Dmitri's Dacha

[Madiel]

There seems to be this strange, unstated assumption that Communist Party officials only ever heard orchestral works.

[kishnevi]

There seems to be this strange, unstated assumption that Communist Party officials only ever heard orchestral works.

Fay's version seems to depend on officialdom caring less about chamber music than large scale works.  As long as the composer supplied a suitable quota of film scores and celebratory concert works, they were satisfied.

Of course they did question some of the small scale works:Op. 87, for instance.

But the world premiere performance of more than one SQ was in the form of the Beethoven Quartet giving a read through in the composer's living room.

[Karl Henning]

Well, it's a relative judgment: the amount of scrutiny devoted to large scale (i.e. for large forces performed in a large hall) a/o/t chamber works; but "virtually unseen" is my phrase, not hers.

Well, chalk it up to overstatement.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Karl Henning]

IIRC Laurel Fay laid down a similar proposition in her biography of DSCH. In essence, the symphonies were written with the knowledge that they would need official approval and be publicly judged,  and at a certain stage DSCH simply refrained from writing them ( the hiatus between Nine and Ten, which happened to be the final years of Stalin's rule).  Other works, the VC1 most famously, he simply wrote and then kept out of public circulation.  The quartets, however, were more often expressions of personal emotion and written without direct regard for official reaction.

Yes. Yet the composer endured some Composers Union censure for his "antisocial" Preludes & Fugues, and there was the "doctors" reference in the From Jewish Poetry cycle.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Mirror Image]

I wouldn't put that much weight on the SQs. Sure, there's 15 of them, sure, he wrote fantastically in the medium, but he did so many other things well. I'd wager his Cello Sonata, the Piano Quintet, or a work like Seven Romances on Poems by Alexander Blok are as important as the SQs, then there's all of those incredible symphonies, ballets, and concertante works he composed and not to mention song cycles, solo piano music, and operas. I think to put all the weight on one genre and one genre alone would be doing this incredible composer a disservice.

[Karl Henning]

To re-state one of my points, We needn't pay much attention to the symphonies, because we know that wasn't his genuine voice is some mix of presumption and snobbism.  Afflicted with moments of bad faith is nakedly tendentious assertion.  I'd love to discuss passages which are marked as such moments;  that would probably be interesting.

Of course, I feel really good about my powers of acumen, when I feel that I hear the composer's true voice in the string quartets.

[Karl Henning]

I think the 12th is just good fun, but I also don't have a lot of the negative reactions a lot of members here seem to share. Is it any good? I think it's good, but certainly not one of Shostakovich's most inspired works, especially considering the symphonies that preceded it.

One of the first Shostakovich pieces I got to know was the band version of the Festive Overture, Op.96.  It never occurred to me then that I ought to have objected to the piece in any way:  it was a blast to play, engaging to take part in, and it easily found a place in the upper ranks of the band literature.

Nor have I ever since felt that I need to downgrade that musical opinion.  At this stage, I feel no motivation to question whether the piece is written "in the composer's genuine voice."  And as I have learnt since, he wrote it so quickly, that if he wrote it in musical insincerity, why, the putative insincerity was no artistic obstacle, then.

I admit that I was slow to give the Op.112 a break, myself.  Is it as emotionally immediate as the Op.47?  No.  Is it as monumentally dramatic as the Op.65?  No.  Does it have the poignant social relevance of the Op.113?  No.  And so what?

Quite possibly, he wrote the Op.112 in a needful rush which puts it on something of the same shelf as the Festive Overture.  And I think I made this connection subconsciously at first.  I'll agree that, in learning to like the Op.112, I had to give up the practice of pairing it off with other symphonies:  Op.112 or Op.43?  Op.43, obviously.

However.

The facile contrast between the symphony and string quartet cycles is in essence, that the quartets exhibit a more consistent application of artistic purpose.  And that's a perfectly fine observation, as it goes.

But why, again, must the symphony cycle hew to such an artistic purpose?  Well before the Twelfth, Shostakovich made free to pursue different goals with this or that symphony:  think the Third, Sixth, Seventh, & Ninth.  As I hear it, the Twelfth demonstrates artistic versatility and facility, without being (in the derogatory sense) facile.

Not everyone is going to agree;  but that is how I hear it.

[Mirror Image]

One of the first Shostakovich pieces I got to know was the band version of the Festive Overture, Op.96.  It never occurred to me then that I ought to have objected to the piece in any way:  it was a blast to play, engaging to take part in, and it easily found a place in the upper ranks of the band literature.

Nor have I ever since felt that I need to downgrade that musical opinion.  At this stage, I feel no motivation to question whether the piece is written "in the composer's genuine voice."  And as I have learnt since, he wrote it so quickly, that if he wrote it in musical insincerity, why, the putative insincerity was no artistic obstacle, then.

I admit that I was slow to give the Op.112 a break, myself.  Is it as emotionally immediate as the Op.47?  No.  Is it as monumentally dramatic as the Op.65?  No.  Does it have the poignant social relevance of the Op.113?  No.  And so what?

Quite possibly, he wrote the Op.112 in a needful rush which puts it on something of the same shelf as the Festive Overture.  And I think I made this connection subconsciously at first.  I'll agree that, in learning to like the Op.112, I had to give up the practice of pairing it off with other symphonies:  Op.112 or Op.43?  Op.43, obviously.

However.

The facile contrast between the symphony and string quartet cycles is in essence, that the quartets exhibit a more consistent application of artistic purpose.  And that's a perfectly fine observation, as it goes.

But why, again, must the symphony cycle hew to such an artistic purpose?  Well before the Twelfth, Shostakovich made free to pursue different goals with this or that symphony:  think the Third, Sixth, Seventh, & Ninth.  As I hear it, the Twelfth demonstrates artistic versatility and facility, without being (in the derogatory sense) facile.

Not everyone is going to agree;  but that is how I hear it.

Thanks for the feedback, Karl. I agree. I don't think it's wise to judge a composer of Shostakovich's immense talent solely on one genre. His compositional voice can be heard in a plethora of musical configurations. I really despise the snobbery of someone who believes that only the SQs are the keys to his musical persona and the only truth in his oeuvre. There are other avenues to explore and when a composer is on Shostakovich's level, it's always compelling to hear them in all of these musical settings.

[SymphonicAddict]

The Execution of Stepan Razin was the last piece I heard. Shostakovich doesn't dissapoint, I liked it a lot, it has a dark folk look that hooks me. Shostakovich had a great ability to create dramatic and bleak works, is one of his great characteristics and is a reason why I like his music so much.

[vandermolen]

The Execution of Stepan Razin was the last thing piece I heard. Shostakovich doesn't dissapoint, I liked it a lot, it has a dark folk look that hooks me. Shostakovich had a great ability to create dramatic and bleak works, is one of his great characteristics and is a reason why I like his music so much.

I agree and like that dramatic work very much.

[vandermolen]

Am listening to the cycle by Maxim Shostakovich on Supraphon which I find to be excellent - I do not recall hearing a better version (performance and recording) of Symphony 1.

[aukhawk]

The Execution of Stepan Razin was the last thing piece I heard. Shostakovich doesn't dissapoint, I liked it a lot, it has a dark folk look that hooks me. Shostakovich had a great ability to create dramatic and bleak works, is one of his great characteristics and is a reason why I like his music so much.

I agree and like that dramatic work very much.

Especially the bit where, in the silence after the axe has fallen, the fleas jump from the clothes of the poor people to the furs of the rich.

[relm1]

Am listening to the cycle by Maxim Shostakovich on Supraphon which I find to be excellent - I do not recall hearing a better version (performance and recording) of Symphony 1.

I quite like Maxim's Shostakovich cycle - very good conducting, not the greatest playing, but overall a very solid set.  I love his Colins LSO recordings very much too.

[Karl Henning]

Am listening to the cycle by Maxim Shostakovich on Supraphon which I find to be excellent

I quite like Maxim's Shostakovich cycle - very good conducting, not the greatest playing, but overall a very solid set.

(* ломать стол *)

[Mirror Image]

Am listening to the cycle by Maxim Shostakovich on Supraphon which I find to be excellent - I do not recall hearing a better version (performance and recording) of Symphony 1.

Rozhdestvensky gets my vote as the best overall cycle. I was absolutely floored by what he did with this music. One of the greatest musical ears I've heard conduct Shostakovich.

[Scion7]

LP's - 1961 and 1965, respectively

     

[vandermolen]

Really enjoying this very thoughtful, moving, beautifully recorded and powerful performance from 1962. Has a special quality to it.
L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande.
[asin]B000089AQI[/asin]
Super-fast finale. My wife just said 'it sounds like World War Two is going on in there.' 
Unusual and interesting coupling (with the LSO).

[PerfectWagnerite]

Anyone saw this stunning lecture on the life and music of Dmitri?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7-FqwhzI0g&t=5169s

[relm1]

Anyone saw this stunning lecture on the life and music of Dmitri?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7-FqwhzI0g&t=5169s

I really enjoyed it.  Thanks for posting.  But technically, Shosti lived in Stalingrad not Leningrad in 1941 since Stalingrad was the name of the town since 1925.  Minor detail but of important historical significance for a historical talk.  Great to see so many video clips of Shosti. 

[vandermolen]

I really enjoyed it.  Thanks for posting.  But technically, Shosti lived in Stalingrad not Leningrad in 1941 since Stalingrad was the name of the town since 1925.  Minor detail but of important historical significance for a historical talk.  Great to see so many video clips of Shosti.

I haven't seen the documentary but think it was St Petersburg until 1914 - then changed to the less-German sounding 'Petrograd' in the First World War and then Leningrad after Lenin died in 1924 and then back to St Petersburg after the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

I think that Tsaritsyn became Stalingrad and then Volgograd - all very confusing!