Shostakovich's 4th Symphony

[greg]

Would like to get some opinions about this masterpiece....


the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._4_%28Shostakovich%29

i love how it describes the symphony:

The symphony resembles a volcanic eruption—the eruption of unleashed imagination, spewing forth music almost at random, without an apparent design, logic or destination.[4] It relies heavily on thematic transformation and cinematographic continuity (and occasional lack of same), with tonal and formal features providing a relatively passive framework.[5] The combination of unbridled fantasy and unconventional structure makes this symphony perhaps one of the most original post-Mahlerian symphonies in the classical repertoire.[6]

This symphony has to be one of the most imaginative pieces of music out there.......

[Lethevich]

My favourite DSCH sym by quite some margin, and also probably his most Mahlerian sounding work. Despite all that is "odd" about it, it hangs together rather well.

[techniquest]

It is a very strange work; absolute Shostakovich that sweeps across the whole spectrum of his musical style. A million miles from the 3rd, which he had written just a few years previously, in both form and quality but not heard until the 1960's, it kind of fits anywhere. It may have been written in the 30's, but it could just as well been written in the 50's or 60's such is it's freshness and 'uniqueness'. I don't think it's my favourite Shostakovich symphony (no.13 probably wears that crown just now), but it's certainly in the top half. Thinking about it here, I wonder what it says? I love it, but I'm not quite sure why...

[bhodges]

The more I hear this piece, the more I think this might be Shostakovich's greatest symphony.  Just heard a fantastic live performance the other night by Haitink and Chicago, and again last December with Andrey Boreyko and the New York Philharmonic.  Both were searing, magnificent readings.  

Lethe, interesting you mention Mahler, since that's what the friend with me at the Chicago concert thought, too.

--Bruce

[not edward]

Definitely one of my three favourite Shostakovich symphonies (it, 14 and 15 have been my three favourites for about a decade now, so I guess that ranking is reasonably solid for me). I think the Mahler connection is spot on, though there's obviously an influence from Berg, who Shostakovich apparently thought very highly of. I've seen several people argue that Krenek's 2nd symphony, which is similarly in three wide-ranging movements, is a major influence; however I think Popov's 1st is an even more obvious predecessor.

It's interesting, if largely irrelevant, to wonder what influence this symphony would have had if it had been performed at the time of writing (similarly with the Popov work, also suppressed). As it is, I think its most obvious progeny--Schnittke's 1st symphony--didn't appear until the early '70s.

[Bonehelm]

I like his 5th, 7th and 10th more. Giving it a 7.

[ragman1970]

This Symphony, not played before Stalin was dead, is a Master peace. After the 1st as student, 2nd and 3rd as "must do" works it was the first Symphony from DSch there he was "himself". And then this "prawda article". From this moment on DSch was not the same person as before and his fight against Stalin began.
Stalin may never understood really that DSch say's with his music. No doubt!!

For all this reason's this Symphonie is improtant.

[Sef]

I don't think I know enough to say that this is the best, but it is certainly my favourite - therefore it gets a 10. It may even be his most important for the reasons others give. Just saw CSO perform it for the second time in two years last week - it loses none of it's magic, no matter how many times I hear it.

Strange that until relatively recently it never got much enthusiasm. I remember reading a review a few years ago describing it as a mess! It does beg the question about how pieces become fashionable.

[greg]

Strange that until relatively recently it never got much enthusiasm. I remember reading a review a few years ago describing it as a mess! It does beg the question about how pieces become fashionable.

Interesting...... maybe it just needs familiarity among audiences/critics.

Lethe, interesting you mention Mahler, since that's what the friend with me at the Chicago concert thought, too.

--Bruce

What I didn't catch about this symphony until recently were the quotations from one of the main motives of Mahler's 4th. Pretty easy to miss, very subtle and most likely he did have it in mind although it could also have been just pure chance, being only a few notes (unless someone can prove this wrong).

[lukeottevanger]

...and of course the end is like a vision of the end of Das Lied von der Erde, in a totally different dimension.

[M forever]

What dimension? I have to say I see no connection between the two endings except for that both are quiet and long drawn out. But Mahler's music runs out very slowly and melancholically, but peaceful, on the other hand, DSH's piece ends in almost complete (but not *quite* complete) despair and desolation after a huge catastrophy.

[Bonehelm]

What dimension? I have to say I see no connection between the two endings except for that both are quiet and long drawn out. But Mahler's music runs out very slowly and melancholically, but peaceful, on the other hand, DSH's piece ends in almost complete (but not *quite* complete) despair and desolation after a huge catastrophy.

Catastrophe.

[Renfield]

Catastrophe.

And can you also tell us why, even though it's pronounced the way M wrote it? If you like to be smart this much?

Re: Shostakovich's 4th, I gave it a 9.

I agree with the sentiment about its being his most Mahlerian symphony, but I still view the 15th as his most accomplished.

[eyeresist]

It is a very strange work; absolute Shostakovich that sweeps across the whole spectrum of his musical style. A million miles from the 3rd, which he had written just a few years previously, in both form and quality but not heard until the 1960's, it kind of fits anywhere. It may have been written in the 30's, but it could just as well been written in the 50's or 60's such is it's freshness and 'uniqueness'.

Heh! I guess that's the other way of putting it! This morning I listened to his second violin concerto, followed by the 4th symphony, and thought "Gee, he didn't develop very much, did he?"

I'm still a Shosty novice, so this is the right time to start recommending great recordings of this work.

[jochanaan]

To me, it really is a masterpiece.  (Although I'm also very fond of the First; no mere student work, this. )  And for all the Wikipedia author's words about "unleashed imagination" and "lack of formal design," it's actually very tightly organized, with a very Mahlerian motivic interplay within and between movements.  For example, the subject of the string fugato a little more than halfway through the first movement is directly derived from the sardonic opening theme, the main theme in the second movement is also derived from the first movement's opening theme, and the bass/low brass theme in the climax of the last movement is the opening bassoon theme of that movement.

[lukeottevanger]

What dimension? I have to say I see no connection between the two endings except for that both are quiet and long drawn out. But Mahler's music runs out very slowly and melancholically, but peaceful, on the other hand, DSH's piece ends in almost complete (but not *quite* complete) despair and desolation after a huge catastrophy.

Well, that's what I mean by a different dimension (it was late last night when I posted that, and I was very tired, so I couldn't search for better words). Both works end with this long-drawn-out fade on, essentially, a single chord, embellished in each case by occasional arpeggiated figures in the celeste - for a composer as steeped in and influenced by Mahler as Shostakovich, the resemblance can't have escaped him. The difference in tone and implication is huge, as you say - and in fact the resemblances only seem to highlight  this difference - but that Shostakovich may have modeled the general shape on the Mahler is an oft-repeated suggestion that I've seen and heard more than a few times*.

*The opening of this last movement is also sometimes seen to be modeled on the opening of the last song of Das Lied.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I am willing to upload a really terrific performance: Kiril Kondrashin conducting the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra (recorded 10/10/1971).

Anyone interested?

[lukeottevanger]

[hand goes up]

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

[load goes up]

http://rapidshare.com/files/116238347/Shostakovich-_Symphony_No.4_In_C_Minor_-_1._Allegretto__poco_moderato_-_Presto_-_Tempo_1.mp3

http://rapidshare.com/files/116238348/Shostakovich-_Symphony_No.4_In_C_Minor_-_2._Moderato__con_moto.mp3

http://rapidshare.com/files/116238349/Shostakovich-_Symphony_No.4_In_C_Minor_-_3._Largo_-_Allegro.mp3

[Renfield]

[load goes up]

[hand also goes up]

Though I've a Kondrashin, a Rozhdestvensky and a Barshai each, of "old Russian masters", I don't at all think another Kondrashin will spoil me. Thanks in advance, Jezetha.