Shostakovich Symphonies, Cycles & Otherwise

[jlaurson]

Let me add Rozhdestvensky to the mix (just to make your life more complicated  )  If there were a box set available, he would be my first choice (despite the less than ideal sonics). So my advice is: wait for it 

Seeing that Melodiya is back in business, I am certainly hoping for a re-issue on that front! Would be most exciting, if nothing else.

Rostropovich's Fifth is a great performance too but it is overtly political. Karl, if you think music can't be political...well, just listen to those closing pages! We know that Shostakovich composed the Fifth in responce to politically motivated criticism (the Fourth disappeared for many years as a result). The finale is, on the surface, one of unalloyed Soviet triumph. But some think Shostakovich deliberately wrote a subversive subtext into the score for those with the ears to hear. Rostropovich makes it obvious: the closing pages are not triumphant but hectoring, and damning. It's the polar opposite interpretation of, for example, Bernstein's (whose performance Shostakovich praised). Take your pick between the two interpretive extremes: come away smiling, or intensely disturbed.

To simplify: Slava was a hack who pretended to be best buddies with DSCH and milked the Volkov-interpretation because it made him money and gave him fame. The Saintification of DSCH by profiteers like Rostropovich really gets my goad. I don't understand it when someone like Ashkenazy does it, but him I am willing to believe and listen to and respect immensely, even if I'm not sure whether to take his opinion over others, that are at least equally, probably more, informed... because Ashkenazy never did any posturing as a DSCH-apostle and never tried to ride the DSCH-the-anti-communist-hero-money-train. He simply feels strongly about the issue, having experienced the regime first hand. But then listen to Jansons talk about DSCH, and your ears will fall off. Or talk to any Russian willing to give you the honest perception of DSCH from the 70s 'til the fall of the SU. Just on account of his actions, stripped of the myth of a secret resistance fighter hiding in every slow movement, he makes Richard Strauss (re: collaboration with totalitarianism) look like a saint. Sure, Strauss only had to endure 12 years of it, DSCH almost his entire life. But still.

I'm not saying that DSCH was the opposite of what his apologists claim he was. In fact, I think his music (the finale of the 4th and 15th Symphony, most of the string quartets) occasionally speaks a language that's hard to interpret other than critical of the SU & Stalin. But I do wish to caution against the likes of Volkov and Slava (and Maxim, although he holds back considerably, these days) and an all-too-simplistic idea of whenever DSCH composed the most propagandistic works, that he was really only being ironic and all clever about it.

Well... those are my two intemperate two cents. 

The LSO Live 11th I've heard is certainly excellent.

My problem with the recording (and it may well just be that particular recording -- the hybrid-SACD version) is that I don't hear it. It's recorded at such a low level, I literally don't hear anything unless I crank it up some 400% (!!!) higher than I have to with any other discs. If I were to keep it at that level, the climaxes would be too loud...  but not by much. Which speaks to the recording's wide dynamic range (laudable in principle), but moreso to a freakishly low level. Hard to believe as it may be, it must/may be a flaw only with that particular disc... since I've not heard anyone else complain about something that should be very obvious.

[ezodisy]

My problem with the recording (and it may well just be that particular recording -- the hybrid-SACD version) is that I don't hear it. It's recorded at such a low level, I literally don't hear anything unless I crank it up some 400% (!!!) higher than I have to with any other discs. If I were to keep it at that level, the climaxes would be too loud...  but not by much. Which speaks to the recording's wide dynamic range (laudable in principle), but moreso to a freakishly low level. Hard to believe as it may be, it must/may be a flaw only with that particular disc... since I've not heard anyone else complain about something that should be very obvious.

I think it's an LSO thing because I had it with the Davis Berlioz Damnation of Faust recording, very low levels which made listening a right nuisance.

[karlhenning]

. . . In fact, I think his music (the finale of the 4th and 15th Symphony, most of the string quartets) occasionally speaks a language that's hard to interpret other than critical of the SU & Stalin.

When you get specific like this, I think you get out of your text to some degree, Jens.  The chill at the end of the Fourth, after the over-effulgent brass, certainly it's a response to the Terror.  But "critical of the SU & Stalin" is imagining that the music has an explicative capacity which it don't.  Leave the music be itself;  it's time we stopped having people treat it as a Rorschach carrying their own wilful meanings.

As itself, the music is marvelous.  I know, I know:  for many people that is somehow not enough.

PS./ I'm sure you were deliberately exaggerative of Slava, but a chap like you running down an actual artist who, critiques of his conducting aside, is the individual largely responsible for such gems in the literature as the Cello Concerti Opp. 107 & 126, and the Blok romances for soprano & piano trio Opus 127, is a little unseemly.

[jlaurson]

When you get specific like this, I think you get out of your text to some degree, Jens.  The chill at the end of the Fourth, after the over-effulgent brass, certainly it's a response to the Terror.  But "critical of the SU & Stalin" is imagining that the music has an explicative capacity which it don't. 

d'accord! would criticize the statement myself, had it not been me to make it. 

PS./ I'm sure you were deliberately exaggerative of Slava,

Correct.

but a chap like you running down an actual artist who, critiques of his conducting aside, is the individual largely responsible for such gems in the literature as the Cello Concerti Opp. 107 & 126, and the Blok romances for soprano & piano trio Opus 127, is a little unseemly.

Ah, the old trap of who has a "right" to criticize. Good thing we don't live in a world where only "actual artists" have a right to run their mouth about other "actual artists" -- and only "actual doctors" have the right criticize other "actual doctors" -- and only "actual politicians" have the right to criticize other "actual politicians". No, actual doctors are better off removing tumors, politicians are better off  f-ing up the economic sphere with hyperactive interventionism, and artists are better off practicing, instead. For the critiques, there's a specialized sub-cast -- the carrion ants of the arts- (or political) world: Critics. By which I include everyone, not just professionals. And surely the level of compositions dedicated to Rostropovich does not immunize him to criticism of character (or anything else), does it?

[karlhenning]

Rostropovich's Fifth is a great performance too but it is overtly political. Karl, if you think music can't be political...well, just listen to those closing pages! We know that Shostakovich composed the Fifth in responce to politically motivated criticism (the Fourth disappeared for many years as a result). The finale is, on the surface, one of unalloyed Soviet triumph. But some think Shostakovich deliberately wrote a subversive subtext into the score for those with the ears to hear. Rostropovich makes it obvious: the closing pages are not triumphant but hectoring, and damning. It's the polar opposite interpretation of, for example, Bernstein's (whose performance Shostakovich praised). Take your pick between the two interpretive extremes: come away smiling, or intensely disturbed.

Sarge, we probably share a high estimation of Slava as an artist, although even in my limited experience, I've found him mixed as a conductor (though, as mentioned, I'd be curious to revisit a certain recording of the Opus 43).  Mixed or not, on Billy Wilder's principle of You're as good as the best thing you've done, perhaps the only recording I have which is conducted by Slava is the landmark Ledi Makbet;  and that performance is not the work of any "hack."

Much of the great music in the world sustains a range of interpretation, and though the composer certainly created the score, I don't know if it is quite right to take it as meaning that everything within that range was the composer's specific intent – and I think we can fall into error if we focus on one corner of that range as necessarily his intent.

I wasn't there in 1937, so there are lots of questions unanswered for me, and I have no great problem with the fact that not all my questions will be answered.  Slava may believe that the finale of the Opus 47 is a political statement; it is certainly possible to conduct it in such a way.  And such a performance (as within the range of plausible interpretation) can be convincing, and there can be accompanying text to explicate the theory of the finale as a political statement.  But for myself, I stop shy of endorsing all that as "meaning" that that "must have been" Shostakovich's intent.

[Herman]

To simplify: Slava was a hack who pretended to be best buddies with DSCH and milked the Volkov-interpretation because it made him money and gave him fame. The Saintification of DSCH by profiteers like Rostropovich really gets my goad.

Personally I don't really need all the political baggage some people are dumping on DSCH's music. That being said your simplification is reprehensible.

Why don't you just say I disagree with R.?

Who on earth are you to call Rostropovich a hack and a profiteer? Please get a little perspective. In comparison you're just a little ant on the internet. You should be grateful to R. for getting your goat; otherwise you would have to get mad at the gas prices or something.

Critics. By which I include everyone, not just professionals.

That's just emptying yet another word of its meaning. Everybody has an opinion, usually ill-informed. A critic is expected to be better informed, and have better sense than you just did. No big deal; I really don't see why everybody and his dog wants to call himself a critic. It's a mostly thankless job.

[karlhenning]

Oh! And FWIW . . . the finale of the Fifth Symphony (just that one movement) is the first Shostakovich I ever heard, and in what many might find curious circumstances.

It was one of the big numbers (in transcription, necessarily) for our regional (or all-state, I forget just which at this point) symphonic band one year.  I didn't play it;  we were always divided into a 'best of' Wind Ensemble, and the larger Symphonic Band, and I was playing in the W.E. that time.  So the concert at which they played the program was the first I knew of it . . . I missed any background &c. which the Symph. Band conductor may have offered my fellow pupils in rehearsal.

So . . . I found it an exciting (and inspiring) piece of music, even without any background (real or imputed) to the piece.

[jlaurson]

Why don't you just say I disagree with R.?

next time.

Who on earth are you to call Rostropovich a hack and a profiteer? Please get a little perspective. In comparison you're just a little ant on the internet.

Perspective and being an ant (or not a professional critic) has nothing to do with it. I didn't demand you take my opinion to heart or seriously, nor my simplifications as gospel. Similarly I don't expect you to ask of me that I don't have one or that I don't pronounce it. Certainly in a forum like this, even the least 'credible' opinion has its right to exist and need not wrestle for its justification.

Critics. By which I include everyone, not just professionals.

That's just emptying yet another word of its meaning. Everybody has an opinion, usually ill-informed. A critic is expected to be better informed, and have better sense than you just did. No big deal; I really don't see why everybody and his dog wants to call himself a critic. It's a mostly thankless job.

"Critic" served a definition of an action, not a class of professionals in this case, which is why I clarified. The act of criticizing (whether modestly or over the top) is not the prerogative of professional critics. (Being actually listened to, might be.) If it were, only Critics could criticize other critics, I suppose. Surely we wouldn't much like that?!

You should be grateful to R. for getting your goat;...

Goad, not Goat. A difference I must insist upon.

otherwise you would have to get mad at the gas prices or something.

That's PRECISELY what I do when I'm not bitching about Slava.

My last word on Rostropovich - warts & glory - for now.

[ezodisy]

I

"Surely it's time to realize that 21st century foreign policy demands linkage between internal politics and external relations as never before."

I don't know about that. It sounds a little too close to more of the same policing/exporting-US-values that is already rather repugnant. But perhaps you didn't mean that. I remember someone here during the conflict with Georgia was going on and on about how Russia was trying to seize control of all the pipelines (well the person in question was only aware of 1 of them actually) and that was quite easily debunked, which of course isn't the same as saying that they wouldn't like to, just that they couldn't. Anyway I think "piracy" is a bit too much. They often have a point in what they're doing even if it's not apparent or particularly sensible. That article however doesn't have much of a point, other than just saying some rather negative things, unless I'm missing something in it.

[jlaurson]

"Surely it's time to realize that 21st century foreign policy demands linkage between internal politics and external relations as never before."

I don't know about that. It sounds a little too close to more of the same policing/exporting-US-values that is already rather repugnant. But perhaps you didn't mean that. I remember someone here during the conflict with Georgia was going on and on about how Russia was trying to seize control of all the pipelines (well the person in question was only aware of 1 of them actually) and that was quite easily debunked, which of course isn't the same as saying that they wouldn't like to, just that they couldn't. Anyway I think "piracy" is a bit too much. They often have a point in what they're doing even if it's not apparent or particularly sensible. That article however doesn't have much of a point, other than just saying some rather negative things, unless I'm missing something in it.

This is going to get very off-topic... if we were to continue this, we should probably have it moved to a separate thread. But very briefly: I don't find the values of freedom and democracy repugnant -- and those are the ones I mean. Of course the US is a highly flawed country, but there cannot be a moral equivalence between a country like the US and a country like Russia or Zimbabwe. It is, and in that sense I'll stick to the point I was trying to make, not only within the right but a duty of countries that enjoy freedom to point out where such freedoms are not granted.  Also: the article is from 2006, so the Georgia problem had not been on the horizon. I deal with that elsewhere.

[Sergeant Rock]

Well... those are my two intemperate two cents. 

More than two cents, I'd figure    I didn't live in Soviet Union, I never met any of these folks. Any comment I could make on their motives and motivation would be pure conjecture. My point was, though, that the Fifth can be interpreted and performed as a subversive political statement, and that's what Rostropovich did (at a time, 1983, when it was still relevant). Whether Shostakovich meant it to be subversive, I (we) have no way of knowing for sure. Doesn't really matter now though. They're all dead (Slava, Dmitri, Uncle Joe...and the Soviet empire).

My problem with the recording....It's recorded at such a low level, I literally don't hear anything unless I crank it up some 400% (!!!) higher than I have to with any other discs. If I were to keep it at that level, the climaxes would be too loud...

Hence my earlier comment:

Yes, a smashing (literally) recording.

I have the CD (not the SACD) and yes, the recording has a huge dynamic range which just verges on the point of being too wide. I live in my own house with neighbors at a considerable distance, so this isn't a problem...although my ears occasionally complain.

Sarge

[ezodisy]

okay I won't drag it out, especially not now the word 'moral' has come up, which must be the most appalling and manipulated word in the English (or American) language. I like the values of freedom and democracy too, which is why I stay in Europe, sort of 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

PS./ I'm sure you were deliberately exaggerative of Slava, but a chap like you running down an actual artist who, critiques of his conducting aside, is the individual largely responsible for such gems in the literature as the Cello Concerti Opp. 107 & 126, and the Blok romances for soprano & piano trio Opus 127, is a little unseemly.

I dislike the running-down of Slava in the mentioned post not so much because he was responsible for gems in the literature, as because it misreads him in a moral sense. Slava was an immensely privileged guy who was willing to take on the authorities, and in the course of that, lose all the privileges he had acquired in the USSR. How many of us would be able to do such a thing?

"Surely it's time to realize that 21st century foreign policy demands linkage between internal politics and external relations as never before."

I don't know about that. It sounds a little too close to more of the same policing/exporting-US-values that is already rather repugnant.

Agreed. I like how that noted foreign policy expert Ezra Pound expressed it:  "The principle of good is enunciated by Confucius; it consists in establishing order within oneself. This order or harmony spreads by a sort of contagion without specific effort. The principle of evil consists in messing into other peoples' affairs."

[karlhenning]

I dislike the running-down of Slava in the mentioned post not so much because he was responsible for gems in the literature, as because it misreads him in a moral sense. Slava was an immensely privileged guy who was willing to take on the authorities, and in the course of that, lose all the privileges he had acquired in the USSR. How many of us would be able to do such a thing?

An excellent point, too.

[jlaurson]

Agreed. I like how that noted foreign policy expert Ezra Pound expressed it:  "The principle of good is enunciated by Confucius; it consists in establishing order within oneself. This order or harmony spreads by a sort of contagion without specific effort. The principle of evil consists in messing into other peoples' affairs."

That's easy to say, until you are faced with -- extreme 1940's example alarm -- the Holocaust happening in some other country, i.e. Germany.. Or, less extreme, take South Africa / Zimbabwe. Ezra Pound won't be appreciated by the many suffering or even dying Zimbabweans who continue to languish because SA closes its eyes before the oppression in its neighbor country. Surely SA hasn't got its own act together in many ways, but are you saying that one moral principle -- that of "not messing in other people's affairs" overrides the principle of involvement to prevent evil? Does it mean that it is the moral option to close one's eye's before abuses abroad, only because we are flawed ourselves? Surely Germany (or whatever other country you live in) has problems of its own... but just as surely it has an obligation to speak up about abuses as it sees them. Everything else would be cowardice or extreme relativism... possibly both. I'm all for "leading by example"... for "convincing, not coercing". But that's not to excuse neutrality in times of crisis. (Dante reminds us that there's a special place in Hell reserved for those...)

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

are you saying that one moral principle -- that of "not messing in other people's affairs" overrides the principle of involvement to prevent evil? Does it mean that it is the moral option to close one's eye's before abuses abroad, only because we are flawed ourselves?

No, I mean it is unrealistic, dangerous, and frequently unprincipled to believe we can interfere in the affairs of other countries and set things right there. (Sure worked out great for us in Iraq, eh?)

Anyway, where American foreign policy is concerned, I agree with John Quincy Adams' prophetic statement of 1821: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."

Words for US policy-makers to live by!  0:)

Surely Germany (or whatever other country you live in) has problems of its own...

Sure it does - I'm an American, but I live in Russia, a country which you earlier placed on the same level as Zimbabwe (thanks for a good laugh). From my perspective, I can inform that the moral lecturing and hectoring that Anglo-Euro-American elites like to direct at the rest of the world does not go down well, being seen as a form of hypocrisy, and is thus counterproductive.

[jlaurson]

No, I mean it is unrealistic, dangerous, and frequently unprincipled to believe we can interfere in the affairs of other countries and set things right there. (Sure worked out great for us in Iraq, eh?)

Anyway, where American foreign policy is concerned, I agree with John Quincy Adams' statement of 1821...

Every moral principle can be abused {example Iraq}. But that doesn't make it invalid. Just like the moral principle of non-involvement could be abused. Moderation, I suppose, is key. In any case, speaking out (or placing sanctions on a country [although I think sanctions, as we conventionally understand them, are useless at best, and counterproductive more likely]) isn't the same as marching troops some other nation's capital.  0:)

JQA is genius and should be recited trice before every US foreign policy adventure. But that, too, doesn't mean that one should not speak out etc.etc.

but I live in Russia, a country which you earlier placed on the same level as Zimbabwe (thanks for a good laugh). From my perspective, I can inform that the moral lecturing and hectoring that Anglo-Euro-American elites like to direct at the rest of the world does not go down well, being seen as a form of hypocrisy, and is thus counterproductive.

Russia should be held to higher standards than an outright dictatorship like Zimbabwe. Indeed, higher standards than a post-fascistic country China. (I mean "fascistic" in the political definition, not the usual "You're a Nazi" kind-of use. Fascism is basically an government that combines an absolute state with a directed "free" market.) That Western posturing doesn't bring the "Oh my God, we've been wrong all along" effect in Russia, well... that's expected.

Does this sound better? I hope so.

[Herman]

there cannot be a moral equivalence between a country like the US and a country like Russia or Zimbabwe.

Howlers like these are so relevant to DSCH.

Why not relegate these this kind of talkradio bluster to the diner (or even beter to the privacy of your own thoughts)?

[Bu]

My problem with the recording (and it may well just be that particular recording -- the hybrid-SACD version) is that I don't hear it. It's recorded at such a low level, I literally don't hear anything unless I crank it up some 400% (!!!) higher than I have to with any other discs. If I were to keep it at that level, the climaxes would be too loud...  but not by much. Which speaks to the recording's wide dynamic range (laudable in principle), but moreso to a freakishly low level. Hard to believe as it may be, it must/may be a flaw only with that particular disc... since I've not heard anyone else complain about something that should be very obvious.

When I first bought that disc my first thought was that it was defective or something. But then the orchestra kicked in later and I realized Slava intended it to start that way.  By that point I had turned up the sound (was wearing a walkman) and was given quite a jolt.   

I should add that I have his Eighth also with the LSO and its always been a favorite of mine, with the second & third movements particular standouts.

[Renfield]

I believe Shostakovich's sense of humour would have been appeased many times over, by the above digression and its contents.

And for what it's worth, using ad hominem arguments to support aesthetic claims is, to my sensibilities, a faux pas.