Dmitri's Dacha

[Madiel]

In the age of recorded music there is zero need to go around doing this.

Here's a thought experiment for YOU: try imagining yourself as a composer and see how you feel about people ignoring what was one of the very first key decisions you made about the music.

I write songs from time to time. They come with a sound. It's damn annoying when a song decides to be guitar based because I can't play the guitar, but there it is. I can't pretend I heard a piano in my mind just because it would be so much more convenient for my performance capability.

Basically you assert the primacy of performers. I'm with Ravel. Composers are in charge. A performer who goes wandering off THAT far from the composition isn't doing their damn job, and if it was one of my compositions I'd be angry.

It's a mystery to me how you can repeatedly equate the vagaries of tempo and dynamics and other imprecise forms of notation with something as definite as "pick up the following instruments". Next you'll be telling me that replacing notes with other notes you prefer is just "interpretation".

No-one besides you calls it "interpretation" in the first place. It's called an arrangement. This conversation is happening precisely because you decided to invent a new meaning for the word "interpretation" that is not used by actual arrangers.

[Karl Henning]

In the age of recorded music there is zero need to go around doing this.

Here's a thought experiment for YOU: try imagining yourself as a composer and see how you feel about people ignoring what was one of the very first key decisions you made about the music.

I write songs from time to time. They come with a sound. It's damn annoying when a song decides to be guitar based because I can't play the guitar, but there it is. I can't pretend I heard a piano in my mind just because it would be so much more convenient for my performance capability.

Basically you assert the primacy of performers. I'm with Ravel. Composers are in charge. A performer who goes wandering off THAT far from the composition isn't doing their damn job, and if it was one of my compositions I'd be angry.

It's a mystery to me how you can repeatedly equate the vagaries of tempo and dynamics and other imprecise forms of notation with something as definite as "pick up the following instruments". Next you'll be telling me that replacing notes with other notes you prefer is just "interpretation".

No-one besides you calls it "interpretation" in the first place. It's called an arrangement. This conversation is happening precisely because you decided to invent a new meaning for the word "interpretation" that is not used by actual arrangers.

My friend, I reject entirely the fanciful, and indeed Romantic assertion that the composer must find this disagreeable. In Bach and Handel we have obvious examples of composers reassigning music without regard for sacrosanctity of their initial timbral conception: a concept of their work existing in a sort of to-be-colored abstract. Sure, that was the norm (we might say) for the era, but it is also an example for composers. And while it is true that the general feeling was otherwise in the Romantic era, there is no point at which we can say that it changed for all serious composers thenceforth. Brahms himself arranged the Opus 120 clarinet sonatas for viola the year after he first composed them. In the 20^th c. Ravel frequently arranged his piano pieces for orchestra, in "defiance" of his original conception. And the art of arranging was a special study within Schoenberg's circle: think of Berg arranging the Adagio of his Chamber Concerto for Piano and Violin with 13 Wind Instruments for piano, violin and clarinet. The idea that after some arbitrary date, composers must be outraged at the idea of their music being sensitively arranged won't hold water.

[Madiel]

My friend, I reject entirely the fanciful, and indeed Romantic assertion that the composer must find this disagreeable. In Bach and Handel we have obvious examples of composers reassigning music without regard for sacrosanctity of their initial timbral conception: a concept of their work existing in a sort of to-be-colored abstract. Sure, that was the norm (we might say) for the era, but it is also an example for composers. And while it is true that the general feeling was otherwise in the Romantic era, there is no point at which we can say that it changed for all serious composers thenceforth. Brahms himself arranged the Opus 120 clarinet sonatas for viola the year after he first composed them. In the 20^th c. Ravel frequently arranged his piano pieces for orchestra, in "defiance" of his original conception. And the art of arranging was a special study within Schoenberg's circle: think of Berg arranging the Adagio of his Chamber Concerto for Piano and Violin with 13 Wind Instruments for piano, violin and clarinet. The idea that after some arbitrary date, composers must be outraged at the idea of their music being sensitively arranged won't hold water.

You are right that it depends on the era. and I have already indicated that the best person to arrange music is the composer themselves (though even then the results are variable, and Ravel regretted one of his own arrangements).

My issue is with people being so glib about the process.

[Mirror Image]

I was curious, and looked in the index of Elizabeth Wilson's Shostakovich: A Life Remembered, but I don't find any reference to the arrangement.

A fine book, but, yeah, I would imagine it's difficult to find his opinion of Barshai's arrangement. Our dear ol' Dmitri was pretty button-lipped when it came to many matters. He was extremely careful who he chose to confide in and given the political environment during much of his compositional career, it's understandable.

[amw]

Either you like arrangements, or you don't. If the latter, there is a simple solution (don't listen to them).

Shostakovich arranged quite a lot of other people's music and some of his own, and seemed comfortable with other people arranging his work as well. I do sometimes come across arrangements that seem to destroy the essential characteristics of a piece of music, but not often, and sometimes that's the composer's own arrangement (Schoenberg, Verklärte Nacht has already been brought up) so clearly whatever quality that I saw as essential was not so regarded by the composer themself.

I have my own tastes in arrangements; I won't listen to, e.g., any arrangement of a classical piece into a popular music style, because any potential insights from that arrangement are not interesting to me. But I can't bring myself to care if someone arranges Shostakovich's second piano trio for three bandoneons and drumkit and adds a latin rhythmic feel. I'm sure someone will enjoy it, even if not me.

[Madiel]

Either you like arrangements, or you don't. If the latter, there is a simple solution (don't listen to them).

And yet this pretty much started with someone objecting to exactly that personal choice.

Moving on. I have some more op.87 interpretations to listen to.

[Mirror Image]

And yet this pretty much started with someone objecting to exactly that personal choice.

Bingo! You nailed it here, Madiel. This whole exchange about preferences and arrangements has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should've worded my initial post differently as the snowball effect might've kept from happening altogether. A lesson learned here for sure.

[Iota]

Sorry it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, MI, but it was an interesting discussion nonetheless.

I suppose it's possible that at some point a composer has heard an arrangement of their music and thought it rather better than what they originally wrote. Which speculation, to me at least, suggests it's worth a punt perhaps. Though an arrangement that became more popular than the original could I imagine be a source of some irritation. Anyway just my two pennies worth, I don't want to get in the way of a resumption of normal Shosty service.

[Mirror Image]

Sorry it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, MI, but it was an interesting discussion nonetheless.

I suppose it's possible that at some point a composer has heard an arrangement of their music and thought it rather better than what they originally wrote. Which speculation, to me at least, suggests it's worth a punt perhaps. Though an arrangement that became more popular than the original could I imagine be a source of some irritation. Anyway just my two pennies worth, I don't want to get in the way of a resumption of normal Shosty service.

No worries. I'll have to be more careful and not word things so haphazardly as I did initially.

[Karl Henning]

Sorry it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, MI, but it was an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Agreed.

[Karl Henning]

My friend, I reject entirely the fanciful, and indeed Romantic assertion that the composer must find this disagreeable. In Bach and Handel we have obvious examples of composers reassigning music without regard for sacrosanctity of their initial timbral conception: a concept of their work existing in a sort of to-be-colored abstract. Sure, that was the norm (we might say) for the era, but it is also an example for composers. And while it is true that the general feeling was otherwise in the Romantic era, there is no point at which we can say that it changed for all serious composers thenceforth. Brahms himself arranged the Opus 120 clarinet sonatas for viola the year after he first composed them. In the 20^th c. Ravel frequently arranged his piano pieces for orchestra, in "defiance" of his original conception. And the art of arranging was a special study within Schoenberg's circle: think of Berg arranging the Adagio of his Chamber Concerto for Piano and Violin with 13 Wind Instruments for piano, violin and clarinet. The idea that after some arbitrary date, composers must be outraged at the idea of their music being sensitively arranged won't hold water.

Highly interesting conversation between a conductor and a composer whose springboard is the q. of arranging quartets for string orch.

https://www.youtube.com/v/jSUXprOxqQc

[relm1]

Highly interesting conversation between a conductor and a composer whose springboard is the q. of arranging quartets for string orch.

https://www.youtube.com/v/jSUXprOxqQc

That was great!  And he's no slouch in the orchestration and arranging department since he was one of the assistants on Cooke's Mahler 10 performing edition.  Both he and his brother have done some wonderful orchestrations.

[Madiel]

I could say SO many things about this. But let's just stick with the interviewer's opening insult about how only non-musicians have any problem with arranging.

Good to know Beethoven wasn't a musician then.

Some of the discussion is interesting but it really doesn't help when you start off by being a jerk.

[foxandpeng]

I've been listening to Shostakovich Symphony 4 this week. As hinted at in the WAYLT thread, I am not finding it an easy ride. The first movement is just grindingly complex and it is tough to find hooks to hang my interest. No way am I giving up, but any love and pointers are always appreciated. I did read this article (attributed below) by a blogger who embarked on a revisiting of the symphonies a few years ago, which encourages me that I may not be alone in my puzzlement and wilting concentration:

'I have so far listened to the symphony four or five times. Each time, I'm dazzled all over again by Shostakovich's inventive orchestration, his ability to create compelling musical drama, and his deft cross-cuts between "high" and "low" art. In the first movement, however, at some point I get lost. Were it an Ashbery poem, I'd know just to go with it and not concern myself with trying to discern an overall shape or structure. But Shostakovich isn't Ashbery [pause for laughter]. I believe, rather, that when Shostakovich starts out, he knows where he wants to end up: he's got a plan in mind. What that plan is, however, I can't discern. This leads me to wonder, and even more so for listeners who haven't made the symphony an object of study, what they (including you, dear readers), make of it. Is there a point at which you say, I just don't get it, and I'm getting off the bus? If you keep on, what entices you onward? If you reach the symphony's finish line, do you want to come back to it again?'

https://prufrocksdilemma.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/seeking-shostakovich-revisiting-the-fourth-symphony

[Madiel]

One of the toughest symphonies for me as well (and using the same recording, though I don't think that's the issue).

The only thing I can think of to say right now is that it's perhaps the nearest Shostakovich comes to Mahler.

[relm1]

I've been listening to Shostakovich Symphony 4 this week. As hinted at in the WAYLT thread, I am not finding it an easy ride. The first movement is just grindingly complex and it is tough to find hooks to hang my interest. No way am I giving up, but any love and pointers are always appreciated. I did read this article (attributed below) by a blogger who embarked on a revisiting of the symphonies a few years ago, which encourages me that I may not be alone in my puzzlement and wilting concentration:

'I have so far listened to the symphony four or five times. Each time, I'm dazzled all over again by Shostakovich's inventive orchestration, his ability to create compelling musical drama, and his deft cross-cuts between "high" and "low" art. In the first movement, however, at some point I get lost. Were it an Ashbery poem, I'd know just to go with it and not concern myself with trying to discern an overall shape or structure. But Shostakovich isn't Ashbery [pause for laughter]. I believe, rather, that when Shostakovich starts out, he knows where he wants to end up: he's got a plan in mind. What that plan is, however, I can't discern. This leads me to wonder, and even more so for listeners who haven't made the symphony an object of study, what they (including you, dear readers), make of it. Is there a point at which you say, I just don't get it, and I'm getting off the bus? If you keep on, what entices you onward? If you reach the symphony's finish line, do you want to come back to it again?'

https://prufrocksdilemma.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/seeking-shostakovich-revisiting-the-fourth-symphony

I came to No. 4 about half way through my traversal of his symphonies which probably spanned a good ten years.  I was immediately blown away by it but it took me to the end to feel that way.  As I was experiencing it, I found it so loud and grandiose and a bit meandering.  There was a primitive (ala Stravinsky's Rite of Spring) quality to it in his ruthless vulgarity.  I could hear the Mahler connections in the quasi sardonic waltz plus funeral march that reminded me of Mahler's No. 1 slow movement.  By around 50 minutes in, nothing really connected with me other than it's big, vulgar, and not as easy to connect with as his mid symphonies. 

Then the ending...after an extended trombone solo which I thought was quite unusual in symphonic literature, there was this this calm chord in the strings but a sense of storm on the horizon.  The momentum stopped completely in it's tracks as percussion rang out into a bold climax.  What shocked me is suddenly, the tone shifted from climactic to anguish and I felt there were two simultaneous symphonies happening...one on the outside and one on the inside.  The context of the work was bold, blaring, in your face, but the subtext was despair and anguish and which was the prominent role reversed with a tam-tam smash.  I found myself devastated from the listening experience because it made me reinterpret what I had heard.  The music subsides to one of the coldest and most desolate endings I've ever heard thirty or so years later.  There is so much pent up emotion that is not expressed directly but only indirectly in the sound world of this symphony and you get a sense it takes a tremendous toll on the artist and maybe even a society.  It's a great, great symphony.

[foxandpeng]

I came to No. 4 about half way through my traversal of his symphonies which probably spanned a good ten years.  I was immediately blown away by it but it took me to the end to feel that way.  As I was experiencing it, I found it so loud and grandiose and a bit meandering.  There was a primitive (ala Stravinsky's Rite of Spring) quality to it in his ruthless vulgarity.  I could hear the Mahler connections in the quasi sardonic waltz plus funeral march that reminded me of Mahler's No. 1 slow movement.  By around 50 minutes in, nothing really connected with me other than it's big, vulgar, and not as easy to connect with as his mid symphonies. 

Then the ending...after an extended trombone solo which I thought was quite unusual in symphonic literature, there was this this calm chord in the strings but a sense of storm on the horizon.  The momentum stopped completely in it's tracks as percussion rang out into a bold climax.  What shocked me is suddenly, the tone shifted from climactic to anguish and I felt there were two simultaneous symphonies happening...one on the outside and one on the inside.  The context of the work was bold, blaring, in your face, but the subtext was despair and anguish and which was the prominent role reversed with a tam-tam smash.  I found myself devastated from the listening experience because it made me reinterpret what I had heard.  The music subsides to one of the coldest and most desolate endings I've ever heard thirty or so years later.  There is so much pent up emotion that is not expressed directly but only indirectly in the sound world of this symphony and you get a sense it takes a tremendous toll on the artist and maybe even a society.  It's a great, great symphony.

Thank you, relm1. This is great insight not only to your experience, but to the emotional touchpoints that will hopefully emerge for me with repeated listening . A ten year exploration through Shostakovich, getting to know them more deeply each year, is impressive and an inspiration to us beginners! I know many here have that experience, and it is kind of you to share something of your reactions to this. What a great read

One of the toughest symphonies for me as well (and using the same recording, though I don't think that's the issue).

Good to hear I am not isolated in seeing it as more challenging than others. I really like what I have heard of the Petrenko, and I think you are right, but I have actually swapped over to Michael Sanderling's interpretation on Sony, just to see whether a different recording makes any difference to an inexperienced listener, and for me I think it does. It could simply be that I am becoming more familiar with #4, though  . I'm not sure.

Repeated plays to move from seeming cacophany into comprehensible music means that I'm finding some coherent points in the first movement to catch my breath, now. After the driving forward motion of the first few minutes, punctuated with those big drums, I'm beginning to see some coherence to what is going on, rather than being faced with what seemed like a wall of dissonant instrumentalists each wandering off to who knows where. The briefest of pauses at 6:40 has been a good place to hit pause and either go back to the start, or just grab a second, before the orchestra forcefully reminds you that it is still there!

The breath-taking pace of the building percussion from around 16:45 through to around 17:30 is a real experience, picking up after the exhausting chase across the strings. It seems more intense and overwhelming in the Sanderling than the Petrenko - maybe I just have it turned up louder! . The strings are terrifyingly intense in the Petrenko, though. I also think that, for me, the breath that the movement takes at around 19:00 as the cello steps forward into a tiny pause followed by brass fanfare and percussion is a helpful place to compose oneself (haha, no pun intended) before the final push of the movement. The wind solo leading to that tiny cuckoo and string solo, and the almost comedic gait of the bassoon (?) in the last couple of minutes is emerging as a point to hang my attention.

I can very much see how relm1 would describe this as a great symphony, but I suspect I will only learn to appreciate the hinterlands for some while yet. Greatness is sometimes difficult for the lowly to comprehend!

[Mirror Image]

Foxandpeng, your struggle with Shostakovich's 4th reminds me of my own struggle with Sibelius' 4th and 6th symphonies. These symphonies were basically impenetrable to me. I just couldn't find any access points, but then I heard the Vänskä/Lahti SO performances on BIS and this completely turned my head around --- figuratively speaking of course. I'm not sure what I was missing before, but he brought these symphonies to life in such a compelling way. It's difficult to image nowadays why I had such a difficult time, but I think perhaps and this is just a guess, that you'll have to hear the right performance that gives you that lightbulb moment that I know will eventually happen. I've been a rather harsh critic of Petrenko's Shostakovich cycle as time has wore on and I think he's 'okay' and adequate, but my favorites are Kondrashin and Rozhdestvensky in the 4th. My goodness do these conductors know this music and perform it with the intensity and fire it needs. They also both seem to relish the eerie moments, too. You might want to check out these two performances, although Kondrashin recorded it twice (once for Melodiya with the Moscow Philharmonic and the other for Hänssler with the Dresden Staatskapelle).

[Alek Hidell]

Myung-Whun Chung's 4th has garnered a lot of praise, too, though I haven't heard it myself.

[foxandpeng]

Foxandpeng, your struggle with Shostakovich's 4th reminds me of my own struggle with Sibelius' 4th and 6th symphonies. These symphonies were basically impenetrable to me. I just couldn't find any access points, but then I heard the Vänskä/Lahti SO performances on BIS and this completely turned my head around --- figuratively speaking of course. I'm not sure what I was missing before, but he brought these symphonies to life in such a compelling way. It's difficult to image nowadays why I had such a difficult time, but I think perhaps and this is just a guess, that you'll have to hear the right performance that gives you that lightbulb moment that I know will eventually happen. I've been a rather harsh critic of Petrenko's Shostakovich cycle as time has wore on and I think he's 'okay' and adequate, but my favorites are Kondrashin and Rozhdestvensky in the 4th. My goodness do these conductors know this music and perform it with the intensity and fire it needs. They also both seem to relish the eerie moments, too. You might want to check out these two performances, although Kondrashin recorded it twice (once for Melodiya with the Moscow Philharmonic and the other for Hänssler with the Dresden Staatskapelle).

I've no doubt that you are correct. I pulled both of those last night, and will take a run at them, thank you. I think my priority is to sort the architecture of the symphony, so I can recognise and feel the sense of what is going on. I tend to acquaint myself with a work using one or two performances in that mapping stage, so once I have that down, I'll bring in the Kondrashin and Rozhdestvensky 🙂

Myung-Whun Chung's 4th has garnered a lot of praise, too, though I haven't heard it myself.

Noted with thanks, Alek! 😁