riddle Shostakovich

[Benny]

with "us." I admire the spirit of solidarity!

My reply to your quest for a very specific definition in this thread on labeling Shostakovich, ie, placing him somewhere in all the well defined categories you like so much, is

please label both Shostakovich and Bartok.

If you say "Expressionism" I will make sure to express my issue....

That's to you
and, I'm sure,
a-l-l of you.

[greg]

I'm glad I haven't heard the term "Realism" to describe Shostakovich. Uggghhh...
(though I'd imagine the term could be useful to describe some works that Prokofiev and Shostakovich wrote to get favor from the Communist party, such as Prokofiev's "Story of a Real Man")

What about "Soviet Romanticism?" That has an okay ring to it...

[CD]

People who make up ever new labels to describe artists have a skewed understanding of how artists work. Sorry.

[Benny]

People who make up ever new labels to describe artists have a skewed understanding of how artists work. Sorry.

What's the original term, before I made up mine.
Sorry.
Do you think Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelsohn, Brahms, Wagner, Dvorak, Tchaikowsky, MUSSORGSKY, Grieg, etc., would appreciate the fact that they are ALL labeled by us as Romantics? I would doubt that. But no problem, right, with calling them just that?

[CD]

Oh, that wasn't a dig at you — but I mean "grand style"? Come on.

Romantic, Classical period, Baroque are useful because they're convenient, but it would be incorrect to say that even these terms are not fluid. IIRC most of them only became popular during the early years of the 20th Century (please correct me if I'm wrong).

[Benny]

I won't correct you but isn't it obvious that in a thread about labels I'm exploring why some paradigms appear to be so acceptable and others leave out a bunch of composers who, oh, should be understood on their own ground, without labels.

Gees. Give me a break.

[CD]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean nor why you are coming off so hostile.

[Scarpia]

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.

Some composers can be catagorized and some can't .  To say that Schumann was a Romantic is fairly conventional and perhaps says something about his music.  I don't see that Bartok's music can be catagorized, and it seems pointless to try to force him into a category.

[Benny]

That could be it (without exclamation). The twentieth-century composers who, for the first in music history, do not fit into any category (without exclamation), belong into the school of hostility (no further exclamation).

I wish Nosyrev was still alive. I could ask him if that is accurate.

[Dana]

And what, pray tell, is the school of hostility?

[Benny]

Oh, when the segmented mind no longer distinguishes irony from category....................

[Benny]

I'm adding a third enigma into the categorically classified mind equation: Mussorgsky. Thus far, nobody has come forth to "fit" Shostakovich and Bartok into any academically sound and heurestically useful category. Fine(exclamation).

I personally do not think that Mussorgsky is a ""romantic"" like his contemporaries, not even like Balakirev, Cui_who remembers him, and Rimsky... the debating stage is open with respect to Borodin, another bold mind.

But, you know what? Mussorgsky is sometimes referred to as a "realist"composer. Surprised? He was unconventional and "utterly" oblivious to what R-K said was "good." Realist because it was more Russian than ever before. Just like Bartok was more Hungarian than ever before.

How do you label Mussorgsky? Merely a Romantic? Oh. come on!!!

[greg]

How do you label Mussorgsky? Merely a Romantic? Oh. come on!!!

Is it really that important?...

[Benny]

It is in terms of people who have the key, the paradigm, the conceptual framework, which places composers in their academically recognized artistic environment. I assure you  that I am not one to accept these buidling blocks. My whole purpose here is to question conceptual frames of reference.

Is not obvious that strong, creative minds will challenge these very concepts? And that is my point. Shostakovich, Bartok, Mussorgsky do not fit neatly into anyh category created by "experts" because, from the beginning, they challenged conventions.

When a bunch of solidarity people here assert that I'm out of my mind in speaking of "realism" in classical music, they're referring to an existing cannon, an orthodox representation of how one should understand artistic development. Yet, composers themselves challenged orthodoxy. When the Romantic cannon is applied to Mussorgsky, it does not fit for the simple reason that he rebelled against it during is life time.

[False_Dmitry]

Cui_who remembers him

Not you, clearly (exclamation mark)

His kids operas are great, we did THE SNOW KNIGHT as our New Year Show last year.  PUSS IN BOOTS is a good piece too.  But his serious operas are worthwhile...  the unusual MADEMOISELLE FIFI is worth reviving (it's not what it sounds like from the title).

But, you know what? Mussorgsky is sometimes referred to as a "realist"composer.

ROFL!

they're referring to an existing cannon

Presumably this one, from which the remains of the Pretender (in BORIS GODUNOV) were fired "in the direction of Poland" after he'd been hung, drawn and quartered.

[Scarpia]

It is in terms of people who have the key, the paradigm, the conceptual framework, which places composers in their academically recognized artistic environment. I assure you  that I am not one to accept these buidling blocks. My whole purpose here is to question conceptual frames of reference.

Is not obvious that strong, creative minds will challenge these very concepts? And that is my point. Shostakovich, Bartok, Mussorgsky do not fit neatly into anyh category created by "experts" because, from the beginning, they challenged conventions.

When a bunch of solidarity people here assert that I'm out of my mind in speaking of "realism" in classical music, they're referring to an existing cannon, an orthodox representation of how one should understand artistic development. Yet, composers themselves challenged orthodoxy. When the Romantic cannon is applied to Mussorgsky, it does not fit for the simple reason that he rebelled against it during is life time.

What does any of that have to do with music?

[Bulldog]

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.

You might be right, but there have been serious articles written on realism in abstract music, so Benny isn't conjuring up this term out of thin air.  FWIW, I was reading a couple of those articles and decided that applying "realism" to music is a useless way to communicate with others about a composer's style or idiom.

[Lethevich]

ROFL!

Seconded. That was the crowning glory of miraculous series of posts

[springrite]

Mussorgsky is more alcoholic than realist...

[karlhenning]

I wish Nosyrev was still alive. I could ask him if that is accurate.

And what if he laughed you off, too?

You swish in here with a new label, claim (falsely) that the label has already been in use, nor can you bother (even upon repeated invitation) to define that label.  And you wonder if someone is going to consider your undefined label "accurate."

If requiring of you some intellectual honesty is dogmatic, I consider it an honor to be called dogmatic in this thread.

Lots of people here are giving you sound, intelligent feedback;  and you just respond with the sound of a mind snapping shut. You already know it all.

Nothing you've said in this thread -- not a thing -- indicates that you understand the least thing about Shostakovich's music.