Shostakovich Symphony no 9

[Judith]

Don't know if Shostakovich had meant for it to be like this but here is my take on this symphony.  Don't know if I have got this right or not!!  What is everyone else's opinion on this symphony?

Movement 1
Very jolly as happiness that the war is over

Movement 2
Sadness as family & friends lost

Movement 3
Sounds like the soldiers are marching in rows, maybe a drill

Movement 4
Trumpets were calling to mark the end of the war

Movement 5
Straight into this movement showing that life goes on after this war

[relm1]

Interesting use of extra-musical interpretation of this music but be careful reading too much in to Shostakovich as he is very complex with his subtext and also full of irony and sarcasm so things aren't always as they appear.  Also note his original intention were to make the 9th an epic Lenin symphony with choir and orchestra to celebrate the victory of the war but at such a high cost.  That idea was abandoned (though the symphonic fragment exists and is easily available as a brief stand alone work).  The work was ultimately a disappointment to those who felt it was a bit too light and carefree in spirit (though not without its darkness) and most were expecting another war symphony.  I do not hear the first movement as having anything to do with joy and happiness that the war is over.  It is a light and airy musical movement and probably doesn't have any extra musical meaning. 

[Karl Henning]

Interesting use of extra-musical interpretation of this music but be careful reading too much in to Shostakovich as he is very complex with his subtext and also full of irony and sarcasm so things aren't always as they appear.  Also note his original intention were to make the 9th an epic Lenin symphony with choir and orchestra to celebrate the victory of the war but at such a high cost.  That idea was abandoned (though the symphonic fragment exists and is easily available as a brief stand alone work).  The work was ultimately a disappointment to those who felt it was a bit too light and carefree in spirit (though not without its darkness) and most were expecting another war symphony.  I do not hear the first movement as having anything to do with joy and happiness that the war is over.  It is a light and airy musical movement and probably doesn't have any extra musical meaning. 

Possibly only the external context (is that redundant?) of Stalin expecting a Triumphalist Ninth, but the composer writing a chaste divertimento.

[relm1]

Possibly only the external context (is that redundant?) of Stalin expecting a Triumphalist Ninth, but the composer writing a chaste divertimento.

I thought Western listeners expected a triumphant symphony as well so found this one more perplexing since it didn't fit with the war symphonies style, no?

[Karl Henning]

I thought Western listeners expected a triumphant symphony as well so found this one more perplexing since it didn't fit with the war symphonies style, no?

Well, I knew the background of the piece before I had ever listened to it, so I could not quite answer.

[springrite]

I thought Western listeners expected a triumphant symphony as well so found this one more perplexing since it didn't fit with the war symphonies style, no?

Exactly. But as he always does, he appear to give some of that, while at the same play a naughty game with the rest, but nothing too obvious (for untrained ears) to be criticized. Essentially, Stalin wanted an A paper and he gave a B minus or C plus paper, which makes it an A+ for the trained ears (and minds).

[some guy]

If you turn it into a story, even an ironic, sarcastic one, you risk missing out on the music. The music is the thing. It is a symphony, and it does symphonic things.

Unless you really believe that music has little or no value--and I believe that lots and lots of listeners do believe that--then there is little or no need to transform any piece of music into something else before it has meaning or importance.

Music, you may just have to trust me on this, is perfectly fine all on its own. Isn't it enough--more and plenty--that there are four quick notes going down then six notes half the length going up and down, two more note the original size (quarter notes) and then a dotted figure followed by a trill? Wow. Don't those notes and those quick-change patterns get your blood pumping? Aren't your ears happy to be alive?

Oh well. People will continue to prop music up with things that are much weaker than it is. It doesn't need it.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Yeah any extra-musical interpretation will risk the whole work coming off as shallow and misses the more important points of the music. The circumstances under which it was composed were, of course, very interesting. Personally, I don't find this a very happy work at all, but one which reeks of artistic oppression and the struggle against it (like the 5th, I suppose).

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

If you turn it into a story, even an ironic, sarcastic one, you risk missing out on the music. The music is the thing. It is a symphony, and it does symphonic things.

Unless you really believe that music has little or no value--and I believe that lots and lots of listeners do believe that--then there is little or no need to transform any piece of music into something else before it has meaning or importance.

Music, you may just have to trust me on this, is perfectly fine all on its own. Isn't it enough--more and plenty--that there are four quick notes going down then six notes half the length going up and down, two more note the original size (quarter notes) and then a dotted figure followed by a trill? Wow. Don't those notes and those quick-change patterns get your blood pumping? Aren't your ears happy to be alive?

Oh well. People will continue to prop music up with things that are much weaker than it is. It doesn't need it.

I think it is good to recognise this, but also the fact that any artistic creation can serve as a springboard for a wider discussion separate from the thing itself is important too, no?

[Baron Scarpia]

If you turn it into a story, even an ironic, sarcastic one, you risk missing out on the music. The music is the thing. It is a symphony, and it does symphonic things.

Unless you really believe that music has little or no value--and I believe that lots and lots of listeners do believe that--then there is little or no need to transform any piece of music into something else before it has meaning or importance.

Music, you may just have to trust me on this, is perfectly fine all on its own. Isn't it enough--more and plenty--that there are four quick notes going down then six notes half the length going up and down, two more note the original size (quarter notes) and then a dotted figure followed by a trill? Wow. Don't those notes and those quick-change patterns get your blood pumping? Aren't your ears happy to be alive?

Oh well. People will continue to prop music up with things that are much weaker than it is. It doesn't need it.

I think you are overstating the case. A symphony is a drama. An abstract musical drama. Forming some associations in your mind isn't inconsistent with appreciation the purely music drama that is going on. When I listen to Strauss' Don Juan, for instance, I am aware that Strauss mean this section or that section to be suggesting of a love scene, or exultation in his own hedonism, etc. It wouldn't work if the piece did not make musical sense.

[relm1]

I think it is good to recognise this, but also the fact that any artistic creation can serve as a springboard for a wider discussion separate from the thing itself is important too, no?

In this particular case, I agree with some guy that Shosty was a very big lover of classical structure too (eg Preludes and Fugue) and sometimes these works are more musical than non-musical interpretively.  With him it isn't always clear what he meant especially post first denunciation where he had to ride a very thin political line.  I think there are works that are clearly populist and works that are clearly rebellious dissident but a great many that are unclear too.  Gratefully, it is of high quality and a major part of a very complicated and interesting time in history.

[Mirror Image]

To my recollection, I believe Stalin was quite displeased with Shostakovich's 9th as he was expecting something heroic and victorious, but, thankfully in Shostakovich's favor, Stalin croaked in 1953. The symphony was composed and premiered in 1945 to a lukewarm reception. This led to yet another denunciation from the board in charge of censorship. How Shostakovich survived after the premiere of this symphony for eight more years under Stalin's tyranny remains to be a mystery.

[Mahlerian]

The symphony was composed and premiered in 1945 to a lukewarm reception. This led to yet another denunciation from the board in charge of censorship. How Shostakovich survived after the premiere of this symphony for eight more years under Stalin's tyranny remains to be a mystery.

Not really.  He was the Soviet state composer, sent out as a cultural ambassador abroad even while his works were proscribed at home.  They may have wanted him to step in line, but he was too useful to just do away with, even if his ideology was considered suspect.

[Alek Hidell]

What's the general opinion here about the notion that the Ninth's (relatively, seemingly) "lightweight" nature is Shostakovich's way of thumbing his nose at "The Curse of the Ninth"?

[Mirror Image]

Not really.  He was the Soviet state composer, sent out as a cultural ambassador abroad even while his works were proscribed at home.  They may have wanted him to step in line, but he was too useful to just do away with, even if his ideology was considered suspect.

I just find it strange that there's an eight year gap between the 9th and 10th symphonies. From 1943 until 1956, Shostakovich wrote nine film scores. What this means to me was he wasn't getting any work and had to made a living because his concert music being written around this eight year span was being put in drawers (i. e. like his Violin Concerto No. 1). Yeah, some 'cultural ambassador' he was. Despite what you think, I believe that had Stalin lived longer, Shostakovich would have not.

[kishnevi]

As I understand it, he purposely refrained from symphonies because he knew what he had to say musically was not acceptable to Stalin.

[Mirror Image]

As I understand it, he purposely refrained from symphonies because he knew what he had to say musically was not acceptable to Stalin.

But I do wonder if this second denunciation forced him into writing film music?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

What's the general opinion here about the notion that the Ninth's (relatively, seemingly) "lightweight" nature is Shostakovich's way of thumbing his nose at "The Curse of the Ninth"?

I have this opinion as well.....it would be an unfounded claim to say that Shostakovich was unaware of the implications Ninth symphonies have.

[some guy]

I think it is good to recognise this, but also the fact that any artistic creation can serve as a springboard for a wider discussion separate from the thing itself is important too, no?

The temptation for me is to simply say "No."

But I also admire finesse, so here's some of that, too:

I don't see the need to have artistic creations do any serving. An artistic creation should be an end in itself, not simply a catalyst for other, more important things. Of course, there are artistic creations that explicitly point to realities outside of themselves. Typically paintings, novels, and poetry. Add in some sculpture, too. There's nothing necessary about that, of course, even for artistic creations that use words (which are things that are always pointing to other things all over the place). Certainly there's nothing intrinsic to a pigment that would lead one to use it to point to something outside the painting. Centuries of portraits and landscapes and battle scenes, notwithstanding.

But of all the arts, music is the furthest along to being itself, simply. It is the furthest along to having the kind of independence we have no trouble assigning to tons of other, relatively trivial, things, trees, sunsets, orangutans, breakfast cereals, swing sets. How many times have you heard someone remark how similar a swing set is to a roof? I'd wager zero times up to now. It's just not seen as necessary. It is the same shape as many roofs, but a swing set is just itself, easily comprehensible, and no one needs to talk about other things to feel they're getting a handle on it. Music is even more so itself and nothing else, though. And perhaps that's it. It is so obviously itself and nothing else, calmly disdaining to destroy us, as it were, that we feel we have to talk about something, anything, to tame it. But even music with texts only serves to illustrate how much like music language is. Take lexical meaning away and everything about language that is left is a musical thing.

It makes us uncomfortable, I'd guess, that "just notes" can affect us so surely and so consistently and so profoundly. Let's drag in philosophy and politics and biography, auto- and otherwise, and religion and psychology to talk about this strangely powerful thing. Maybe a good dose of world events will tame it!!

[Mahlerian]

I just find it strange that there's an eight year gap between the 9th and 10th symphonies. From 1943 until 1956, Shostakovich wrote nine film scores. What this means to me was he wasn't getting any work and had to made a living because his concert music being written around this eight year span was being put in drawers (i. e. like his Violin Concerto No. 1). Yeah, some 'cultural ambassador' he was.

I'm referring to actual events.  Shostakovich was sent off to New York City to represent Soviet art abroad in 1949, one year after the denunciation.  And yes, from the Soviet point of view, a Shostakovich who wrote banal film scores and patriotic cantatas was a far better representative than a Shostakovich who wrote the "confusing," "atonal" (according to the Zhdanov decree), "anti-democratic" music of the symphonies.

Despite what you think, I believe that had Stalin lived longer, Shostakovich would have not.

Some other composers were browbeaten into giving up their avant-garde style, but were any killed, even under Stalin?  Unlike novelists or painters, the works of composers, especially composers of absolute music, cannot display political orientation without considerable ambiguity.  Shostakovich was able to play up that ambiguity.