Dmitri's Dacha

[Mahlerian]

Turns out I had some time to listen to it now...

I don't know about all this "parody" stuff, but I'm leaning towards your point of view. There are clearly traces of that "introduction" that appear in other parts of the movement.

At the same time, I can understand the other point of view as well, because it's perfectly possible to get a regular exposition-development-recapitulation out of the the other two groups on their own. During that, the first theme only ever comes back as a bit of an accompanying figure. It never asserts itself as the main event except at the very beginning and the very end.

It should be noted that introductions can present material that's separate from the exposition and yet appears elsewhere in a movement.  See Schumann's First and Second Symphonies, Schubert's Ninth, and Mahler's First (which Shostakovich almost certainly didn't know at the time) for examples.

That said, I am sympathetic towards accepting the opening bars as part of the exposition proper.

[Karl Henning]

It should be noted that introductions can present material that's separate from the exposition and yet appears elsewhere in a movement.  See Schumann's First and Second Symphonies, Schubert's Ninth, and Mahler's First (which Shostakovich almost certainly didn't know at the time) for examples.

That said, I am sympathetic towards accepting the opening bars as part of the exposition proper.

I don't see the point of calling the opening an introduction when it is fully integrated into the movement.

Going back to Tchaikovsky at the least, there is often a "motto," material which returns periodically in the course of either a single movement's sonata-allegro design, or indeed periodically in all the symphony's movements (so, reaching back to the "cyclic" idea in the LvB c minor symphony).  So the opening trumpet figure could be considered a motto rather than the first theme of the sonata, partly because of the literary precedent.  For me the strongest argument is probably that that trumpet figure is not particularly in f minor (the entire introduction wanders rather, tonally, so that Shostakovich does not trouble to use any key signature); where the first theme does in fact establish the home key of the symphony.

[BasilValentine]

The structure is unconventional in a number of ways, although, at a superficial glance, there are aspects that look quite conventional. The structure of the exposition, cued to rehearsal numbers, looks conventional:

1-7 - Introduction
8-11 - Theme One, tonic
12-17 - Second Theme, mediant

You are right to point out, however, that the introduction is fully integrated into the movement. Its opening motive is the basis of Theme One and, less obviously, the contour and rhythm of Theme Two's main motive. In this respect its role is like that of a motto, as in Beethoven 5, Franck's D minor or Rachmaninoff's Second. The "point of calling the opening an introduction," however, has more to do with its role in the symphony as a whole, on which scale it is the most important element of all. The theme of the scherzo and at least one from the finale are derived from it. So, not part of the exposition in the first movement, but the essential exposition for the overall structure.

One thing that makes the introduction seem unconventional to me is how nebulous and wandering it is, almost as if the movement began in the middle of an unstable development. It seems more like Shostakovich's finale introductions than a traditional opening-movement introduction.

Where I think both your reading and Wiki get into trouble is the recap, which is truncated and entirely devoted to Theme Two. It begins in the tonic major at 32 and runs through 37. But note that in the end of the development we had an intense statement of the motto as the climax (29), just as we do in Tchaikovsky 4, Rachmaninoff 2, and Shostakovich 10, and then a version of Theme One at 30 (which also has a parallel in Tchaik 4 and Shost 10). Thus all of the themes are reviewed in their original order, but in a way that is conventional only in the "Russian variant" of sonata form. The real recap is unconventional except in its key.

The movement ends with an extended coda, 38-45, which includes a reprise and intensification of a loud passage from the development, and variants of Theme One and the motto which do indeed sound in reverse order. This kind of extended developmental coda isn't conventional, but has been used by composers with their eyes on cyclic unity since Beethoven.

[violadude]

I've been reviewing my Shostakovich collection over the past month or so. I have all the symphonies and string quartets, the 24 Preludes and Fugues, The Piano Quintet, the Cello Sonata, the First Cello Concerto and some 2 Movements for String Quartet that came with the Emerson box set of quartets, I think it's a transcription of something. I was previously very familiar with the string quartets but not as much with the symphonies. I wanted to share my thoughts, for now, on the symphonies...then later the others.

Symphony #1: This symphony, I think, is quite brilliant considering the age at which Shostakovich wrote it. Many of his main signiture expressive qualities are already there, particularly the biting wit/sarcasm that appears in so many of his works. Humor can be a tough thing to express in music but Shostakovich seems to have it down from day one. I especially enjoy the sparse orchestration employed in the first movement, giving every instrument a little momentary spotlight. I also like some of the soloistic scoring for the string instruments, a particular moment at the end of the 3rd movement comes to mind. Speaking of the third movement, the main melody has a very mature, longing quality that, I think, is surprising coming from a 19 year old. Overall, not one of my favorites, but a very amazing first effort and a sign of things to come definitely.

Symphony #2: Contrary to popular opinion, I actually really like this symphony. Well...I mean, I really like the instrumental portion of the symphony. The choral section isn't too great, obviously, but even that part isn't THAT bad. I think it's better than the choral section of the 3rd. I love the amorphous opening and the way that it comes together at the end. Also, that quadrillion voice fugue in the middle of the fast section is really something else (okay, it's really more like 15 or so, but still...someone probably knows the exact number).

Symphony #3: I had a lot of trouble getting into this one. It's universally panned so I guess I don't feel too bad about it. There are some kinda cool individual moments but it seems to spend a lot of time going nowhere...even before the chorus comes in. And then after the chorus comes in..oh boy. I could barely feel where the music was going at some parts. Is this the climax? the end of a climax? The beginning of one? Is it a new phrase? It just seems to go on and on trying to build itself from nothing. Maybe that was the point...I don't know.

Symphony #4: One of my favorites. MAN what a juggernaut of a work. The labyrinth like 1st movement is incredible. It took me a while to figure out what was going on in the movement or what was related to what, but after like 20 listens or so I think I have a pretty good general idea. The intensity of expression in this first movement alone is enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat. Feels like Shostakovich is really throwing himself head-first into the hands of modernism.I also love the very eerie second movement, which feels laid back and nervous at the same time, somehow. I haven't fully gotten my head around the last movement as much as the first two. Seems to me like it's an anthology of Shostakovichy dance numbers proceeded by a funeral march. I like when the funeral march theme comes back at the end of the movement though. That theme seems to have some sort of relationship to the main theme of the first movement, well they start nearly identically anyway.

Symphony #5: I'm probably the most familiar with this one, having played the entire thing when I was in my city's youth symphony orchestra. I like it, but it's not one of my favorites. The first movement is really good, the second movement is super fun. The third movement is my favorite and maybe one of the most beautiful heartbreaking things the composer ever wrote. I love the ending with the harp on harmonics and celesta in unison. The fourth movement really doesn't do much for me though. I don't really put much stalk into things like "secret codes" and whatnot, personally. I do kind of like just how labor-intensive that final cadence is though.

Symphony #6: I like this one pretty well. The galop final movement is really fun. But what I really like is how the first movement sounds like it's going to be a standard kind of slow movement, but suddenly the development section ends up being almost entirely dominated by these lonely solos over mysterious, eerie trills in the lower strings. After that whole middle section of the movement ends and we get back to "normal sounding" music (relatively) it almost feels like coming up for air after being under a blanket for a while.

Symphony #7: Had trouble getting into this one a little bit. I really like the second movement. I think I like the third movement pretty well. This is the only one though that I don't really have a clear idea of how I feel about it though, not yet anyway. Seems like a very mixed bag and sometimes goes on for too long (to me) for what it is.

Symphony #8: This is another favorite of mine. When people say Shostakovich is too depressing, this is one of the ones I immediately think of. This symphony is relentlessly horrifying and full of pain, a very harrowing work I would say. Even though it's my favorite I am surprisingly not able to think of much to say about it for right now (it's late, so that might be why). The 4th movement though is like an exact musical replica of a shadowy something, whether it be a thought or figure or whatever. It reeks of a very dark and dim place, especially once those creepy fluttertongue woodwinds come in.

Symphony #9: This is a really fun symphony, which I suppose is obvious to any one whose heard it. I think I chuckled out loud when I first heard the multiple "wrong entrances" of the trumpet second theme in the recap of the first movement. I don't think of this one as one of my favorites, but it's always a joy to listen to.

Symphony #10: Another favorite. The melodies of the first movement and, especially how they fit together feels like magic. At the climax of the movement it almost seems like everything is collapsing and coming together at the same time. The melodies in here are especially memorable to me. I really enjoy the crooked waltz feel of the 3rd movement and the goofy main theme of the 4th movement is great. It seems very unique to me. It goes by so fast and is still very lyrical...or something. (I really shouldn't have waited until 2 in the morning to type this).

Symphony #11: I like this one pretty well, especially the second movement, of course. It's not as satisfying to me on the whole though, even though it has some really great moments. I like the atmosphere of the first movement, but I think it slightly overstays its welcome and becomes rather repetitive. The 3rd movement is really good too. Not sure what to feel about that last movement though....sounds kind of forced to me and it leaves me a little wanting.

Symphony #12: Atrocious. The worst by far in my estimation. I only listened once and never came back to it. Unless another recording does it justice, it will probably stay that way, at least for a while.

Symphony #13: The last 3 symphonies are amazing, among the best imo. I love how earthy and Russiany the 13th sounds. The choir has great power even though it's used in unison almost throughout. The first movement just seems perfect to me. The pace at which the phrases build and recede is breathtaking. The second movement is just a blast. The 4th movement has some really imaginative scoring. I like the message of the 5th movement. The melody somehow reminds me of something in his 6th string quartet, but I don't know what.

Symphony #14: I'm kind of a sucker for these uncompromisingly bleak pieces of music. I just love it. Something about how dark it all is really connect with me. But besides that, what I find so fascinating about this movement is that even though it's written for the least diverse ensembles of any Shostakovich symphony, somehow the limitation of the forces his was using caused Shostakovich to dig deeper for whatever kind of color he could use for this symphony and, to me anyway, it ends up being, perhaps the most, imaginatively scored symphonies of them all. Every movement seems to have something special, the bleakness of the first, or the Spanish flavor of the second, the nervous, near schizophrenic jumping around of the 3rd, the emotional intensity of the 4th, the manic quality of the 5th, the laughing lady of the 6th, that brilliant col legno fugue of the 7th, the angry clusters that end the 8th, the soulful ray of hope in the 9th, then the 10th seems to wrap up the piece as a whole, with the little 11th movement being a weirdly cheerful little bow on top.

Symphony #15: This is a very special symphony, maybe his best when it all comes down to it. I don't really have the grasp on this symphony to write about it in detail like I wish I could, but something about the craft of every moment seems just perfect. And it seems to contain everything that Shostakovich was about, but not parsed out like in the rest of his symphonies, but molded into one, so that almost every point moment in this symphony seems like a perfect balance of every quality that was in his previous symphonies. I don't know, it's hard to explain. But it's a very stimulating symphony too. The outer movements especially have a lot going on, which I like. Shostakovich symphonies have always contained a lot of polyphony, but for a majority of his symphony movements I feel like you can hear the moments being carefully plodded out, whereas this one seems little more "balls to the wall". I guess it's almost like a perfect combination of youthful exuberance and mature craft. Maybe that's what makes this one sound so special. I don't know. I've rambled on way too much.

[Mirror Image]

Nice writeup, violadude. Our thoughts almost mirror each other in terms of which symphonies we like and don't like. I will say, however, that the 7th is a grower. It took me quite some time to get it. I first thought it was a lot of hot air, but then I looked deeper into what's actually happening under the surface. That Adagio in this symphony is simply heart-rendering and everything else is just icing on the cake. You should hear Bernstein's CSO performance or Rozhdestvensky's (w/ the USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra). I think these two performances would help open your ears to it.

I was looking at your collection and you're missing almost all of the concerti. You just own Cello Concerto No. 1? Man, you've got to get the others!

[Mahlerian]

Symphony #4: One of my favorites. MAN what a juggernaut of a work. The labyrinth like 1st movement is incredible. It took me a while to figure out what was going on in the movement or what was related to what, but after like 20 listens or so I think I have a pretty good general idea. The intensity of expression in this first movement alone is enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat. Feels like Shostakovich is really throwing himself head-first into the hands of modernism.I also love the very eerie second movement, which feels laid back and nervous at the same time, somehow. I haven't fully gotten my head around the last movement as much as the first two. Seems to me like it's an anthology of Shostakovichy dance numbers proceeded by a funeral march. I like when the funeral march theme comes back at the end of the movement though. That theme seems to have some sort of relationship to the main theme of the first movement, well they start nearly identically anyway.

The finale of the work is structured ABA' Coda, with the A sections being the funeral marches, but the B is very long and stream-of-consciousness, flitting from one idea to the next based on some motif linking them.  The funeral march theme head is actually characterized by outlining the "Viennese Trichord," a perfect fourth followed by a tritone.  Eventually we start to hear premonitions of what will be the motif of the coda, but in the major (see image; I don't remember what tonality it appears in first, so I put it in A).  This leads to the violent climax, based on the themes of A, in the major but filled with dissonant clashes.  The motif shown in the attachment also appears.

When this subsides, there is a long, drawn out coda, at first based on the same motifs mentioned above, but then dominated by an obsessively repeating celesta solo over a long-held C minor chord on the strings.  The work ends simply by breaking the pattern and the celesta finishes on a question mark.

[Heck148]

Violadude - nice summation of a huge topic...I tend to agree with many of your preferences -
I really love the First Sym - quite an incredible effort for one so young - already the signs of genius are apparent...
#s 2, 3 - I like the instrumental portions, esp 3, but the choral anthems to the great proletarian revoultion, yakety-yak, blah-blah, I could do without.
#4 is neat, fun to listen to, but rather "disjointed", or perhaps episodic...still, a wonderful work, and still retains DS's flashy flamboyant orchestration - so evident in the big Ballets and Lady Macbeth...starting with #5, Ds's orchestrations take on a much darker hue...
#5 is best known, and perhaps deservedly so,
#6 -kind of a dark horse...dark, sardonic, thru 2 mvts, capped off with wonderful orchestral "galop".
#7 is a favorite - I've performed it twice - great experience...huge work, so much there

8, 10 are really superior works, IMO,
#9 - great favorite - I've played it several times, has special significance for me in the progress of my own musical performance career [can't miss for a bassoonist!! ]
#11 - under-rated - really good piece, the slow movement is really quite lovely, amidst the "sturm und drang" of the overall work.
#12 - this one's a loser...seems to lack direction and focus - supposedly DS felt this way about it - if Volkov is to be believed ??

13 - not so familiar with this one yet...I like it so far
#14 - gawd, this is dark stuff...I cannot listen to the entire work at one sitting. too much...very powerful, but dark and depressing
#15 - almost reverts to #1 in some ways, tho vastly more mature in so many ways..but still - exhibits the quirkiness, the imagination of the composer who cranked out such a remarkable Sym #1.

[violadude]

Nice writeup, violadude. Our thoughts almost mirror each other in terms of which symphonies we like and don't like. I will say, however, that the 7th is a grower. It took me quite some time to get it. I first thought it was a lot of hot air, but then I looked deeper into what's actually happening under the surface. That Adagio in this symphony is simply heart-rendering and everything else is just icing on the cake. You should hear Bernstein's CSO performance or Rozhdestvensky's (w/ the USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony Orchestra). I think these two performances would help open your ears to it.

I was looking at your collection and you're missing almost all of the concerti. You just own Cello Concerto No. 1? Man, you've got to get the others!

Ya I know. I saw the 1st cello concerto in concert once and was so blown away I had to buy it. That CD is where the cello sonata in my collection comes from as well. I just haven't gotten around to getting the others.

[violadude]

The finale of the work is structured ABA' Coda, with the A sections being the funeral marches, but the B is very long and stream-of-consciousness, flitting from one idea to the next based on some motif linking them.  The funeral march theme head is actually characterized by outlining the "Viennese Trichord," a perfect fourth followed by a tritone.  Eventually we start to hear premonitions of what will be the motif of the coda, but in the major (see image; I don't remember what tonality it appears in first, so I put it in A).  This leads to the violent climax, based on the themes of A, in the major but filled with dissonant clashes.  The motif shown in the attachment also appears.

When this subsides, there is a long, drawn out coda, at first based on the same motifs mentioned above, but then dominated by an obsessively repeating celesta solo over a long-held C minor chord on the strings.  The work ends simply by breaking the pattern and the celesta finishes on a question mark.

Cool! I'll keep this in mind when I listen to the finale next. It'll probably clear things right up. 

[Keep Going]

I saw the 1st cello concerto in concert once and was so blown away I had to buy it.

The moderato is particularly majestic.

[Mirror Image]

Ya I know. I saw the 1st cello concerto in concert once and was so blown away I had to buy it. That CD is where the cello sonata in my collection comes from as well. I just haven't gotten around to getting the others.

Well, if you need some recommendations, you know who to ask.

[Mahlerian]

Cool! I'll keep this in mind when I listen to the finale next. It'll probably clear things right up. 

Don't get me wrong, it's still a very convoluted and strange movement, but also a very rewarding one.  Although the actual sonority and harmony are closer to Hindemith crossed with Berg, the symphony as a whole is Shostakovich's most Mahler-like in terms of form and development.

[Mirror Image]

Violadude - nice summation of a huge topic...I tend to agree with many of your preferences -
I really love the First Sym - quite an incredible effort for one so young - already the signs of genius are apparent...
#s 2, 3 - I like the instrumental portions, esp 3, but the choral anthems to the great proletarian revoultion, yakety-yak, blah-blah, I could do without.
#4 is neat, fun to listen to, but rather "disjointed", or perhaps episodic...still, a wonderful work, and still retains DS's flashy flamboyant orchestration - so evident in the big Ballets and Lady Macbeth...starting with #5, Ds's orchestrations take on a much darker hue...
#5 is best known, and perhaps deservedly so,
#6 -kind of a dark horse...dark, sardonic, thru 2 mvts, capped off with wonderful orchestral "galop".
#7 is a favorite - I've performed it twice - great experience...huge work, so much there

8, 10 are really superior works, IMO,
#9 - great favorite - I've played it several times, has special significance for me in the progress of my own musical performance career [can't miss for a bassoonist!! ]
#11 - under-rated - really good piece, the slow movement is really quite lovely, amidst the "sturm und drang" of the overall work.
#12 - this one's a loser...seems to lack direction and focus - supposedly DS felt this way about it - if Volkov is to be believed ??

13 - not so familiar with this one yet...I like it so far
#14 - gawd, this is dark stuff...I cannot listen to the entire work at one sitting. too much...very powerful, but dark and depressing
#15 - almost reverts to #1 in some ways, tho vastly more mature in so many ways..but still - exhibits the quirkiness, the imagination of the composer who cranked out such a remarkable Sym #1.

Another nice writeup. I'd definitely give Babi Yar more of your time. It's truly a fantastic piece and I agree with you about the 14th. A brooding work that barely casts any light into the music whatsoever, but I'm more and more intrigued by it. It's certainly a fascinating symphony (errr...song cycle).

[BasilValentine]

Thanks Violadude! I've been going through the symphonies lately too. Funny about 12: The main theme is almost identical to one from a slow movement of Myaskovsky, I think #17? I'll have to listen again to see if I can find 12 as repugnant as you do.

[Mirror Image]

Thanks Violadude! I've been going through the symphonies lately too. Funny about 12: The main theme is almost identical to one from a slow movement of Myaskovsky, I think #17? I'll have to listen again to see if I can find 12 as repugnant as you do.

I wouldn't say that the 12th is as atrocious (to use ViolaDude's wording) as he says. Does it have it's flaws? Absolutely, but so do the 2nd and 3rd, which are also the weak links in Shostakovich's, otherwise, monumental symphonic cycle IMHO, although the 2nd is certainly becoming more enjoyable for me. The 12th could be looked at as a work with an empty rhetoric, but I think there is something in this symphony that I find redeeming --- if anything it has an undeniable energy to it that I find rather appealing. Listen to the Mravinsky live recording on Erato. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how he shapes this particular symphony.

You can checkout the Mravinsky performance here:

https://www.youtube.com/v/K_IGkwov3EM

[Maestro267]

The programme might not be as effective as in No. 11, but from a purely musical standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with No. 12. In fact, it was one of the most immediately attractive symphonies in the cycle for me.

[Mirror Image]

The programme might not be as effective as in No. 11, but from a purely musical standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with No. 12. In fact, it was one of the most immediately attractive symphonies in the cycle for me.

I'm trying to remember the first Shostakovich symphony I heard, must have been the 5th. The wit and sarcasm in Shostakvoich's music took awhile to grow on me, but as soon as I started listening further through the symphony cycle, I was hooked even though I didn't really understand some of the music.

[Mahlerian]

The programme might not be as effective as in No. 11, but from a purely musical standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with No. 12. In fact, it was one of the most immediately attractive symphonies in the cycle for me.

I don't care about the program.  It's just that the music itself is so bland and repetitive that it gets irritating.  The whole thing is something like 7 minutes of material stretched out to cover 40 minutes; the badness of the work is so famous that stories have grown up around it suggesting (without any other evidence) that Shostakovich threw it together in a few days in place of a more subversive work.

[Mirror Image]

I still like the 12th despite what others have said about it. Granted, it's not an all out favorite, but that doesn't diminish the rush of energy I get from it. Not a work of emotional depth at all, but if Shostakovich didn't much care for it himself, then he would have thrown it in the trash can or burned it I imagine. He once said "A creative artist works on his next composition because he is not satisfied with his previous one. When he loses a critical attitude toward his own work, he ceases to be an artist." Like I said, had he disliked the work vehemently, we wouldn't be discussing it. It must have meant something to him and that's good enough for me.

[Heck148]

I still like the 12th despite what others have said about it. Granted, it's not an all out favorite, but that doesn't diminish the rush of energy I get from it. Not a work of emotional depth at all, but if Shostakovich didn't much care for it himself, then he would have thrown it in the trash can or burned it I imagine. He once said "A creative artist works on his next composition because he is not satisfied with his previous one. When he loses a critical attitude toward his own work, he ceases to be an artist." Like I said, had he disliked the work vehemently, we wouldn't be discussing it. It must have meant something to him and that's good enough for me.

I'm not sure DS disliked the 12th symphony, per se, but, according to Volkov's book - Shostakovich claimed that he sort of lost his way midway thru it - he  started with one idea, then changed horses in midstream, so to speak...it lost direction. Whether Volkov is accurate or not, who knows?? but that assessment of the piece sounds pretty accurate to me - it comes off as "unfocused".