Shostakovich Symphonies, Cycles & Otherwise

[Harry]

At the risk of veering off-topic, what Tippett have you got in the queue, mijn vriend?

This one.

[Steve]

Understood, especially what I've italicized above.  For myself, there was something of a watershed when I was at last convinced by the entire piece;  and then, at some subsequent point, a further watershed where I accepted that the piece could sustain to some extent a range of interpretation.  Which, one might say, is part of the measure of a great piece.

Remember his European tour? His rebellious revision of the finale (5th)?

[karlhenning]

Well, it was before my time :-)

[Steve]

Well, it was before my time :-)

Well done, Sir. But, there are encyclopedias for this very reason. 

[karlhenning]

I have not finished Haitink's cycle (only have four of them), but his will be my direction over the next few years.

Which four of the Haitink series have you got, Bill?

[karlhenning]

Well done, Sir. But, there are encyclopedias for this very reason. 

I don't have my sources to hand this morning . . . so I'm vaguely remembering a characteristically ambiguous compliment from Shostakovich.

And with Lenny, there is sometimes the question:  Are we still within range of the actual piece?  Or have we wilfully gone Elsewhere? 

[Steve]

I don't have my sources to hand this morning . . . so I'm vaguely remembering a characteristically ambiguous compliment from Shostakovich.

And with Lenny, there is sometimes the question:  Are we still within range of the actual piece?  Or have we wilfully gone Elsewhere? 

Good point. 

[karlhenning]

The finale of the Fifth I have found a curious question.  Recalls the Bigendian/Smallendian debate in some ways :-)

And the drivers are so ephemeral.  There's the characteristically colorful story in Testimony (and how do we know that's actually Shostakovich talking?)  The typically unfathomable Shostakovich deadpan of the 'broken metronome' remark.  The postcard returned to Celibidache with the laconic "Da" (which, again, knowing both the state of operation of the Soviet postal system, and how some missives wound up on desks of the KGB and never actually reached recipients . . . I just cannot think it much of a document to go on).

Upon this insufficient foundation, in part, we have [ fast ending = triumph / slow ending = dissident sarcasm ] as something of a "line in the sand," in some quarters.

I don't have the firm answer, obviously.  But two of my asides are:

1.) Shostakovich was in probably the tightest of a number of tight spots he experienced throughout his career.  Too much depended on the piece making the right impression in the right quarters;  he was not in the position here, to take the musical risk of (say) the Ninth later on during the war.  So, I'm not sure this was the occasion for him to play such a daring card.  Obviously, I cannot say one way or the other, absolutely.

2.) I consider how broad the ending of the 'Leningrad'  Symphony is, and how unambiguously triumphant.  I don't think it at all a 'slam dunk' that breadth of tempo in the finale of the Fifth, maps onto scornful dissidence.

[karlhenning]

Barshai is for me the set!
And plenty of sets to complement it.

This post has a certain Yes! No! quality to it, Harry 

[Steve]

The finale of the Fifth I have found a curious question.  Recalls the Bigendian/Smallendian debate in some ways :-)

And the drivers are so ephemeral.  There's the characteristically colorful story in Testimony (and how do we know that's actually Shostakovich talking?)  The typically unfathomable Shostakovich deadpan of the 'broken metronome' remark.  The postcard returned to Celibidache with the laconic "Da" (which, again, knowing both the state of operation of the Soviet postal system, and how some missives wound up on desks of the KGB and never actually reached recipients . . . I just cannot think it much of a document to go on).

Upon this insufficient foundation, in part, we have [ fast ending = triumph / slow ending = dissident sarcasm ] as something of a "line in the sand," in some quarters.

I don't have the firm answer, obviously.  But two of my asides are:

1.) Shostakovich was in probably the tightest of a number of tight spots he experienced throughout his career.  Too much depended on the piece making the right impression in the right quarters;  he was not in the position here, to take the musical risk of (say) the Ninth later on during the war.  So, I'm not sure this was the occasion for him to play such a daring card.  Obviously, I cannot say one way or the other, absolutely.

2.) I consider how broad the ending of the 'Leningrad'  Symphony is, and how unambiguously triumphant.  I don't think it at all a 'slam dunk' that breadth of tempo in the finale of the Fifth, maps onto scornful dissidence.

Upon this insufficient foundation, in part, we have [ fast ending = triumph / slow ending = dissident sarcasm ] as something of a "line in the sand," in some quarters.

Having recently listened to the Bernstein interpretation of this Symphony again, I couldnt help but posit some skepticism about those very remarks. A brief summary of that famous debate were included on the back of the originial lp. The comment 'sarcasm wasn't expected to sit well with the Russians", does oversimplify Bernstein's take.

[Sergeant Rock]

Also curious, Sarge!  For long, the Haitink was the only acccount I'd heard, and I liked it very well.  Better still, I'm finding both the Temirkanov/St Petersburg Phil and Maksim Dmitriyevich's.  I've certainly reached the stage where I wonder why I did not love this symphony as well as the Fifth, any earlier (of course, the Fifth has great sentimental attachment for me, anyway).

Well, Slava's Sixth puzzled me. Looking at the timing of the first movement, I thought, ah ha! this will be the one. I want a protracted and terribly desolate sounding first movement. An utter wasteland. But somehow it didn't work. I had a hard time getting a satisfactory balance between the soft and loud parts. When I had it as soft as I wanted, the orchestral body seemed to recede alarmingly. That may have colored my perception of the interpretation. I'll have to listen to it again on my main system. For the moment, Rozhdestvensky's is the best Sixth I own.

Sarge

[Danny]

I hate versions of the Fifth that rush the ending to the finale, but that supposedly makes me a Stalinist or whatever according to Volkov and the late, great Rostropovich.   

[karlhenning]

Well, Slava's Sixth puzzled me. Looking at the timing of the first movement, I thought, ah ha! this will be the one. I want a protracted and terribly desolate sounding first movement. An utter wasteland. But somehow it didn't work. I had a hard time getting a satisfactory balance between the soft and loud parts. When I had it as soft as I wanted, the orchestral body seemed to recede alarmingly. That may have colored my perception of the interpretation. I'll have to listen to it again on my main system. For the moment, Rozhdestvensky's is the best Sixth I own.

Interesting, Sarge.

As to Temirkanov/St Petersburg Phil and Maksim Dmitriyevich/Prague Symphony, I've had a great time comparing the two of them today.  I like them both, like them both a lot, yet the two take distinct approaches.  Maksim Dmitriyevich takes the Largo markedly broader (his timing in this movement is more than two and a half minutes longer than Temirkanov's, 18:56 vs. 16:23).

Temirkanov is more 'driven' with the Allegro.  On the one hand, then, I think Maksim Dmitriyevich must have stronger support from the text (the marking is Allegro, and not Presto), and the tutti at about a minute and a half in, with the trumpets, has a winning grace and charm.  On the other, Temirkanov makes the nervier tempo work, too.

There are less differences in the character of the final Presto itself;  the difference is in the overall arc of the symphony.  In Temirkanov's reading, there is more of a 'night & day' split between the opening Largo, and the two fast movements.  Where Maksim Dmitriyevich makes it more a whole-cloth progression from the Largo to gradually swifter character.

I'll say again, I like these both a lot.

[Sergeant Rock]

Do you know who performs the big symphonies like 5, 7, 8, and 10 in the Jansons cycle?

Hey, PW. I own the Jansons set. The orchestras are:

1 - Berlin Phil
2 - SOBR
3 - SOBR
4 - SOBR
5 - Vienna Phil
6 - Oslo Phil
7 - St Petersburg Phil
8 - Pittsburgh
9 - Oslo Phil
10 - Philadelphia
11 - Philadelphia
12 - SOBR
13 - SOBR
14 - SOBR
15 - LPO

My favorites from this cycle: 3, 4, 5 (there's a really interesting gear change in the Finale that will either repulse you or excite you), 10, 13 and 14 but most of the others are fine too. The only weak performances, in my opinion, are the 6th (its first movement is simply too fast, too light. It fails to evoke a sense of loss and desolation) and the 9th. I can't judge the 7th. It remains my least favorite symphony (I actually like 2, 3 and 12 more than 7) and Jansons too failed to convince me.

Sarge

[PerfectWagnerite]

Thanks Sarge !
Wow, so the 7th is with the former Leningrad Philharmonic then !

The reason I don't go for complete cycles with Shostakovich is that I only like about half the symphonies. I like 4-10 and 15, am lukewarm towards 1, 11. Don't really care for 12, really really do not like 2 and 3. 13 and 14 are vocal works and I am probably not a good judge on these works so I will not attempt to.

So the upshot is I only like about half the symphonies and really don't want to shell out $50+ for them...

[karlhenning]

If that's the case, no set would be quite your thing, PW.

Then, too, I cannot imagine being lukewarm to the First! 

[PerfectWagnerite]

If that's the case, no set would be quite your thing, PW.

Then, too, I cannot imagine being lukewarm to the First! 

It's a nice pleasant work but I like works that pack a punch like 7, 8 and 10

[Sergeant Rock]

Upon this insufficient foundation, in part, we have [ fast ending = triumph / slow ending = dissident sarcasm ] as something of a "line in the sand," in some quarters.

I don't have the firm answer, obviously.  But two of my asides are:

1.) Shostakovich was in probably the tightest of a number of tight spots he experienced throughout his career.  Too much depended on the piece making the right impression in the right quarters;  he was not in the position here, to take the musical risk of (say) the Ninth later on during the war.  So, I'm not sure this was the occasion for him to play such a daring card.  Obviously, I cannot say one way or the other, absolutely.

2.) I consider how broad the ending of the 'Leningrad'  Symphony is, and how unambiguously triumphant.  I don't think it at all a 'slam dunk' that breadth of tempo in the finale of the Fifth, maps onto scornful dissidence.

Excellent points. It takes more than a mere tempo to signify what the conductor wants us to think (if said conductor is trying to make a political statement...I'm sure most aren't). Rostropovich does it with both a slow tempo and really heavy, dissonant accents that sound like they're trying to stop the music . Hectoring is how one critic described Slava's final pages.

Sarge

[Bogey]

Which four of the Haitink series have you got, Bill?

5, 6, 8, and 11

Only the 5th here seems to fall short for me Karl even though it is the only account of it that I have ever heard....basing this on others high praise for the piece.

[karlhenning]

Haven't heard Haitink in either the Fifth or Eleventh, Bill;  his accounts of the Sixth and Eighth are indeed very fine.

Revisiting Haitink's Sixth this evening, his is yet a different fingerprint to either Temirkanov or Maksim Dmitriyevich.  Haitink's trademark 'tidiness' -- obligatory disclaimer: not to call the other two sloppy, at all, mind you -- works to excellent effect here, as it has in the best of the rest of his cycle.