Shostakovich: Symphonies vs. SQs

[Brahmsian]

Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor. Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:

4,7,11,13

Hmm?  These are all masterpieces.

[Ken B]

Hmm?  These are all masterpieces.

No. 4,11,13 are all worth listening to, but they get programmed, and recorded, on the basis of the Shostakovich name. If Nonamesky wrote they'd be obscure.  7 was of course a phenomenon. It might earn its place in the repertoire as a show piece and for its history, but it's not remotely a masterpiece.

[Brahmsian]

No. 4,11,13 are all worth listening to, but they get programmed, and recorded, on the basis of the Shostakovich name. If Nonamesky wrote they'd be obscure.  7 was of course a phenomenon. It might earn its place in the repertoire as a show piece and for its history, but it's not remotely a masterpiece.

Ok then.     Just my opinion.  I think these are all masterpieces.

I respect your opinion and Nonamesky's.

The only one's I, personally, would not consider as masterpieces are 2, 3, 12....maybe 14 - Even though I enjoy these symphonies.  Got to remember that Shostakovich shares top spot for me as a favourite composer.    I'm biased. 

[EigenUser]

Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor. Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:

2,3,4,7,11,12,13

Would he be part of the repertoire? No. They are like Beethoven's First, they aren't programmed just on their own merits.

Of the rest, all of which are in varying degrees good and flawed, which are masterpieces? 14, probably 10.

9? How can anyone not like 9? It's so happy!

Many people would consider 5 to be a masterpiece.

[amw]

Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor.

Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the Leningrad seems to have more substance.

(weirdo alert: i like the 2nd, 3rd and 4th better than any of the other symphonies except the 14th)

additional note: Shostakovich himself thought the 4th was his finest achievement

[Brahmsian]

Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the Leningrad seems to have more substance.

That is my favourite movement of all of Shostakovich's symphonies. 

[amw]

That is my favourite movement of all of Shostakovich's symphonies. 

I fear you're a lost cause.

[Brian]

Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the Leningrad seems to have more substance.

Of late I've come to think of the Tenth in the context of Rachmaninov's Second (same key), as a sort of "grand finale" for the Russian nationalist symphony tradition. I know this is probably totally ahistorical and wrong and inappropriate, but I like thinking of the Tenth that way, as a final summation of all the conflicted and tumultuous tradition that came before it.

[Ken B]

9? How can anyone not like 9? It's so happy!

Many people would consider 5 to be a masterpiece.

The fits into my good and flawed category, better than those listed ...

[EigenUser]

The fits into my good and flawed category, better than those listed ...

No, 9 is flawless. It's short and sweet. For me, the most common flaw I find is over-longness.

[kishnevi]

additional note: Shostakovich himself thought the 4th was his finest achievement

He was right. 
8 and 11 come close though.

[Karl Henning]

Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:

2,3,4,7,11,12,13

Would he be part of the repertoire?

Well, if the question is, Is there music there worthy to stand as repertoire?, my answer is, in the case of the Opp. 43, 60 & 113, yes.

The Leningrad, ironically, has suffered from its historic significance, and (non-ironically) has been routinely abused in Academia (even in contexts where 20th-c. symphonies are accepted as valid artistic expression).   I'm all for not forcing anyone who doesn't want, to listen to the piece;  but it is great music.  Even a self-appointed critic like Lenny, who when he recorded the piece with the NY Phil edited out a passage or two from the variations in the first movement, later saw light, and his recording with Chicago, if perhaps a bit idiosyncratic, demonstrates the cumulative power of the work.

The Thirteenth . . . well, I see that Nate has trouble with choral symphonies, e.g.  But I find that the piece works brilliantly, both as a symphonic collection of movements, and as quasi-operatic dramatic text depiction;  I guess I had not made that "operatic" connection until this morning . . . but (not that this will make any difference to those who won't care for the piece) when Ledi Makbet fell under the cloud, Shostakovich (who had a marvelous gift for the stage) perforce turned his back on opera.  Later on (and, I think, partly spurred by his painstaking revision in Katerina Izmailova) his "opera itch" was re-awakened . . . and this impulse found IMO marvelous expression in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Symphonies, the Michelangelo Suite, and The Execution of Stepan Razin.

The Fourth is, simply, a marvelous symphony. Like the Prokofiev Second, a piece magisterially perfect, but which resists easy admittance to the symphonic repertoire.  There are reasons, but the reason is not that either piece is at all lacking.

Now, the Second and Third have the drawback of third-rate boilerplate Communist texts set as choral finales;  so even at best, they are peripheral to Standard Repertory . . . but even as unexceptionable a piece as the Mendelssohn Lobgesang is thus peripheral.  Are they Great Symphonies (the Shostakovich Second and Third, I mean)?  No;  but music can be compellingly good, without rising to that exalted state.

[Karl Henning]

Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements . . . .

Just a note that you seem to be mistaking your impression of a piece, with The Final Word.  In my experience, the music of that opening movement has been entirely unforgettable — more than that, captivating.

[Karl Henning]

I fear you're a lost cause.

Perhaps the cause is mistaken

[Karl Henning]

No. 4,11,13 are all worth listening to, but they get programmed, and recorded, on the basis of the Shostakovich name. If Nonamesky wrote they'd be obscure.

If Nonamesky had written the Beethoven Eighth, it would be obscure;  your argument is a fallacy.  The literature, of necessity, expands.  The Thirteenth, with the timely Yevtushenko texts, is impossible to "extricate" from its epoch;  but then, the same is true of the Beethoven Op.125 with the Schiller text.

7 was of course a phenomenon. It might earn its place in the repertoire as a show piece and for its history, but it's not remotely a masterpiece.

Well, that's an opinion.  There are world-class artists with the opposite opinion.  No, not opposite;  with a better, and broader-minded opinion.  For your opinion here boils down to that petty matter, I don't like to listen to it.  Nothing wrong with not liking to listen to any piece, even the greatest of pieces.  The need to takes one's dislikes and equate them to the touchstone for what is a masterpiece is, frankly, tiresome, and unworthy of you.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

From string quartets 4 and 12 are no doubt to me the most perfect and my personal favorites. They can change though some day, maybe after few relistenings. Out of the symphonies, it's much harder to pick one or two over others. I haven't even listened to all of them very often, at least compared to string quartets. Maybe I'll return to them later...

[Mirror Image]

Just a note that you seem to be mistaking your impression of a piece, with The Final Word.  In my experience, the music of that opening movement has been entirely unforgettable — more than that, captivating.

+1

I also love the opening movement of Symphony No. 6 for this very reason.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The Fourth is, simply, a marvelous symphony. Like the Prokofiev Second, a piece magisterially perfect, but which resists easy admittance to the symphonic repertoire.  There are reasons, but the reason is not that either piece is at all lacking.

Individual DSCH symphonies seem to rise and fall in popularity, and the 4th has definitely been rising for the past 20 years or so. It used to be a curiosity, now it's not quite standard rep. Its gigantism, in an age addicted to Mahler, is one of the factors that helps it.

[Sergeant Rock]

Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the Leningrad seems to have more substance.

The 10th is nearly my least favorite of Shosty's symphonies (the bottom of the barrel belongs to the 7th) but I assume it's some strange quirk of taste that prevents me from appreciating it because it's damn near worshipped here. In the Symphony poll it placed first with 52 votes received from 67 voters (tied with the Fifth). Clearly there is something wrong with us, amw 

My votes went to 4, 8, 9, 14 and 15. The poll:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18962.msg538175.html#msg538175

Sarge

[Brahmsian]

The 10th is nearly my least favorite of Shosty's symphonies (the bottom of the barrel belongs to the 7th)