riddle Shostakovich

[karlhenning]

Such a definition is more apt than "expressionism" in a thread on Shostakovich because that concept is identified in a narrow sense with Schoenberg and his followers.

Thank you for conceding that you have no facts to support your fantasy that "realism" is a term applied to music.

[Benny]

The term has been used in classical music but for too many different styles. It's used in reference to Joplin's ragtime music. It's also used in Italian opera as "verismo". Several realist works such as the Iron Foundry are said to be "futurist" in nature. "Social realism" is also said to have applied outside of the USSR during the 1930s and beyond, among "socialist" artists such as Roy Harris.

It has not been used as a clearly defined category like impressionism or expressionism.

How would you label Bela Bartok's music?

[canninator]

The term has been used in classical music but for too many different styles. It's used in reference to Joplin's ragtime music. It's also used in Italian opera as "verismo". Several realist works such as the Iron Foundry are said to be "futurist" in nature. "Social realism" is also said to have applied outside of the USSR during the 1930s and beyond, among "socialist" artists such as Roy Harris.

It has not been used as a clearly defined category like impressionism or expressionism.

How would you label Bela Bartok's music?

The problem with verismo is that the realism lies in the plot, not the untexted music. I think you also need to be careful not to confuse naturalism and pictorialism in music with true realism. The American composer Norman Cazden did try to argue a case for realism in music but it's not something I spend much time thinking about. Judging from KH's posts I would guess these ideas are not widely accepted. You can read Music and Letters 36, 17-38 and Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (1951) 135-151 for further details of his thoughts.

[karlhenning]

The term has been used in classical music but for too many different styles. It's used in reference to Joplin's ragtime music.

Where? Who used the term "realism"?  Of what piece(s)?

It's also used in Italian opera as "verismo".

Thank you; this is the beginning of dispelling your smokescreen.

Because verismo is not a term applied to musical style.  It is (this comes from the Harvard Dictionary of Music, a dictionary which has no entry for "realism," BTW) "a style of operatic composition," which began as a literary movement.

This is one reason why even in English we use the Italian term: it is specific to a manner of having music reflect a text.  There is no such thing as "realism" in music apart from an extra-musical text.  Your idea that verismo can somehow be applied to Shostakovich's work as a whole, is a non-starter.

We've already pointed out to you that "Socialist realism" is not a musical term, that historically there is no such thing as specific musical stylistic traits 'belonging' to "Socialist realism," because it was political dogma, and slippery as an eel.

Contrary to your fanciful assertions, "realism" is not a term which anyone has applied to classical music;  and it is of no use in discussing Shostakovich's music.

[Franco]

How would you label Bela Bartok's music?

I would label it as the music of Bela Bartok.

[Brahmsian]

It shouldn't need to be said, but trying to label composers into well defined, neat and tidy categories, adds little enjoyment to classical music.

All it does is tend to shut doors and closes the mind.

[False_Dmitry]

If you have a real novel in mind, could you please tell us what it is?  I want to make sure I never read it by accident.

Yes, it's Gladkov's novel "CEMENT" (1924)



Whatever its literary or sociological merits, it is often cited as an early example of Socialist Realism.

We've already pointed out to you that "Socialist realism" is not a musical term, that historically there is no such thing as specific musical stylistic traits 'belonging' to "Socialist realism," because it was political dogma, and slippery as an eel.

Exactly so.  Part of the problem with the exegesis is conflating a term ("Socialist Realism") which was introduced as an instrument of State Policy and intended to produce change within society as a whole...   with another term ("realism") which is one user's made-up term backwardly and selectively applied to artworks from a century earlier.

[Dana]

It needs to be said - I love the internet.

[The Six]

That Dana loves the internet certainly needed to be said. I knew something was missing in life.

That's Post-Shostakovich sarcasm.

[Dana]

So... Does that mean it was ironic?

[Benny]

Ah, so much confusion for a thread trying to label Shostakovich! I think my question about Bartok was fair in such a thread. If the reply is that it's narrow minded to label anyone than it should be directed to the originator of this thred, no? We lose any sense of logic in the emotional burst of a reply. So to those who replied that Bartok is just Bartok, I should reply that Shostakovich is just Shostakovich (no Soviet Realism, please!), that Brahms is NOT Romantic; he is just Brahms. Etc....

When I try to follow the basic logic of an original thread, there's always the saboteur out there who dismantles the whole logic of said thread.

I gather that we agree that no categories whatsoever will ever be used on these GMG forums? Yes?

Or do I gather that some categories must be officially recognized and even though they don't seem to apply to a lot ..................

[Benny]

of composers, such as Bartok or Shostakovich, in the case of Expressionism, they should nevertheless be respected to the letter because they have been so recognized?

Bartok is no Schonberg. Shostakovich is no Schonberg. ERGO, expressionism does not apply as a category if expressionism is largely traced back to Schonberg.

Which brings us back to the original question. Bartok is not a Soviet composer and yet he is attempting to be realist. But nobody here wants to place him in the existing categories of classical music intelligentsia. I sense a problem with this logic

Mr. Karl Henning's replies are too rigid, too dogmatic to address that question. Others just want to leave Bartok in limbo. "He's Bartok." I believe there does exist a parallel between Bartok and Shostakovich even though the former ridiculed the latter. They are at the fringe of existing academic categories (unless you rely on the meaningless "post-Romantic" label).

[Benny]

My attempt is simply to find a common denominator. I believe that both of them are realists in many of their works, no less than the poets who inspired them.

Eat my heart out. I don't care.

[Scarpia]

Which brings us back to the original question. Bartok is not a Soviet composer and yet he is attempting to be realist. But nobody here wants to place him in the existing categories of classical music intelligentsia. I sense a problem with this logic

Bartok is a "realist?"  What is "realistic" about a Bartok string quartet or the concerto for orchestra?  It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

If a composer fits in a category, it suggest to me that we are not talking about a very good composer.  I might be persuaded that characterizing composers by their influences can be useful, but the music, almost never.

[Scarpia]

My attempt is simply to find a common denominator. I believe that both of them are realists in many of their works, no less than the poets who inspired them.

Eat my heart out. I don't care.

You seem to have a strong need to categorize.  That's fine, but why do you feel it is necessary to convince others of this.   What you are saying about Bartok, Shostakovich, etc, could not make less sense to me.

[Benny]

Be please logical and try to follow my line of reasoning. The very first post in this thread asks how to label Shostakovich. I respect this invitation to label. Can you? So how would you label Bartok? If you don't want to than why on earth are you not arguing with the member who is asking us to label???

By the way, how do you label Shostakovich? And if you don't, then what are you doing in a thread about labeling Shostakovich???

Can we be logical?

[Benny]

You seem to have a strong need to categorize.  That's fine, but why do you feel it is necessary to convince others of this.   What you are saying about Bartok, Shostakovich, etc, could not make less sense to me.

That's a really absurb comment given the original spirit of this thread. My reply:
You seem to have a real need to be spontaneous without paying attention to where you are spontaneous.

[Franco]

Be please logical and try to follow my line of reasoning. The very first post in this thread asks how to label Shostakovich. I respect this invitation to label. Can you? So how would you label Bartok? If you don't want to than why on earth are you not arguing with the member who is asking us to label???

By the way, how do you label Shostakovich? And if you don't, then what are you doing in a thread about labeling Shostakovich???

Can we be logical?

I enjoy both Shostakovich's and Bartok's music - but I feel not need to categorize them and do not find the term "realism" as having any application to music.

[Benny]

OK. Message to Henk: I have tried to obtain some explicit answer to your question but to no avail. The apparent consensus among those who constantly use terms such as "Baroque" composer, "Classical" composer, "Romantic" composer, "Neo-Romantic" composer, and "Expressionist" composer, not to mention minimalist and etc, is that we are misguided in attempting to categorize Shostakovich (or Bartok). End of story.

[Dana]

do not find the term "realism" as having any application to music.

    Word. If Benny wants to disagree with us, he's gonna have to quit dodging the question, and lay down some defining musical characteristics of the genre.