After Mahler comes ... Shostakovich?

[Mark]

Now, I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative, obtuse or just plain stupid by starting this thread, but I wanted to pull out a comment I made in the 'After Mahler comes Sibelius' thread - a point which others may (or may not) think is worth pursuing.

This is what I posted:

It strikes me that Shostakovich might conceivably be crowned the most accomplished symphonist of the 20th century - though as ever, I'm not suggesting this is a fact. When I listen to his symphonies, I hear Mahler, I hear some flashes of Sibelius here and there, I'm reminded of Prokofiev, Stravinsky ... even Tchaikovsky. Might Shostakovich, then, be considered the 'synthesis' of 20th century symphonic writing, if we're broadly agreed that Sibelius ultimately ploughed a furrow which ended in (as David put it) a 'cul-de-sac'?

I anxiously (and sincerely) await your responses. 

[Cato]

Mahler as a musico-spiritual ancestor of Shostakovich seems to go back to the 60's, when Mahler's music was being recorded and rediscovered.

I have a vague memory that Shostakovich never studied a Mahler score until later in life.  Certainly with the "song-symphonies" like #13 comparisons were being made: I posted a remark on that last week.

But I would say the more direct musical descendant of Mahler, especially when you look at Mahler's Ninth and Tenth Symphonies, is...

Karl Amadeus Hartmann !

There is also a case to be made for Paul Hindemith as a Mozartean/Mahlerian hybrid.

[karlhenning]

Mahler as a musico-spiritual ancestor of Shostakovich seems to go back to the 60's, when Mahler's music was being recorded and rediscovered.

I have a vague memory that Shostakovich never studied a Mahler score until later in life.  Certainly with the "song-symphonies" like #13 comparisons were being made: I posted a remark on that last week.

Shostakovich's great friend Ivan Sollertinsky (they were fellow students at the Conservatory) was a musicologist, and a Mahler enthusiast.

[Grazioso]

It strikes me that Shostakovich might conceivably be crowned the most accomplished symphonist of the 20th century - though as ever, I'm not suggesting this is a fact. When I listen to his symphonies, I hear Mahler, I hear some flashes of Sibelius here and there, I'm reminded of Prokofiev, Stravinsky ... even Tchaikovsky. Might Shostakovich, then, be considered the 'synthesis' of 20th century symphonic writing, if we're broadly agreed that Sibelius ultimately ploughed a furrow which ended in (as David put it) a 'cul-de-sac'?

I'm leery of these sorts of summations and linear, progressive histories, particularly ones that focus on just a couple of the "biggest" figures from the canon (often, it seems, because they're the ones we've heard). I've been exploring symphonists and have learned just how much there is to learn: there's a huge number of symphonists off the beaten path.

Mahler as a musico-spiritual ancestor of Shostakovich seems to go back to the 60's, when Mahler's music was being recorded and rediscovered.

I have a vague memory that Shostakovich never studied a Mahler score until later in life.  Certainly with the "song-symphonies" like #13 comparisons were being made: I posted a remark on that last week.

Not according to this article, which places it much earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Shostakovich

[BachQ]

Good God ........ Another comparison thread ..........

[Mark]

Good God ........ Another comparison thread ..........

I know - odd that, isn't it? I'd have expected a classical music forum to have endless topics of the, 'Your top ten symphonies' ilk.

[Lethevich]

Good God ........ Another comparison thread ..........

After Stockhausen comes The Beatles...

[karlhenning]

Ah, Lethe! You are cousin to Pandora, aren't you? 

[Cato]

Thanks for the information from the Wikipedia article, which also mentions an article published by Shostakovich in the middle 1930's, where he lists "Berg, Schoenberg, Krenek (?!!!?), and Hindemith" as influences, along with Igor Stravinsky.

[Cato]

Thanks for the information from the Wikipedia article, which also mentions an article published by Shostakovich in the middle 1930's, where he lists "Berg, Schoenberg, Krenek (?!!!?), and Hindemith" as influences, along with Igor Stravinsky.

Footnote: if one doubts the influence of Mahler on Shostakovich, listen to the Babi Yar Symphony #13.

But also listen to parallels with Rachmaninoff's         works like The Bells and Spring.

[karlhenning]

Thanks for the information from the Wikipedia article, which also mentions an article published by Shostakovich in the middle 1930's, where he lists "Berg, Schoenberg, Krenek (?!!!?), and Hindemith" as influences, along with Igor Stravinsky.

Absolutely!  He met Berg in St Petersburg at the premiere in that city of Wozzeck!

[jochanaan]

In many ways, the most Mahlerian of Shostakovich's symphonies is the Fourth.  (I haven't yet heard his Third, but from impressions I've gotten I think I can say this with some assurance.)  The orchestra's size and configuration, the length of its three movements, the wealth of motivic material strongly unified by a few thematic cells--all this is pure Mahler, right down to the celesta arpeggios at the end, modeled after the ones in Das Lied von der Erde.

However, if you're looking for a true successor to Mahler, I would nominate Erich Wolfgang Korngold.

[Cato]

However, if you're looking for a true successor to Mahler, I would nominate Erich Wolfgang Korngold.

Not to be forgotten is Ernst Krenek who also married into Mahler's family.  His symphonies, (at least the ones I have heard #1, 2, 3, and 5) while highly original, seem to be descended from Mahler also.

[quintett op.57]

Shostakovich was clearly influenced by Mahler but I can't see him as his successor.
It's sthing I noticed the first time I listened to Mahler (sym7)
In the list of composers who influenced Shostakovich, I think you forgot a major one : Nielsen

[karlhenning]

In the list of composers who influenced Shostakovich, I think you forgot a major one : Nielsen

I don't see Nielsen (much though I enjoy his music) as "a major influence" on Shostakovich;  chances are that the Dane was entirely off of Shostakovich's radar.

[karlhenning]

Not to be forgotten is Ernst Krenek who also married into Mahler's family.

What of Toch?

[Cato]

What of Toch?

Boom!  Ernst Toch would qualify also: his symphonic works tend to be much smaller, so in that aspect he would seem to be part of the reaction against the large, post-Romantic tradition of Mahler.

On the other hand, there is a contrapuntal clarity in Toch's orchestral works which follows Mahler's dictum that there should be no harmony, only counterpoint.

[not edward]

I don't see Nielsen (much though I enjoy his music) as "a major influence" on Shostakovich;  chances are that the Dane was entirely off of Shostakovich's radar.

I think Nielsen and Shostakovich are a perfect example of convergent evolution in music: starting from different musical trends, they ended up closer than they started off.

Not to be forgotten is Ernst Krenek who also married into Mahler's family.  His symphonies, (at least the ones I have heard #1, 2, 3, and 5) while highly original, seem to be descended from Mahler also.

And people often see Shostakovich's 4th as a direct descendant of Krenek's 2nd. I think it's more indebted to Popov's 1st, though.

[karlhenning]

I think Nielsen and Shostakovich are a perfect example of convergent evolution in music: starting from different musical trends, they ended up closer than they started off.

That is certainly a good observation, Edward.

[Mark]

That is certainly a good observation, Edward.

And one which leads me to ask: If I enjoy Nielsen's Fourth Symphony, which of Shostakovich's might I enjoy equally, supposing any of his are similar in hue?