working on the others (Haitink boxed set).


----------



## KenOC

Voting game from the old Amazon forum:

Shostakovich symphonies:
1 - Symphony #10 in E minor, Op. 93 (1953)
2 - Symphony #5 in D minor, Op. 47 (1937)
3 - Symphony #4 in C minor, Op. 43 (1935-1936)
4 - Symphony #8 in C minor, Op. 65 (1943)
5 - Symphony #15 in A major, Op. 141 (1971)
6 - Symphony #6 in B minor, Op. 54 (1939)
7 - Symphony #13 in Bb minor, Op. 113 'Babi-Yar' (1962)
8 - Symphony #1 in F minor, Op. 10 (1924-1925)
9 - Symphony #11 in G minor, Op. 103 'The Year 1905' (1957)
10 - Symphony #7 in C major, Op. 60 'Leningrad' (1941)
11 - Symphony #9 in Eb major, Op. 70 (1945)
12 - Symphony #14, Op. 135 (1969)
13 - Symphony #12 in D minor, Op. 112 'The Year 1917' (1961)
14 - Symphony #2 in B major, Op. 14 'To October' (1927)
15 - Symphony #3 in Eb major, Op. 20 'The First of May '(1929)


----------



## Madiel

Davila said:


> Which ones are overrated in your opinion?


all of them. 
I have tried many times along the years and with different conductors and except for the occasional thrill or some single movement they leave me cold or bored or anguished.


----------



## fliege

I have only really spent time with the 4th. It's the first modern symphony I've tried to get my head around. At first I had trouble with it: it seemed over long and didn't make a coherent whole. However, I then saw it live paired with the 1st violin concerto. I went for the concerto and decided to just take or leave the symphony, yet I was surprised how much I liked it. It kept my attention pretty much throughout despite being an hour long and I found the end genuinely horrifying.

I've listened to the 5th and the 10th a couple of times each but so far they've not clicked as much for me. I'm not sure which to try next. I found this short summary of the symphonies which has given me some ideas. Maybe the 1st, 8th, or 9th. I also bought a copy of Hurwitz's book, which seems like a good introduction for my purposes.


----------



## Triplets

The 11th hasn’t gotten a lot of love in this thread. It took me a few different recordings to really appreciate, and yes, it does sound like a film score for an Eisenstein movie, but in the right hand it can be utterly enthralling.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

KenOC said:


> Voting game from the old Amazon forum:
> 
> Shostakovich symphonies:
> 1 - Symphony #10 in E minor, Op. 93 (1953)
> 2 - Symphony #5 in D minor, Op. 47 (1937)
> 3 - Symphony #4 in C minor, Op. 43 (1935-1936)
> 4 - Symphony #8 in C minor, Op. 65 (1943)
> 5 - Symphony #15 in A major, Op. 141 (1971)
> 6 - Symphony #6 in B minor, Op. 54 (1939)
> 7 - Symphony #13 in Bb minor, Op. 113 'Babi-Yar' (1962)
> 8 - Symphony #1 in F minor, Op. 10 (1924-1925)
> 9 - Symphony #11 in G minor, Op. 103 'The Year 1905' (1957)
> 10 - Symphony #7 in C major, Op. 60 'Leningrad' (1941)
> 11 - Symphony #9 in Eb major, Op. 70 (1945)
> 12 - Symphony #14, Op. 135 (1969)
> 13 - Symphony #12 in D minor, Op. 112 'The Year 1917' (1961)
> 14 - Symphony #2 in B major, Op. 14 'To October' (1927)
> 15 - Symphony #3 in Eb major, Op. 20 'The First of May '(1929)


Pleasantly surprised 4 was so high and 7 was so low!


----------



## mbhaub

No. 4. There's something about the closing pages that haunts the memory. And even after all the modern recordings, I still go back to Ormandy/Philadelphia.

Then on to: 9, 1, 5, 10, 8. The rest I don't listen to that much. Can't take 2 or 3. I don't get the 15th at all. No. 7 is another that I am indifferent to. It doesn't do much for me.


----------



## Enthusiast

Most are good in one way or another but the ones that stick in my mind as distinctive in their various ways are 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 14. There is nothing wrong with the others but I would be happy enough if those were the only ones I had. I would be quite fussy about which recordings I had of them, though.


----------



## Heck148

KenOC said:


> My all-time favorite Leningrad is Bernstein/Chicago. Very long, very massive. This one never lets up.


Yup - great recording...one of Bernstein's very best, one of the greatest recordings of ANY symphony...would have loved to hear the live performances!!


----------



## Heck148

Love them all, generally - 2 and 3 are weak, IMO...3 is actually quite interesting....unfortunately, DS had to add those party-pleasing tub-thumping choral finales onto both of them..#12 seems unfocused, as if DS somehow lost his way on this one..

#1 is amazing - a great first symphony..already we see the genius to come...

I like #11 - excellent work...
the rest are all superb, great works...


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> yes, it does sound like a film score for an Eisenstein movie,


I don't see this as a problem, but I'm not sure if it's "true" anyway.


----------



## Triplets

MacLeod said:


> I don't see this as a problem, but I'm not sure if it's "true" anyway.


There is a version of 'The Battleship Potemkin' available that uses substantial parts of the 11th as it's soundtrack. Works perfectly


----------



## EdwardBast

I don't really like 12, 2, 3, and the opening movement of 7. Otherwise I like them all, with 8, 10, 6, 4 and 15 being favorites.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Beyond Nos. 2&3, which are ephemeral communist propagandist claptrap, and No.12 which is also rubbish, and the over-long and rather dated No.7, there isn't a weak work among them. I myself find No.14 hard to enjoy, it's debatable if it's a symphony or not, and for me he wrote better song cycles. It's relentlessly depressing to be honest. Then again, so is the last quartet, and that is a major masterpiece.

Of the others, I'd put No10 down as the finest, but I think Nos. 6, 8, 13 run it close. The most underrated is probably No.15, especially as most of us don't fancy facing Death square in the face. And No.11 is a far better piece than some credit it as. No disrespect to the Symphonies, but his out and out masterpiece has to be the 1st Violin Concerto.

IMHO , of course.....


----------



## senza sordino

I thoroughly enjoy listening to Shostakovich's symphonies. My favourites in no particular order of preference are probably 1, 4, 5, 9, 10 & 15. I really like the quirky ninth. The first is a terrific opener. I've played in orchestra the fifth, the ending is quite exciting with everyone playing their hearts out.

And my views of the seventh? I like it, except for the tedious opening movement. But I did hear my local orchestra play it, and live it was rather intense. 

I have a confession to make, I can't remember nor distinguish between the sixth, eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth. I should make the effort to do so.


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> There is a version of 'The Battleship Potemkin' available that uses substantial parts of the 11th as it's soundtrack. Works perfectly


I'm not sure that this proves anything. Substantial quantities of classical music are used for all sorts of films and "work perfectly".


----------



## Heck148

Robert Pickett said:


> Beyond Nos. 2&3, which are ephemeral communist propagandist claptrap, and No.12 which is also rubbish, ....I myself find No.14 hard to enjoy, it's debatable if it's a symphony or not, and for me he wrote better song cycles. It's relentlessly depressing to be honest.


#3 is rather interesting up until the party-apparatchik choral bs....2 is no place....and 12 is unfocused, he lost the train of thought??
I agree about 14 - it is very good [I think], but I have to take it in small doses...really quite depressing...


----------



## Phil loves classical

No. 8 the most from start to finish.


----------



## KenOC

On the radio just finished: The Los Angeles PO with Gustavo Dudamel in a program including Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5. The players did quite well, and it's kind of a treat since Dudamel seems to visit Shostakovich seldom. But what a symphony that is!

And after the symphony broadcast, a surprise: Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 11, played by the Borodin Quartet. Who says radio is dead? :lol:


----------



## MusicSybarite

I also find the 14th symphony very depressing and bleak, one more reason why I don't like it.


----------



## SONNET CLV

With possible exceptions of 2 and 3, each of the Shostakovich symphonies is a gem well worth exploring numerous times. This is not "happy music" or even "optimistic music", certainly, but it is "truthful music" and speaks volumes about the human condition in a particular time and particular place which, if we heed the warnings, will prevent this music from becoming a universal statement. Which, ironically, indeed makes it a universal statement.

The 5th remains a shattering masterpiece, I contend, and one of the strongest symphonies in the history of the form. As absolute music it is astounding; as program music it raises itself to an even higher level.

And so much of Shostakovich's music shares in these sentiments. I cherish both the 1st and 9th for their brevity and imaginative scope. There is really nothing like either, except perhaps for each other. And the 8th and 10th, works seemingly cut from the same cloth but uniquely their own nonetheless, never leave me cold, though they do drain me emotionally and leave me disturbed and angry.

I remain a fan of the dark vocal symphonies, the 13th and 14th, so poignant in their pessimistic visions. Yet, this is song, one of the greatest achievements of mankind, and in some sense song is always hopeful, and so are these symphonies. We listen to them in lamentation yet hope that the oppression they speak of will find an end someday amongst us humans.

From my perspective, symphonies 7 and 11 share a tonal hue that is cinematic in presentation. The repetitive march of the 7th and the "Eternal Memory" movement of the 11th remain favorite orchestral works which I will often play as separate entities from their full symphonic settings. Both movements (and these symphonies as a whole) are Shostakovich the populist at his grandest.

Symphonies 4 and 12 share a space, too, to my ears. These are enigmatic works, both highly modernistic and unique in Shosty's oeuvre. These two elude my memorization of their lines in ways that defy my understanding. I know so much of Shostakovich's symphonic music by heart that I can hum along anticipating each coming moment in symphonies 1, 5, 8, 9, and 10, for examples. Yet I approach 4 and 12 always with fresh ears, as if hearing them for the first time. A strange phenomenon, to me.

The most puzzling of all the symphonies, and a towering masterpiece as well, is the strange and enigmatic final symphony, number 15. I have heard the work many times, but always with wonderment about what it all means. Is this Shostakovich in full retreat, or is it an outlook of an optimistic future, one where human repression and oppression are ended and a new dawn strikes the world?

I always lament that Shostakovich did not live to see the end of the Soviet Union, and though Russia today is still not the land of democratic openness and full societal freedom, it has come a long way from the era catalogued by Shostakovich's music, especially the symphonies. I have long contended that these 15 music works speak better than anything else about the history of the Soviet Union; that we can _experience_ Communist oppression via this oeuvre, emotionally and feeling-wise, in a way no history book can present.

I cherish the fifteen string quartets in much the same way. I hear them as private statements, and hear the symphonies are public statements from the composer. I fantasize that someday I will parallel the symphonies and quartets in an extended (marathon) listening session, the public symphony number one followed by a hearing of the private quartet number one, and so on through to the fifteenth work. I've not yet done this task, though I think of starting it often. Still, I wonder if I am physically and emotionally fit enough to withstand such an assault. There are few composers whose music is as powerful as that of Dimitri Shostakovich.

Shostakovich's music (the quartets, the symphonies, the concerti, the piano variations, the incidental music) is in frequent rotation in my listening sessions, and shall remain so. These artistic masterworks deserve our strong attentions so that we may learn from them the costs of human oppression. And in these contemporary times the symphonies remain powerful contemporary statements, though we should hope, and I believe Shostakovich himself did, that these works would be best relegated to a time passed, to become "period pieces" for reminding us rather than be living examples of what is worst about the human condition.


----------



## janxharris

SONNET CLV said:


> The 5th remains a shattering masterpiece, I contend, and one of the strongest symphonies in the history of the form. As absolute music it is astounding; as program music it raises itself to an even higher level.


I very much agree.


----------



## Madiel

SONNET CLV said:


> I always lament that Shostakovich did not live to see the end of the Soviet Union, and though Russia today is still not the land of democratic openness and full societal freedom, it has come a long way from the era catalogued by Shostakovich's music, especially the symphonies. I have long contended that these 15 music works speak better than anything else about the history of the Soviet Union; that we can _experience_ Communist oppression via this oeuvre, emotionally and feeling-wise, in a way no history book can present.
> 
> These artistic masterworks deserve our strong attentions so that we may learn from them the costs of human oppression. And in these contemporary times the symphonies remain powerful contemporary statements,


I disagree, but I guess such a reading is the only way to make Shostakovich's music palatable (meaning: it's so boring but how much he suffered), you can find depressed or scared to live people all over the world, what kind of music would have produced a guy like Shostakovich in the US during McCarthy's time? Shostakovich's music can say much about his character maybe, but no more than that. 
BTW when I want history a read a book, once I tried to use the Eroica to understand Napoleon, it didn't work :devil:


----------



## KenOC

I’m very hesitant to tie Shostakovich’s music to his political experience in the Soviet Union. After all, our ideas of what his life was like are based mostly on those garish comic books we carry around in our heads. He definitely had two periods where he had good reason to be worried, but otherwise he served in the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR from 1947 to 1962 and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union from 1962 until his death. And he was invited to join the Party (considered an honor) in 1960 and he accepted. You will search in vain for any negative comment he made about the Party or his nation aside from informal comments to friends, and I’m sure there were plenty of those from just about everybody (as there are, today, in my own country).

Better to take his music on its own account.


----------



## Larkenfield

It's hard to believe the warmed-over accounts of Shostakovich's life under Stalin being posted on this forum. Some of you just have no idea, and when you read some of the quotes attributed to him, you think every word is a lie. You can hear the bitterness and sarcasm in some of his music. You might well consider the counter political forces in the Soviet Union that would seek to discredit him rather than own up to the horrors of what life under Stalin was actually like. Sheesh. I suppose some of you who can't believe a word of what the composer was saying would have been quite happy to trade places with him as he genuinely feared for his life and the life of his friends. And of course, some of you would still like to believe that his Leningrad Symphony had nothing to do with the War. Jesus. You know why? Probably because you don't care for the Symphony.



> Forced to live for most of his life under a totalitarian regime - one moment in favor with Soviet leaders, then just as quickly out of it again - for much of his career Shostakovich was judged by political rather than musical criteria. He once described life under Stalin's regime as "unbelievably mean and hard. Every day brought more bad news and I felt so much pain. I was so lonely and afraid." Denounced in 1936 as "an enemy of the people", friends he had once considered loyal supporters began crossing the street to avoid him. To know him was dangerous; to associate with him, potentially fatal. He risked execution or deportation to the Gulag yet played the system just carefully enough to survive, publishing music that earned him praise for "not having given in to the seductive temptations of his previous 'erroneous' ways"; at least, that is, until his second denunciation for "formalism" and "western influences" in 1948, after which most of his music was banned.
> 
> _Without party guidance I would have displayed more brilliance, used more sarcasm - Dmitri Shostakovich_
> 
> Following Stalin's death in 1953 in you can almost feel, in his music, the gigantic breath of relief, as he could start to publish not just the "desk drawer" works he'd kept under wraps for years, including the Fourth Symphony, but also works in which he could openly give musical expression to the brutalities he and his contemporaries had endured under Stalin's purges. "Without party guidance," he later said, "I would have displayed more brilliance, used more sarcasm, I could have revealed my ideas openly instead of having to resort to camouflage." [unquote]
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150807-shostakovich-the-composer-who-was-almost-purged
> 
> The history of his Symphony No. 4. Nope... no political interference or problems here that he might possibly have privately objected to-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dmitri Shostakovich composed his Symphony No. 4 in C minor, Opus 43, between September 1935 and May 1936, after abandoning some preliminary sketch material. In January 1936, halfway through this period, Pravda-under direct orders from Joseph Stalin[1]-published an editorial "Muddle Instead of Music" that denounced the composer and targeted his opera _Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk_. Despite this attack, and despite the oppressive political climate of the time, Shostakovich completed the symphony and planned its premiere for December 1936 in Leningrad. After rehearsals began, the orchestra's management canceled the performance, offering a statement that Shostakovich had withdrawn the work. He may have agreed to withdraw it to relieve orchestra officials of responsibility. The symphony was premiered on 30 December 1961 by the Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra led by Kirill Kondrashin.[unquote]
> 
> It's always a tribute to the composer when Americans try to rewrite Russian history from a safe and sanitized point of view because they just don't know who to believe when reading about him, despite living almost his entire life under the microscope of political criticism and occasional rewards. During the Great Purge or the Great Terror which occurred from 1936 to 1938. It was estimated that at least 600,000 people died at the hands of the Stalin-led Soviet government.
Click to expand...


----------



## janxharris

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


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> _Without party guidance I would have displayed more brilliance, used more sarcasm - Dmitri Shostakovich_


But did he say this? The problem with the "Shostakovich Wars" is that we are expected to challenge everything he said and was said about him.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...PR1#v=onepage&q=the shostakovich wars&f=false


----------



## janxharris

I haven't heard 2,3,11,12,13,14 yet.

I do love 5 and 10.


----------



## Enthusiast

MusicSybarite said:


> I also find the 14th symphony very depressing and bleak, one more reason why I don't like it.


It can be very bleak and fairly acerbic. But there is another, perhaps more musical view of it, in the Currentzis recording. I had always "liked" the piece but I found this a revelation.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> But did he say this? The problem with the "Shostakovich Wars" is that we are expected to challenge everything he said and was said about him.
> 
> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...PR1#v=onepage&q=the shostakovich wars&f=false


It is often said that his "true" and more private voice is more easily found in his quartets. He also suppressed some of his orchestral works for fear of official disapproval - the 1st violin concerto comes to mind. And yet these works are not _so different from the public utterances that he was prepared to risk. He does seem to have been fully committed to the composer of these works. He was certainly aware of dangers during his compositional life, most particularly during Stalin's appalling reign, but he must also have enjoyed much of the acclaim (including official acclaim) that he received. He himself, and not some cowed version of himself, was a Soviet icon.

I am often struck by how many of those who seem most willing to accept the most extreme accounts of his alleged secret beliefs and yet love his music are also those who deplore much of the music composed in freer countries during the same period._


----------



## Triplets

MacLeod said:


> But did he say this? The problem with the "Shostakovich Wars" is that we are expected to challenge everything he said and was said about him.
> 
> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...PR1#v=onepage&q=the shostakovich wars&f=false


And what is your criteria for accepting any statement of his as genuine? Do you need to have him appear on Good Morning America? Perhaps you require an authenticated Twitter Feed #therealShostakovich?
The governments under which he lived did not embrace the concept of tell all interviews. We thus rely upon comments of close associates.


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> And what is your criteria for accepting any statement of his as genuine? Do you need to have him appear on Good Morning America? Perhaps you require an authenticated Twitter Feed #therealShostakovich?
> The governments under which he lived did not embrace the concept of tell all interviews. We thus rely upon comments of close associates.


I'm simply pointing out that, as the publication I linked to illustrates, there are conflicting views about who said what to whom, and whether any of what has been taken as reliable by one side or the other is, in fact, reliable. I am in no position to contest this either way, having not read Taruskin, Fay, Volkov or Ho and Feofanov.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Heck148 said:


> #3 is rather interesting up until the party-apparatchik choral bs....2 is no place....and 12 is unfocused, he lost the train of thought??
> I agree about 14 - it is very good [I think], but I have to take it in small doses...really quite depressing...


Heck, 14 in small doses seems a sensible approach, heavy going throughout. I do find the non-Russian version Haitink does can break the monotony (bad word, sorry!) but that perhaps defeats the point? As a song cycle, I'll be honest and say I prefer the Michaelangelo Suite, and the Lebyadkin Verses.

I am willing, albeit grudgingly, to admit the Third does have its interesting bits, there are moments where he's being a still youngish Dmitri, rather than the party hack he could have become.

He didn't, thank God, even if he did produce some sensibly kowtowing pieces throughout his life. The wonderfully vacuous Song of The Forests, the Sun Shines over our Motherland, and No. 12 really do spring to mind. Unfortunately, to suggest he was purely a chronicler of his age, easy to do admittedly, does him no favours. His depiction of tragedy, when it becomes personal, becomes universal, not something to pigeonhole as passe, now Stalin is long dead and peace and happiness reside joyously side by side in modern day Moscow (sic).He seemed to have more affection or respect for the revolution of 1905 than the more famous 1917, hence 11 is streets better than 12. The suffering of the Jews is admirably spotlit in the Jewish Folk Poetry, the Piano Trio, and No.13, hardly issues restricted to mid 20th century Russia. The universal spectre of Death in his later works, the oppression of the soul and the spirit in Lady Macbeth, the indomitable spirit of Symphonies 5, 6 and 10, and the Violin Concerto. These are as pertinent and as relevant today as examples of Humanity, born of oppression under Stalin, but more than capable of speaking anytime, any place, any where.


----------



## Heck148

SONNET CLV said:


> With possible exceptions of 2 and 3, each of the Shostakovich symphonies is a gem well worth exploring numerous times. This is not "happy music" or even "optimistic music", certainly, but it is "truthful music" and speaks volumes about the human condition in a particular time and particular place....


yes, indeed...very excellent, thought-provoking posting, thank you!!



> I have long contended that these 15 music works speak better than anything else about the history of the Soviet Union; that we can _experience_ Communist oppression via this oeuvre, emotionally and feeling-wise, in a way no history book can present.


Yes, I feel the same way...DS, who remained in Russia throughout its traumatic 20th century experience, was essentially reflecting [consciously and subconsciously] that collective experience in his music, esp the symphonies....dark, powerful, bleak, at times hopeful...heavy duty, for sure...



> I cherish the fifteen string quartets in much the same way. I hear them as private statements, and hear the symphonies are public statements from the composer. I fantasize that someday I will parallel the symphonies and quartets in an extended (marathon) listening session, the public symphony number one followed by a hearing of the private quartet number one, and so on through to the fifteenth work.


interesting idea - or you could listen to them concurrently, but chronologically, in order of composition...

it seems that Shostakovich's stature as a composer is on the rise, I'm glad to say...we are seeing his works performed on concerts, [not just Sym #5] with greater frequency, or so it seems...definitely a major figure of 20th century composition...


----------



## EdwardBast

Triplets said:


> And what is your criteria for accepting any statement of his as genuine? Do you need to have him appear on Good Morning America? Perhaps you require an authenticated Twitter Feed #therealShostakovich?
> The governments under which he lived did not embrace the concept of tell all interviews. We thus rely upon comments of close associates.


The criterion is whether or not the quotation appears in a reliable source or from a reliable associate. If, for example, it appears in _Testimony_, it cannot be accepted at face value since it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that that book is not what Volkov claimed it to be. A very clear fraud was perpetrated by Volkov in the way he attempted to authenticate it and in the sources of some of the text. It is possible that many quotations in _Testimony_ were the words of the composer. Unfortunately, Volkov's blatant fraud and lies make it impossible to be sure any of it can be trusted.

Thus, it is improper to attribute any passage from _Testimony_ to Shostakovich without noting the source and its dubious status.



Larkenfield said:


> It's hard to believe the warmed-over accounts of Shostakovich's life under Stalin being posted on this forum. Some of you just have no idea, and when you read some of the quotes attributed to him, you think every word is a lie. You can hear the bitterness and sarcasm in some of his music. *You might well consider the counter political forces in the Soviet Union that would seek to discredit him rather than own up to the horrors of what life under Stalin was actually like.* Sheesh. I suppose some of you who can't believe a word of what the composer was saying would have been quite happy to trade places with him as he genuinely feared for his life and the life of his friends. And of course, some of you would still like to believe that his Leningrad Symphony had nothing to do with the War. Jesus. You know why? Probably because you don't care for the Symphony.


One can have a clear idea of what life in the USSR was like for Shostakovich and be perfectly cognizant of the propagandists seeking to discredit alleged quotations of the composer while still recognizing the daunting problems with source material. Unfortunately, the principal source for subversive thinking by Shostakovich was tainted by fraud. _Testimony_ was not conclusively discredited by Soviet propagandists, but by astute American musicologists with no political agenda. Those same musicologists demonstrated that the 7th symphony was indeed composed in the midst of the siege of Leningrad and is likely a strong reflection of Shostakovich's state of mind during that time.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> I'm very hesitant to tie Shostakovich's music to his political experience in the Soviet Union. After all, our ideas of what his life was like are based mostly on those garish comic books we carry around in our heads. He definitely had two periods where he had good reason to be worried, but otherwise he served in the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR from 1947 to 1962 and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union from 1962 until his death. *And he was invited to join the Party (considered an honor) in 1960 and he accepted. You will search in vain for any negative comment he made about the Party *or his nation aside from informal comments to friends, and I'm sure there were plenty of those from just about everybody (as there are, today, in my own country).
> 
> Better to take his music on its own account.


Yes, but friends reported he berated himself for having joined the party, calling himself a cowardly worm for doing so. He seems not to have regarded it as a proud moment. And it is good to remember Richard Taruskin's words to the effect that there were no dissidents in Stalin's USSR, no living ones anyway.


----------



## Heck148

Robert Pickett said:


> Unfortunately, to suggest he was purely a chronicler of his age, easy to do admittedly, does him no favours.


Agreed, I do not mean to dismiss him as purely a chronicler of current events in Russia - more like the experience of living in Russia during those times was indelibly imprinted upon him, and was bound to come out in his music.
Even the titled pieces can stand alone on their musical merits.



> These are as pertinent and as relevant today as examples of Humanity, born of oppression under Stalin, but more than capable of speaking anytime, any place, any where.


yes, for sure...Shostakovich is not merely a composer of program music....far from it...

I really enjoy his big ballet scores - "The Age of Gold", "The Bolt" and his early film scores "Alone", "New Babylon" - these are pre- Lady Macbeth and Sym #4 - very colorfully and flamboyantly orchestrated...starting with Sym #5, after he'd gotten into trouble with the Great Leader and Teacher JS, his orchestral palette takes on a darker hue, a more somber sonority all told...still a brilliant orchestrator, of course...


----------



## SONNET CLV

KenOC said:


> I'm very hesitant to tie Shostakovich's music to his political experience in the Soviet Union.
> ...
> Better to take his music on its own account.


I must wonder why the man's music would be banned in the Soviet Union if that music did not tie to political experiences! On what "account" did Soviet officials take the music that led certain works, such as _Lady Macbeth_, the 4th Symphony, and the _Babi Yar_ to be banned? And why would a composer have to create an apology symphony (No. 5) if there was nothing to apologize for?

The Soviet poet Daniil Kharms, primarily a writer of childrens' books, has long proven a favorite of mine. He was an avant garde poet. Kharms once wrote: "I am interested only in 'nonsense'; only in that which makes no practical sense. I am interested in life only in its absurd manifestations." Indeed, reading Kharms's poetry is like reading total nonsense. It is usually befuddling, often humorous, generally innocent seeming and even meaningless. Yet, the Soviet government officials feared something about his writings enough to see that he was arrested, again, in August 1941 on a charge of spreading "libellous and defeatist mood", and arrest which occurred after, I suspect, a knock on the door, sort of like those knocking sounds one finds frequently in Shostakovich's music. Kharms starved to death in a prison insane asylum several months after this final arrest.

I struggle to read Kharms's poetry simply "on its own account".


----------



## KenOC

SONNET CLV said:


> I must wonder why the man's music would be banned in the Soviet Union if that music did not tie to political experiences! On what "account" did Soviet officials take the music that led certain works, such as _Lady Macbeth_, the 4th Symphony, and the _Babi Yar_ to be banned? And why would a composer have to create an apology symphony (No. 5) if there was nothing to apologize for?


None of the works you mention was ever banned, although the first two came to be viewed as somewhat poisonous. The authorities required changes in Yevtushenko's poem as used in DSCH's Symphony No. 13, but that had nothing to do with the music.

Several of Shostakovich's works, including the Symphony No. 9, were effectively banned following his 1948 criticism, although Stalin (supposedly) eased the ban in short order so that Shostakovich could represent the USSR in an artistic conference in New York without undue embarrassment. The ban was based on accusations of "formalism," which seemed to mean writing music appealing to intellectual circles rather than the broad masses of the people.

He was not totally rehabilitated until two or three years after Stalin's death, but by then he was releasing works written earlier "for the desk drawer" and writing new and important works freely.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, but friends reported he berated himself for having joined the party, calling himself a cowardly worm for doing so. He seems not to have regarded it as a proud moment. And it is good to remember Richard Taruskin's words to the effect that there were no dissidents in Stalin's USSR, no living ones anyway.


Of course DSCH joined the Party some years after Stalin's death, at a time when he was universally praised and had little to worry about politically. It is hard to image a gun that somebody could hold to his head. And as always there are several versions of the "truth" that we can cling to if we choose.

One version I have read was that some of Dmitri's friends, party members, simply showed up and plied him with vodka and inveigled him into signing the party application papers while thoroughly drunk.

Another is the explanation offered by Wiki: "The government wanted to appoint him General Secretary of the Composers' Union, but in order to hold that position he was required to attain Party membership. It was understood that Nikita Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party from 1958 to 1964, was looking for support from the leading ranks of the intelligentsia in an effort to create a better relationship with the Soviet Union's artists."

Of course, the problem with this is that Shostakovich was never appointed to that position, which remained filled by Tikhon Khrennikov until the final dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

Where's the truth? I admit to being less certain of this than some others.


----------



## techniquest

Getting back to the music, my own opinion is that only the 3rd is truly awful; the other 14 having merits whether I personally like them or not. 
I don't like No.14 as, to me, it's not a symphony - solo voices and a chamber band do not make for a symphony in my musical world. 
I feel that no.13 is underated; a lot of time is spent discussing the content of the Yevtushenko poems, especially 'Babi Yar', but I think in doing this, so often the impact of the music gets lost. The superb way that the poems have been set to the voices, and the outstanding orchestral writing, not to mention the power of the music as a whole (and I don't just mean 'power' in terms of the loud bits, but in the overall impact - some of the quiet passages are extremely powerful, particularly in 'At the Store').
Needless to say, No.13 is among my favourites, along with 1,4,7,8,9,11,12 (yes, I know...) and 15.


----------



## EdwardBast

SONNET CLV said:


> I must wonder why the man's music would be banned in the Soviet Union if that music did not tie to political experiences! … And why would a composer have to create an apology symphony (No. 5) if there was nothing to apologize for?


Adding to Ken's apt remarks on this issue: I think it was mostly about asserting control in an area where discerning specific meaning of any kind, let alone political meaning, is an obscure science at best. What Shostakovich had to atone for was offending Stalin, who didn't like _Lady MacBeth_. Shostakovich's rehabilitation was foreordained before the Fifth Symphony was premiered, otherwise it wouldn't have been premiered. It wasn't like his fate depended on it being taken as an apology; Anything accessible and ending with plausible optimism would have served.



KenOC said:


> *Of course DSCH joined the Party some years after Stalin's death, at a time when he was universally praised and had little to worry about politically. It is hard to image a gun that somebody could hold to his head.* And as always there are several versions of the "truth" that we can cling to if we choose.


Just my personal intuition here, but: I think the gun was not "to his head," but in it. After years of fear, no one needs to hold the gun any more. It's been internalized. And perhaps with years of relative relief after Stalin's death, the bare hint of returning pressure was enough to bring the fear back. He might have just felt: "I can't go through this again." He probably had something like PTSD over the earlier experiences, and even knowing the potential threat might be toothless, he could still have felt powerless to resist it - which would explain his self-loathing at succumbing. Anyway, that's my guess.


----------



## Enthusiast

This business of Shostakovich and the political situations he wrote in is very messy. Firstly, there are conflicting accounts of how he felt about the situations and it is easy to see motives both ways for misrepresenting these. And then there is the fact that the political situation and its impact on art changed many times during Shostakovich's life. For a while after the Bolshevik revolution the avant garde was very acceptable, indeed it chimed with the "revolutionary" times, but then official policy changed towards wanting music that the masses would understand and could relate to. Then came Stalin and a period of extraordinary repression which affected most aspects of public and private life, including the arts. Although music was the least affected of the arts this was a scary time for composers. Mostly, the threat concerned losing the right to an audience and a livelihood but, of course, worse things could happen, too. Then, after Stalin, there was a slow thaw but restrictions remained. So it wasn't always the same: there were bad times and somewhat better times. And, then, you need to consider the pride that the Soviet regimes could gain from having a great composer active - and often thriving - in the USSR. This was important to them. Shostakovich was a privileged person.

Another angle is the feelings and attitudes that Shostakovich might have had about things - including non-artistic things - that were happening in his country through all these different times. We do not know very much about these - the sources are very contradictory - but it is easy to imagine that the neighbour-spaying-upon-neighbour culture that typified much of Stalin's period was something he (along with many much more vulnerable intellectuals) deplored. And it is also easy to imagine that he would have hated the bureaucratic nature of state institutions for guiding and promoting music, the talentless ruling over the talented. Of course, this sort of thing happens in other places and not only police states, and is often a great source of irritation (to say the least) to the creative artists who might depend upon it. Combine it with Stalinist terror, though, and it must have become much more than an irritation. But we do need to remember that music was one of the most honoured and least oppressed areas of intellectual activity in the USSR. 

Through all of this Shostakovich wrote both public and more private music. There is a distinctive voice and a clear evolution running through it all. You can see the impact of the time when the arts became more controlled and oppressed and the time when things became more free in his art, but the overwhelming feel of his output (both private and public) suggests one artist who experienced the odd disappointment but did not find it too difficult to adapt with his artistic integrity intact. 

It is also worth remembering that Shostakovich was not the only composer who worked in a politically difficult environment. Schubert's Vienna, to give one example, was also politically difficult for someone who moved in the circles that Schubert moved in. He was beaten up by the secret police, an indignity that was never visited upon Shostakovich, on at least one occasion. And, so many great composers saw around them appalling situations - poverty, oppression, terrible wars - and, yes, these experiences will have found their ways into their music, music that speaks of the human condition and not just a particular instance of it.

So, I do agree that it is the music that matters and that speaks to us - in my opinion - of something much bigger than the mere political environment in which he lived. And I suggest that the coherence of his vision throughout his life, a life that saw many changes in his own circumstances, is the strongest argument we have that we must not reduce his art to mere politics.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Heck148 said:


> Agreed, I do not mean to dismiss him as purely a chronicler of current events in Russia - more like the experience of living in Russia during those times was indelibly imprinted upon him, and was bound to come out in his music.


Never thought you did or indeed would!

I have suites from films like Alone, good stuff, and ditto Age of Gold. He was a fabulous orchestrator no doubt, but I sometimes wish he'd kept some of the sparkle heard in earlier works. First Symphony? 'Nuff said! Incidentally, have you heard any of his really early orchestral pieces, the Scherzo Op.1 And Op.7? The Theme and Variations Op.3? Astonishingly assured stuff!


----------



## Heck148

Robert Pickett said:


> I have suites from films like Alone, good stuff, and ditto Age of Gold. He was a fabulous orchestrator no doubt, but I sometimes wish he'd kept some of the sparkle heard in earlier works.


Me, too - but that may be what got him into trouble, or at least he may have perceived it as such. Lady Macbeth is fabulously, flamboyantly orchestrated, but perhaps the sexual assault by trombone, along with the following anatomical demise of the organ [again by trombone] was too much for Comrade Stalin??!! :devil: "Muddle instead of music!!" Formalist!! "Coarse!! Vulgar!! bourgeois!!"



> First Symphony? 'Nuff said!


yup, awesome piece, amazing first symphony...great orchestration, very imaginative...



> Incidentally, have you heard any of his really early orchestral pieces, the Scherzo Op.1 And Op.7? The Theme and Variations Op.3? Astonishingly assured stuff!


No, I'll have to check those out!! thanx!!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Denunciation, Stalin Prize, Denunciation, Stalin Prize...stick, carrot, stick, carrot...

In a way I think Shostakovich's gutsiest symphony is the 9th, especially as he publicly stated that he intended to compose a choral symphony "about the greatness of the Russian people, about our Red Army liberating our native land from the enemy". The 9th did not turn out that way, and I'm surprised Shostakovich didn't get into hot water immediately for producing a work which ended up being completely at odds with his original statement.


----------



## EdwardBast

elgars ghost said:


> Denunciation, Stalin Prize, Denunciation, Stalin Prize...stick, carrot, stick, carrot...
> 
> In a way I think Shostakovich's gutsiest symphony is the 9th, *especially as he publicly stated that he intended to compose a choral symphony "about the greatness of the Russian people*, about our Red Army liberating our native land from the enemy". The 9th did not turn out that way, and I'm surprised Shostakovich didn't get into hot water immediately for producing a work which ended up being completely at odds with his original statement.


Yes, and the 6th was supposed to be a vast tribute to Lenin, and Lady MacBeth was supposed to be the first of a cycle about Russian women (when it was popular and uncondemned) … Shostakovich made those kind of promises all the time. Good point about the 9th.


----------



## manyene

I would put 1,2 and 3 at the bottom - in declining order - and rank all the other as impossible to call.


----------



## Larkenfield

Barshai’s recording of the Shostakovich 1st is brilliant. It’s perfect as one of the greatest 1st Symphonies ever written, in my opinion. I hate to see it lumped in with No. 2 and 3, and I think even those were honest failures. I think listeners should look for better performances of the 1st, such as Barshai’s, for ex. Even with number 2 and 3, it was Shostakovich before the authorities started irrevocably messing with his head with charges of “formalism“ like with some of his later works. How he managed to write anything with confidence is a miracle, and I hope the point is never lost.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Barshai's recording of the Shostakovich 1st is brilliant. It's perfect as one of the greatest 1st Symphonies ever written, in my opinion. I hate to see it lumped in with No. 2 and 3, and I think even those were honest failed attempts. I think listeners should look for better performances of the 1st, such as the well performed and recorded Barshai's. Even with number 2 and 3, it was Shostakovich before the authorities started irrevocably messing around with his mind like with his later symphonies. How he managed to write anything with confidence is a miracle, and I hope the point is never lost.


Agree that the 1st is a real treat. When it was first performed, on DSCH's graduation from the conservatory, it brought him attention not just in Russia but globally. It was pretty obvious that he was something special. Certainly one of the very greatest "Firsts", along with Brahms and Mahler.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Woodduck said:


> #1 (a brashly wonderful, concise and characterful first effort) and #5 (except for that finale). #4 is intense, and #15 is enigmatic and fascinating, but not too often please. In general I have little taste for S's symphonies.


That's a new one, I feel like many people view the finale as the highlight of the fifth.

Personally I believe the best moments are in the first and third movements and the second movement as a whole has incredible wit, nails the humor idea and is SUPER fun to listen to - there is something to say for that.

As for the fourth, do you dislike it because of that homestretch that just kind of bangs out the last melody really tediously? I'm sure you know that part is supposed to have some irony/satiral purpose to it, presumably to satirize the exalting of the state especially following DS' fall from Stalin's good graces, but I imagine your view is that we shouldn't forgive unrefined or 'lazy' endings even if the point is to convey some agenda...just my idea for your view. That contextual meanings can't necessarily redeem an underwhelming finale.

This wasn't intended to interrogate you on your view, more just for discussion. I just thought it was interesting


----------



## EdwardBast

Minor Sixthist said:


> That's a new one, I feel like many people view the finale as the highlight of the fifth.


Many do think the finale is a highlight, but finding it problematic in one way or another has a long tradition. One review of the premiere (by Kubishev?) said it sounded like it was artificially juiced up with an induction coil, that is, falsely manic. And since then there has been a perennial debate over whether it is sincerely triumphant or sarcastic, which means, some find its pomp bogus.


----------



## Woodduck

I don't hate it, it's good visceral razzmatazz, and I don't know whether it's meant ironically or not. I'm not big on musical irony; words work better. But I think the rest of the symphony is fine, one of my favorites by a composer I don't much empathize with. I still sometimes think he never equaled the inventiveness, wit, energy and concision of the first symphony, but I know many listen to him for other qualities.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

>since then there has been a perennial debate over whether it is sincerely triumphant or sarcastic

I guess that makes sense, though I feel like the debate was always DS' point and he'd consider it a success that we can't still can't decide one way or another. I thought the debate in itself was the symbolism he intended. But I understand what you're saying, that could be viewed as a weakness as opposed to a strength


----------



## EdwardBast

Minor Sixthist said:


> >since then there has been a perennial debate over whether it is sincerely triumphant or sarcastic
> 
> I guess that makes sense, though I feel like the debate was always DS' point and he'd consider it a success that we can't still can't decide one way or another. I thought the debate in itself was the symbolism he intended. But I understand what you're saying, that could be viewed as a weakness as opposed to a strength


Many do debate about whether the finale is some sort of political statement. Those who hear it as "sincerely" triumphant might imagine he was just acceding to the most important demand of Socialist Realism, that is, ending optimistically. Some of those who think its exuberance and pomp are over the top like to think it was a sarcastic poke at the powers that were. Conductors wishing to emphasize one or the other political interpretation could do so by downplaying or exaggerating certain features. I am in fact suspicious of both political interpretations. Shostakovich was certainly composing a finale he thought would satisfy the need for plausible optimism. And if he overdid it (if once thinks he did) how could one possibly distinguish between sarcastic over-exuberance and a more than normal but benign desire to please based on his political vulnerability? How could one even be sure Shostakovich himself would know the difference?

My favorite interpretation of the finale's significance is one suggested by Richard Taruskin.* He hears a musical connection between part of the finale and a song Shostakovich had written on a poem by Pushkin called "Renewal" (or something like that), leaving open the possibility that Pushkin's text is a hidden key to the symphony's interpretation. The poem describes a canvas obscured by a barbarian painter who splashes paint across it. The poem says that eventually the obscuring coat will peel away to reveal the true image the artist intended. Taruskin doesn't come out and say it, but one way to interpret this data might be to hear the finale as the obscuring coat. Strip it away and the symphony ends with a slow movement which, according to Taruskin, invokes Russian funeral music traditions. It becomes a tombstone for his friends and others who had died in the recent purge. But, of course, no one is ever going to perform it without the finale and arguing that it is in fact a three movement symphony trying to get out is the wildest speculation.

*"Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony." In _Shostakovich Studies_. Ed. David Fanning. Cambridge University Press (1995): 17-56.


----------



## Eschbeg

EdwardBast said:


> Some of those who think its exuberance and pomp are over the top like to think it was a sarcastic poke at the powers that were.


One practical argument against the over-the-top-sarcasm reading, also briefly mentioned by Taruskin, is that it's hard to imagine Shostakovich being so suicidal as to make the finale as over-the-top sarcastic as some would like to hear it now. Any sarcasm Shostakovich might have intended would had to have been subtle indeed, unless he had a death wish.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eschbeg said:


> One practical argument against the over-the-top-sarcasm reading, also briefly mentioned by Taruskin, is that it's hard to imagine Shostakovich being so suicidal as to make the finale as over-the-top sarcastic as some would like to hear it now. Any sarcasm Shostakovich might have intended would had to have been subtle indeed, unless he had a death wish.


Yes. And subtle sarcasm in such a case would be indistinguishable from subtle over-enthusiasm, rendering the exercise pointless.


----------



## chalkpie

Davila said:


> Interesting, my favorite recording of the 7th is with Gergiev conducting the Kirov Orchestra. The last movement is unbelievably powerful.


I also love this recording.


----------



## chalkpie

I really love most of them, but the REAL standouts are: S4, S5, S7, S9, S10, S11 for me. 

I feel he is one of the greatest symphonist ever, and these are my favs that wrote in that medium (in no order): 

DSCH
Mahler
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Lutoslawski
Ives
Copland


----------



## Dulova Harps On

Of the ones i have listened to my faves are:

5
10 and 11 (I think his 11th is seriously underrated)
8
12

Not a fan of 4,6, 7 and 1


----------



## Heck148

Dulova Harps On said:


> Of the ones i have listened to my faves are:
> 
> 5
> 10 and 11 (I think his 11th is seriously underrated)
> 8
> 12
> 
> Not a fan of 4,6, 7 and 1


I agree, #11 is underrated....very fine work...give 1. 4, 6, 7 some time...these are all wonderful works....1 and 4 are from DS' pre-Stalin period.....the genius and flamboyant scoring are readily apparent....#1 is an amazing first symphony...stunning, really...4 was written right as Shostakovich got into trouble with the Great Leader and Teacher, the Steel Man....DS' works take on a darker hue and of course, Russia was soon plunged into the terrible inferno of WWII...don't forget #9!!


----------



## Dulova Harps On

Heck148 said:


> I agree, #11 is underrated....very fine work...give 1. 4, 6, 7 some time...these are all wonderful works....1 and 4 are from DS' pre-Stalin period.....the genius and flamboyant scoring are readily apparent....#1 is an amazing first symphony...stunning, really...4 was written right as Shostakovich got into trouble with the Great Leader and Teacher, the Steel Man....DS' works take on a darker hue and of course, Russia was soon plunged into the terrible inferno of WWII...don't forget #9!!


Yes i will have to give them another listen. I'm really just starting to explore DS so i'm just posting my first impressions really.

Most of the recordings i was listening to were conducted by Mravinsky so i'm looking forward to hearing other interpretations too.

I listened to 9 , 13 and 15 last night and really enjoyed 9.


----------



## Janspe

The Shostakovich symphonies certainly are a bit of a mixed bag. The 4th is probably my favourite, but I'm incredibly fond of the 14th and the 15th as well. The popular 5th, 7th and 10th are great but not something I love listening to too often. In a way I still feel like I'm discovering these works, even though I've heard them countless times: just a few months ago I listened to the 8th and was positively perplexed by what I was hearing.

I'm going to hear quite a lot of Shostakovich this season in Helsinki, including the 11th which I'm looking forward to very much. Come to think of it, I've only heard the 1st, 4th, 10th and 15th symphonies live!


----------



## mbhaub

Janspe said:


> ...I've only heard the 1st, 4th, 10th and 15th symphonies live!


I've been going to concerts for 50 years and have only ever heard 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 live. The 5th repeatedly. I've been playing concerts for almost as long, and have only had the chance to play 1, 5, 9, and 10. I'd love to play 4! Someday, an orchestra somewhere will begin doing Shostakovich Festivals like they do festivals for Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler. It'd be great to hear all the symphonies and concertos as well as some of the ballet or film music with a first-class orchestra and a sympathetic conductor. Helsinki would be a good place to do it, too!


----------



## AfterHours

Shostakovich's are among the toughest to put in qualitative order, except that I think 15 is for sure his greatest masterpiece (and one of music's all time masterpieces).

If forced to choose it would probably go something like the following (with only his 15th secure, rankings 2nd place through 9th place potentially interchangable and all of them among his best work imo. Below that are probably his "least great"). 

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

His 5th Symphony in particular moves around a lot for me, sometimes seeming diabolically ambiguous, in mesmerizing conflict/anguish with itself; other times seeming thematically indecisive/confused and perhaps mitigating a bit of its own momentum. Sometimes I rank it as high as his 2nd best, other times as low as his 9th best and all rankings in between...


----------



## Janspe

mbhaub said:


> Someday, an orchestra somewhere will begin doing Shostakovich Festivals like they do festivals for Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler. It'd be great to hear all the symphonies and concertos as well as some of the ballet or film music with a first-class orchestra and a sympathetic conductor. Helsinki would be a good place to do it, too!


This is something I've been thinking about as well. I was a bit salty about our Mahler season (all of the symphonies, well, almost!) last season here: is there nothing else to do? Mahler is played all the time. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy every single one of the symphonies - he's my favourite symphonist, after all - but there are so many worthy symphony cycles that could be presented like that. Nielsen, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bruckner, Rautavaara, Vaughan Williams, Dvořák... Repertoire that doesn't get presented in a cyclical manner that often.

I have to be fair towards the Radio Symphony Orchestra, though: they're doing a lot of Shostakovich this seaso:

- Piano Concerto No. 1
- Violin Concerto No. 1
- Violin Concerto No. 2
- Cello Concerto No. 1
- Symphony No. 1
- Symphony No. 6
- Symphony No. 9
- Symphony No. 10
- Symphony No. 11
- Symphony No. 14

Also the 1st piano trio and the 13th string quartet as late night chamber music events after the main concerts.

That's a lot of Shostakovich to digest! So happy about the 2nd violin concerto, it's a true gem. Six symphonies out of 15 is not bad at all.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm sure I must have already said this in this thread but 14 is surely one of his greatest works and the Currentzis recording is the one that makes such a conclusion inevitable!


----------



## Lisztian

AfterHours said:


> Shostakovich's are among the toughest to put in qualitative order, except that I think 15 is for sure his greatest masterpiece (and one of music's all time masterpieces).
> 
> If forced to choose it would probably go something like the following (with only his 15th secure, rankings 2nd place through 9th place potentially interchangable and all of them among his best work imo. Below that are probably his "least great").
> 
> (1st) Symphony No. 15
> (2) 7
> (3) 8
> (4) 1
> (5) 10
> (6) 11
> (7) 9
> (8) 6
> (9) 5
> (10) 4
> (11) 3
> (12) 12
> (13) 2
> (14) 13
> (15) 14
> 
> His 5th Symphony in particular moves around a lot for me, sometimes seeming diabolically ambiguous, in mesmerizing conflict/anguish with itself; other times seeming thematically indecisive/confused and perhaps mitigating a bit of its own momentum. Sometimes I rank it as high as his 2nd best, other times as low as his 9th best and all rankings in between...


Interesting list. The only people I've ever seen consider the 15th to be the best are you and Scaruffi. From what I can tell 4 is also usually considered to be among the very best, and 13/14 at the least in the upper half. I say all of this without knowing the works too well though, and I'm sure you'd know them better than me! The main point of this post is I'm noticing that opinions on Shosties symphonies are more varied than most other composers.


----------



## Art Rock

Using the same split as I just posted for Mahler:

Hors concours (limited to my favourite 100 compositions in classical music): 7
Essential (one tier lower, but definitely musts to have in my collection): 4,5,8,10,13,14
Important (one tier lower, but still desirable to have): 1,6,9,11,12,15
Good to have (another tier lower, but indeed good to have): 2,3


----------



## AfterHours

Lisztian said:


> Interesting list. The only people I've ever seen consider the 15th to be the best are you and Scaruffi. From what I can tell 4 is also usually considered to be among the very best, and 13/14 at the least in the upper half. I say all of this without knowing the works too well though, and I'm sure you'd know them better than me! The main point of this post is I'm noticing that opinions on Shosties symphonies are more varied than most other composers.


Admittedly, I need to revisit his 4th, 3rd, 12th, 2nd, 13th, 14th. I am right in the middle of going back through his symphonies (in "qualitative", not date, order) and I haven't made it to those yet, but I don't recall them being as great as the others. But I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of those were to move up as Shosty does indeed have several that have shifted around for me over the years.

The 15th gets a pretty good deal of praise these days but I think you might be right that there aren't too many, if any at all, outside of Scaruffi, that also would call it his very best.

Here's a good intro into what is so extraordinary and profound about it: https://www.theguardian.com/music/t...23/symphony-guide-shostakovich-15-tom-service


----------



## Guest

For me the essential Shostakovich is the string quartets and other chamber music, especially the viola sonata.

Among the symphonies, I have very strong positive associations with 10, 15, 9, 5, 6 (in roughly descending order). The others are a blur, I have to revisit them.


----------



## MrMeatScience

I agree that the 15th has to be the best of his symphonies. It's in turns cryptic, profound, humorous, and apocalyptic -- the perfect Shostakovich symphony. If I had to rank them today, I'd say:

(1) 15
(2) 8
(3) 10
(4) 5
(5) 9
(6) 13
(7) 1
(8) 4
(9) 7
(10) 11
(11) 12
(12) 14
(13) 6
(14) 3
(15) 2

I think 14 will rise in my estimation, but it's a tough nut to crack and I don't know enough performances yet to have a more holistic view.


----------



## Guest

I didn't approach the Shostakovich Symphonies methodically, and only came upon the 15th relatively recently. It instantly became a favorite, more or less tied with the 10th as my favorite among Shostakovich's symphonies. I like the way it skirts a line between ironic and apocalyptic.


----------



## KenOC

I've seen the 15th fairly often on concert programs so it seems to have some popularity. I've also seen people describe it as "depressing" or "about death," though it doesn't sound that way to me. Well, the 2nd movement is certainly gloomy enough, but it has a cunningly-prepared climax that'll lift you right out of your chair. So all is forgiven!


----------



## mkur

Shostakovitch work is so heavily overshadowed by his biography
and multiple historical circumstances.

No doubt his talent and craftsmanship made it possible for him
to be both popular (populist sometimes) and of great artistic value.

I think the well known personal history made it even easier for him
to become a kind o novelty. The revival of a symphony model is
one of his major achievements.

Too this end - for me:

1) the 4th and the 8th - outstanding masterpieces

A new life and sheer talent in the 4th.
Thoughtfulness and robustness in the 8th.

2) Very good: 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th

Too much pop for me to join the first group.
Great for sure.

In here I am inclined to add the 6th as well.
It is though a bit like unfinished (a trunk without a head).

3) Overrated: 1st, 7th, 15th

Both quite ok, but really pop for the 7th and too much
of tongue-in-cheek in the 15th. Very well crafted, but like made for purpose.
Not art ;-)
The 1st is ok but too little of own language in it.
A simmalr story with Prokofiev.

4) Cannot get my head around: the rest.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I’m just having a real tough time with Shostakovich symphony. I can listen and get through the 5th(the one which Shosty had to conform to Soviet musical demands) but all the rest are a monumental task. I have the complete cycle by Vasily Petrenko/Royal Liverpool which has generally gotten very good reviews and couple from Ormandy. I can not tell you how many times I have started to listen to Shosty symphony and I just have to stop. The weird thing is I really like the concertos and string quartets. I have not explored any music beyond that. I’ll read this thread and maybe some other sources. I’ll keep on trying. At the rate I’m going it may take years.


----------



## FrankinUsa

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm just having a real tough time with Shostakovich symphony. I can listen and get through the 5th(the one which Shosty had to conform to Soviet musical demands) but all the rest are a monumental task. I have the complete cycle by Vasily Petrenko/Royal Liverpool which has generally gotten very good reviews and couple from Ormandy. I can not tell you how many times I have started to listen to Shosty symphony and I just have to stop. The weird thing is I really like the concertos and string quartets. I have not explored any music beyond that. I'll read this thread and maybe some other sources. I'll keep on trying. At the rate I'm going it may take years.


One more thought. Generally speaking I just find them waaay too long and repetitive. I also question Shosty's need to give titles to many of the symphonies. Was this an attempt to help people understand a symphony but in a sense it can then be viewed as a tone poem. Mahler had started giving his symphonies titles(titles) but eventually decided against titles.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Shostakovich symphonies?

No thanks.


----------



## haziz

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm just having a real tough time with Shostakovich symphony. I can listen and get through the 5th(the one which Shosty had to conform to Soviet musical demands) but all the rest are a monumental task. I have the complete cycle by Vasily Petrenko/Royal Liverpool which has generally gotten very good reviews and couple from Ormandy. I can not tell you how many times I have started to listen to Shosty symphony and I just have to stop. The weird thing is I really like the concertos and string quartets. I have not explored any music beyond that. I'll read this thread and maybe some other sources. I'll keep on trying. At the rate I'm going it may take years.


Try his 9th symphony. It is quite conventional in structure and style. It also came as a bit of a shock to the authorities, who expected a monumental triumph over Nazism celebration (he actually at one point implied as much) and instead they got a perky, lightweight, neoclassical composition.


----------



## Heck148

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm just having a real tough time with Shostakovich symphony. I can listen and get through the 5th(the one which Shosty had to conform to Soviet musical demands) but all the rest are a monumental task. ..... I can not tell you how many times I have started to listen to Shosty symphony and I just have to stop. The weird thing is I really like the concertos and string quartets. I have not explored any music beyond that. I'll read this thread and maybe some other sources. I'll keep on trying. At the rate I'm going it may take years.


A couple of suggestions - Perhaps try some of Shotakovich's earlier [pre Lady Macbeth, Sym #4] period...this would include much of his film music, and the big ballet scores - Golden Age, and The Bolt....here DS is much brighter, more colorful, flamboyant even, fascinating orchestrations...these of course, contain many shorter pieces or sections which you may find easier to track and stay with.
After Lady Macbeth, DS got into trouble with the great leader and teacher, J. Stalin. his works take on a generally darker hue...
It would be very trite to say that DS expressed the Russian 20th century experience thru his music, way too simplified....but, this experience was certainly the framework in which his works were composed....has any nation suffered worse trials and tribulations faced by Russia in the 20th century?? perhaps China, Poland, but few others on such a magnitude...the Czarist years, the First World War, the Revolution, the terrible Civil War, the Stalinist years, the terrors, the purges, the even worse Second World War, the Cold War....these are huge subjects, and DS' symphonies are correspondingly long and complex....

Another thought is to listen to them one movement or so at a time...select one or two movements at a listening...I do this frequently with Mahler, Bruckner, and Wagner [one act or scene at a time] when I don't choose to hear the entire piece at one sitting...you may find that to be effective for Shostakovich....it's worth pursuing, as DS is one of the major composers, and his symphonies are a treasure trove of great music.


----------



## ZJovicic

Haven't yet listened to them all, but so far 10th is my favorite, and 15th second best.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Shostakovich symphonies? YES PLEASE!!! Incredible works. Favorites: the 4th (!!!), 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th and 15th.


----------



## Barbebleu

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm just having a real tough time with Shostakovich symphony. I can listen and get through the 5th(the one which Shosty had to conform to Soviet musical demands) but all the rest are a monumental task. I have the complete cycle by Vasily Petrenko/Royal Liverpool which has generally gotten very good reviews and couple from Ormandy. I can not tell you how many times I have started to listen to Shosty symphony and I just have to stop. The weird thing is I really like the concertos and string quartets. I have not explored any music beyond that. I'll read this thread and maybe some other sources. I'll keep on trying. At the rate I'm going it may take years.


Don't worry about it. Find a composer you like and listen to their symphonies. Life's too short to waste time trying to like something that gives you no pleasure emotionally or intellectually.


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> Shostakovich symphonies? YES PLEASE!!! Incredible works. Favorites: the 4th (!!!), 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th and 15th.


Oh but the 6th is one of the best. IMO, obviously.


----------



## mkur

The 6th 1st part is incredible.
The 8th is even better though ;-)

I can recommend the Petrenko full works set.
The 8th there is outstanding.
For the 4th the Previn/Chicago disk is actually better.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Thanks to all those who responded to my comments and how or if to (re)approach Shosty symphonies


----------



## Heck148

mkur said:


> ....For the 4th the Previn/Chicago disk is actually better.


That is a GREAT DS #4, overall, my favorite, tho Kondrashin/MoscowPO is really terrific also. Rozh'sky/USSR and Haitink/CSO are very excellent as well...


----------



## elgar's ghost

I like the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th the most, but because the timeline encompasses the years when the Soviet Union was either tiptoeing on the eggshells of Socialist Realism or at war I like listening to all of nos. 4-10 as a 'cycle within a cycle'.


----------



## larold

I don't think anything he wrote is overrated though much is better than others. Of the symphonies clearly Nos. 8 and 10 are the greatest masterpieces with 1 and 5 following. The ones I enjoy and hear most often are









Caetani's set is outstanding though let down by a bland No. 10, a bad one to have a klinker.









This is the plum from Haitink though there are a million great No. 8s.









This is probably the least well-known and most underrated conductor making recordings today.









Any Shostakovich from him is worth hearing. He even made Symphonies 2, 3 and 12 sound like masterpieces.









I think Ormandy was the best American-based conductor of Shostakovich though Bernstein has a lot of fans. Ormandy's Shostakovich 4 is the only one I know that downplays the noise and makes music of everything.


----------



## larold

If you like Shostakovich in the modern conducting style and most enjoy the bottom sounds of the orchestra (dark strings, timpani) you probably will enjoy this

View attachment 159018


----------



## mkur

I happen to like modern conducting in general.
Vasily Petrenko - very fine, Semyon Bychkov - same (too few recordings ...) 
For older masters - Bernard Haitink - I am not really persuaded, Leonard Bernstein - similar. 
Andre Previn - as mentioned - stands out.

A side note - the attachment from the previous post seems to be invalid.


----------



## Forster

FrankinUsa said:


> how or if to (re)approach Shosty symphonies


I found watching a TV performance helped, rather than just listening to a CD. I like this one of the 11th (my favourite).


----------



## Aries

I think No. 3 and No. 12 are underrated, when I read this thread. Don't know why people consider these pieces to be bad.

Overall I can't agree on much here. No. 7 is by far the best of his symphonies imo, and also the best symphony of the 20th century overall along with Mahlers 9th.

I agree that No. 4, 5, 8, 10 are very good symphonies.

But No. 9, is that even a serious work? 

I don't get Symphony No. 1. It is completely unappealing for me. Same story with No. 13.

No. 2 on the other hand seems underrated too. Maybe the best atonal piece of all. A good symphony.

In the case of Beethoven or Bruckner for example I can roughly agree to the valuations of others, but in Shostakovichs case the valuations of others leave many behind question marks for me.


----------



## RobertJTh

My personal preferences, from top to bottom:

15 - the only purely instrumental symphony from DSCH's late period, it's as much a spiritual summary of the composer's life as Mahler's 9, and equally deep and touching.

8 - the one war symphony that grabs you by your throat, much more so than the 7th, DSCH in unequaled top form, every movement is a marvel.

10 - a gentler, more neoclassical variation on the 8th. Less raw, more formally perfect. I value it lower because of the less satisfying finale.

4 - experimental, Mahlerian, romantic and hyper-modern at the same time. Fascinating, but to me this is dangerous music. It's even more depressing than the lugubrious 14th.

6 - more defiant and original than the 5th, and the first movement is almost the 8th's or 10th's equal. One can't overlook the unbalanced form, though.

14 - doesn't work a symphony for me, the formal coherence and riches of tone color are missing, but it's still a haunting, disturbing skin crawler of a piece.

Michelangelo Songs - same song cycle structure as the 14th, so why not call it the 16th symphony? (actually DSCH himself hinted at that). Just as good as the 14th, but much lesser known. It'd be much more famous of course if it was called the 16th and included in every recorded symphony cycle.

9 - a divertimento with some hidden depths, more sophisticated than people give it credit for. Feels like a throwback to the 1st.

5 - I used to dismiss the 5th as predictable soviet music, but I grew to see its beauty. But it's harnassed beauty, almost suffocated by overly rigid, conventional forms.

1 - charming and strikingly original, at least in the first half. The latter reverts to warmed-up Glazunov.

7 - over the top, way too long and with loads of dead spots, it always sounds like a rush job to me, even in the best performances. It probably was, given the circumstances at the time.

13 - rather uniformly grey-sounding piece that, like the 7th, seems too long for its limited material.

11 - rather empty and superficially dramatic. Feels like a pale carbon copy of the previous symphonies.

2 - creates an interesting soundscape, then some people start to shout and it's over.

3 - feels a bit more like a real symphony than the 2nd, but it's more bland and boring too.

12 - ugly and uninspired propaganda piece that would have been completely forgotten (together with 2 and 3 ) if DSCH wasn't the maker.


----------



## Knorf

Shostakovich Symphonies that changed my life, which I will always defend as masterpieces: 5, 8, 10, 13. I view the Thirteenth as an incredible achievement, perhaps Shostakovich's most important and inspired symphonic statement. 

Very close to the greatest ones mentioned above: 1, 4, 6, 9, 14

Shostakovich Symphonies that have more or less minor flaws, but remain great and inspired works, well worthy of regular performance and study: 7, 11, 15

Only for the very, very curious: 2, 3, 12


----------



## Aries

My ranking:

- 7th
- 3rd
- 5th
- 8th
- 12th
- 4th 
- 2nd
- 10th

bad or no sufficient opinion about the rest, the 7th was actually the only Shostakovich symphony I liked instantly, I needed some time for the others, but by now I have no further hope for at least the 1st and 9th.


----------



## Heck148

Hard for me to make a firm ranking - DS' symphonies are a real treasure trove....great composer...

I've been listening a lot recently, esp to Syms 4 ,8, 10, and now 11 - I'll probably post a new thread in the near future...

top level:
1,4,5,7,8,9,10,11

Very good, but I'm going to re-explore:
6,15,13

Heavy duty, but not really a symphony, as such -
14 [can't listen to the whole thing at one time]

misfire:
12

almost!
3 - really interesting, too bad about the proletarian propaganda crap in the finale

what was he trying to do??
2


----------

