Dmitri's Dacha

[O Delvig]

If you're looking for straightforward emotional expression, it's understandable that Pettersson would appeal more. There's little chance of misinterpreting a Pettersson symphony. I find Shostakovich much more ambiguous and challenging, with plenty of room in his works for humor, wit, and (God Forbid!) lightheartedness, alongside all the gloom and intensity.

I love Pettersson too, but sometimes I just want to yell, "For God sakes man, life isn't that bad! You didn't even live under Stalin!"

[The new erato]

If you're looking for straightforward emotional expression, it's understandable that Pettersson would appeal more. There's little chance of misinterpreting a Pettersson symphony. I find Shostakovich much more ambiguous and challenging, with plenty of room in his works for humor, wit, and (God Forbid!) lightheartedness, alongside all the gloom and intensity.

I love Pettersson too, but sometimes I just want to yell, "For God sakes man, life isn't that bad! You didn't even live under Stalin!"

Extremely well put.

[Bonehelm]

If you're looking for straightforward emotional expression, it's understandable that Pettersson would appeal more. There's little chance of misinterpreting a Pettersson symphony. I find Shostakovich much more ambiguous and challenging, with plenty of room in his works for humor, wit, and (God Forbid!) lightheartedness, alongside all the gloom and intensity.

I love Pettersson too, but sometimes I just want to yell, "For God sakes man, life isn't that bad! You didn't even live under Stalin!"

And where would Mahler fit into those two composers?

[O Delvig]

And where would Mahler fit into those two composers?

Well, he clearly had influence on both of them. I can't comment much on Mahler because I don't listen to his music very often, since it's really not my cup of tea. For me, what his music lacks is any sense of inevitability. His works are just too broad! But that's another discussion, and this is a Shostakovich thread.

It's worth mentioning that of the three, only Shostakovich made any significant contribution to non-orchestral music.

[Varg]

Anyone is entitled not to like the piece for whatever reason or bouquet of reasons, of course.

But I like the Eighth Symphony a great deal.  Especially the evolving instrumentation of the motto theme in the first movement;  both the scherzi (and I love how he puts the trombones through their paces with those rapid arpeggios);  the exquisitely colored passacaglia;  and just plain everything about the last movement . . . the insouciant bassoon solo which exposes the first theme;  the retransition to a blistering restatement of the motto theme from the first movement;  the 'ghostly' quiet of the coda (which is a wonderful 'inversion' of the close of the Fourth Symphony.

Varg, it is a pity you that decided to couch your inability to like the Eighth in terms of the supposed superiority of Pettersson, whose work I do not find at all either as characterful, or as consistently well made as Shostakovich's.

I agree Karl; there are great, great moments in Shostakovich. The problem is that they are only moments. I need music that flows perfectly, even if it's just one movement of a symphony, and i cant find this in Shostakovich, contrary to my favorite composers; with the likes of Brahms, Bruckner, Chopin, Shumann, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Pettersson, Wagner and Williams, just to name a few, what do i care for this! He just cant take me away. And i dont mean he's a bad composer at all, i only mean that he's not my cup of tea, and i'm glad i realised it.

By the way, i already got rid of most of my Shostakovich recordings. His 5th, 8th, 11th (Rostropovich/LSO) and 10th (Karajan) still needs a new home. The first who shows interest will have them freely (postage will be too costly if i send them seperately).

[karlhenning]

I agree Karl; there are great, great moments in Shostakovich. The problem is that they are only moments.

You are mistaken if you think we are in agreement here, Varg.  Although I immediately thought of "moments" (since there was little point in writing a 2,000-word post which specifies what I admire in each and every measure), Shostakovich's Eighth works in toto.  I am sorry you don't get the piece, and I am puzzled that you prefer Pettersson;  but please, don't try to 'convince' me that Shostakovich is only a composer of "moments."  That is a question of your attention/perception, and not any question of "flaws" in the Shostakovich Opus 65.

[Danny]

I love just about all the symphonies--even the Second, Third and Twelfth (the finale is a special favorite).  For some reason the Fourtheenth eludes me, and for right now that's fine with me.

[Varg]

You are mistaken if you think we are in agreement here, Varg.  Although I immediately thought of "moments" (since there was little point in writing a 2,000-word post which specifies what I admire in each and every measure), Shostakovich's Eighth works in toto.  I am sorry you don't get the piece, and I am puzzled that you prefer Pettersson;  but please, don't try to 'convince' me that Shostakovich is only a composer of "moments."  That is a question of your attention/perception, and not any question of "flaws" in the Shostakovich Opus 65.

No, that's a question of taste. It only has great moments, to me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I never talked about flaws; it has nothing to do with him, it's all about me.

And the fact that i dont like a composer doesn't mean it's because i dont get it.

It is not not a technical issue i have with Shostakovich, it is an emotional one. For instance, he would get really close of giving me great pleasure, but then he would screw it up buy throwing in there something that is totally unecessary or by "going elsewhere". He really is a teaser; he promess me great things, and then he takes them away from me. His music just goes against my nature, i guess; my whole being protest against it, and my mind is far from being my biggest/only "judgement factor".

Well, there's not much to say, really; i dont get your love for Shostakovich and you dont get my love for Pettersson, and i wont blame you for that, or tell you, in a condescending tone, that i'm sorry you dont get it. To each his own.

[O Delvig]

I love just about all the symphonies--even the Second, Third and Twelfth (the finale is a special favorite).  For some reason the Fourtheenth eludes me, and for right now that's fine with me.

The fourteenth is worth pursuing. In fact, I just changed my name in honor of it!

[Grazioso]

To that extent, perhaps Shostakovich is a fair reflection of what passed for intelligent expression in Stalinist Russia (which largely formed him, for better or worse); it was usually dangerous to say anything unambiguous in a world where one party line was quickly replaced by another year after year, sometimes in a matter of months. In a world where official 'truth' was as sturdy as a sandcastle, one could only signal ones true feelings while at the same time wearing a mask of some kind. Shostakovich often parroted current official slogans in his letters to close friends as if to signal, at the very least, 'that's the way we're supposed to behave', so underlining its falsity. I think in the same way Shostakovich had to assume certain grimaces - of triumph, 'optimism', what have you - because it was expected of him. To have expressed unambiguous emotion - except in the brief window provided by the German invasion of Russia - could be in effect signing your own death certificate. To expect him to express himself as freely as the Swedish Pettersson is plainly absurd.

I wonder how his "comrade composers" compare in that regard. I've just started exploring Miaskovsky, and the few works I've heard so far seem rather unambiguous (in the positive sense) in their emotional content/appeal.

If you're looking for straightforward emotional expression, it's understandable that Pettersson would appeal more. There's little chance of misinterpreting a Pettersson symphony. I find Shostakovich much more ambiguous and challenging, with plenty of room in his works for humor, wit, and (God Forbid!) lightheartedness, alongside all the gloom and intensity.

I love Pettersson too, but sometimes I just want to yell, "For God sakes man, life isn't that bad! You didn't even live under Stalin!"

Until you've walked in another man's shoes... But regardless of that, I actually have found Pettersson more challenging, based on the five symphonies I've heard so far, in terms of either engaging fully with such emotionally exhausting works or following the densely intertwined musical strands in some of them. (DSCH's symphonic textures can seem relatively Spartan, which I actually find an interesting and welcome contrast to more than a few 20th-century symphonies!)

As for humor and wit and high spirits, I there turn to composers like Haydn or Mozart, but any humor and lightheartedness I hear in Shostakovich can come across not necessarily as forced--to go back to Varg's earlier post--but as an ugly sort of humor or levity designed to mask, mock, or subvert.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The fourteenth is worth pursuing. In fact, I just changed my name in honor of it!

I had the same thought. I mean, about the symphony, that is!

Congrats on your new name!

[karlhenning]

(DSCH's symphonic textures can seem relatively Spartan, which I actually find an interesting and welcome contrast to more than a few 20th-century symphonies!)

Yes, I really like the range of textures, from busy kitchen-sink-ness, to just two instruments with no place to hide.

Which I find one thing (of a number of things) to relish in the symphonies, which cannot possibly be a part of the quartets.

As for humor and wit and high spirits, I there turn to composers like Haydn or Mozart, but any humor and lightheartedness I hear in Shostakovich can come across not necessarily as forced--to go back to Varg's earlier post--but as an ugly sort of humor or levity designed to mask, mock, or subvert.

From an early age, a penchant for the 'grotesque', indeed.

[greg]

It is not not a technical issue i have with Shostakovich, it is an emotional one. For instance, he would get really close of giving me great pleasure, but then he would screw it up buy throwing in there something that is totally unecessary or by "going elsewhere". He really is a teaser; he promess me great things, and then he takes them away from me. His music just goes against my nature, i guess; my whole being protest against it, and my mind is far from being my biggest/only "judgement factor".

This is something that I've actually noticed a bit, too.... it feels like he's about to going into something very deep and profound and then he just changes direction completely, which maybe some chromatic woodwinds or something.

But...... I wanted to add here, lately I've been listening to the 4th and 5th symphonies. The 5th once, and I'm starting to like it. Doesn't have the best ideas, but the form is nice and he develops stuff nicely- it's just well written. The 4th is the opposite (listened to it two days in a row)- it instead has the most amazing ideas, but the form is just all over the place, almost as much as, say, Schnittke's 1st (though not quite that far). Even though it's all over the place, and there's moments where i want to hear him write something "deeper" but he's goes somewhere else, it doesn't really ruin my enjoyment.

My favorite part of the symphony I've been playing back for a few days now and whenever I think about it, it actually makes me smile (and I rarely smile, or at least that's about what everyone says).
The music doesn't remind me of anything particularly or bring images straight to mind like some of my other favorite music, but it's definitely worthy of relating some type of concept to it. I'll try to post it in a minute.

[greg]

Isn't this clip just freaking awesome?!

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/8/14/1346899/sym4%20clip.mp3[/mp3]

This is Rozhdestvensky's recording, I love how the string have some kind of echo, makes it sound even bigger. Then the strings eventually play his signature gallop, while the brass comes in, and it ends up in, i guess explosions!

This is truly falling in love for me..... 0:)

[Bonehelm]

Isn't this clip just freaking awesome?!

[mp3=200,20,0,center]http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/8/14/1346899/sym4%20clip.mp3[/mp3]

This is Rozhdestvensky's recording, I love how the string have some kind of echo, makes it sound even bigger. Then the strings eventually play his signature gallop, while the brass comes in, and it ends up in, i guess explosions!

This is truly falling in love for me..... 0:)

Greg which symphony is that? This is what I"m talking about...Shosty is so chaotic to me I don't get his style of expression. Mahler on the other hand seems controlled and logical, even when it is full-blown by a 150 piece orchestra with a 80-stop organ blasting triple fortissimo over it.

[vandermolen]

I wonder how his "comrade composers" compare in that regard. I've just started exploring Miaskovsky, and the few works I've heard so far seem rather unambiguous (in the positive sense) in their emotional content/appeal.

I think that there is ambiguity in Miaskovsky's music. I have been listening to Symphony 17 recently, written in 1937 during the Stalinist purges. In this, and other works, I think that Miaskovsky tries to conform to the demands of Socialist Realism (as was expected of creative artists) whilst remaining true to himself. Miaskovsky was apparently a shy and introspective man who had witnessed the murder of his father (a General in the Tsar's army) during the revolutionary period. I very much doubt that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the regime and this paradox does, I feel, come out in some of his music, which gives it an added poignancy (symphonies 6 and 27 also come to mind in this respect).

[karlhenning]

Greg which symphony is that? This is what I'm talking about...Shosty is so chaotic to me I don't get his style of expression.

To keep myself solely to your initial question:  this is the string fugato in the middle of the first movement of the Fourth Symphony.

[greg]

Shosty is so chaotic to me I don't get his style of expression.

Well, at least for me, it developed a lot just by listening again and again. Certain things become familiar and when you hear them again, it just becomes more and more likeable..... such as the galloping rhythms, the DSCH (D Eb C B) motive, etc. Then again, you just might not have the capacity to enjoy heavily dissonant music, or haven't developed the taste yet.

[karlhenning]

And to be sure, Greg, the entire Fourth Symphony is (probably a reasonably apt use of this much-abused adjective) awesome.  I could not vouch for its freaking, at all.

Perfect FIFTH, I will say that the first couple of times I listened to the Fourth Symphony, I didn't "get" it.  After a long interval, I went back to it, and now about half the time it is my favorite Shostakovich symphony, and well up in my Top Ten Symphonies of All Time.

[springrite]

This thread has reminded me to listen to Shostakovich again, and I have not listened to a single note from him since 2002. Lots of CDs, but for some reason I have been listening to others.

First up, symphony #14.