Mieczysław Weinberg (1919-1996)

[relm1]

I picked up the Naxos recording of Symphony No. 12 today. Just finished listening to it. I've heard a few of his symphonies now (Nos. 8, 12, 17 & 18) and it's clear to me that his soundworld is far more intimate than, say, Shostakovich and Prokofiev, who prefer (in the main) far thicker and heavier textures. With Weinberg, it's almost like chamber music, even though he often deploys sizable orchestral forces.

Do you prefer Weinberg to Prokofiev and Shostakovich?  I hear him as a distant second who is in awe of the titans but you seem to imply he is more successful in his sound.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Do you prefer Weinberg to Prokofiev and Shostakovich?  I hear him as a distant second who is in awe of the titans but you seem to imply he is more successful in his sound.

Leaving aside the question of who is ultimately "better" (which is hard to gauge, given the disparity in sheer familiarity of these composers' works), I know that what I don't hear is someone "in awe". Weinberg was, despite the age difference, eye-to-eye with DSCH in his endeavors, even if there's that quote of his floating about, that might suggest otherwise. Very confident composer, even if not the most confident man (neither was DSCH).

[amw]

Weinberg probably did exercise somewhat of an influence on Shostakovich given his background playing in klezmer/jewish folk bands; the "jewish themes" in Shostakovich start to appear around the time they became friends (1943 ish). In other respects of course the influence flowed the other way.

[North Star]

Weinberg probably did exercise somewhat of an influence on Shostakovich given his background playing in klezmer/jewish folk bands; the "jewish themes" in Shostakovich start to appear around the time they became friends (1943 ish). In other respects of course the influence flowed the other way.

And Weinberg got Shostakovich interested in writing string quartets, and their friendly competition resulted in two of the most significant cycles of the 20th century. And since the two were showing / playing their new works to each other all the time, it would be absurd to think there wasn't any influence in the other direction. Bartók was another major influence on Weinberg's style, though the political climate in the USSR was a major factor on how much it manifested itself at a given time.

[relm1]

Weinberg probably did exercise somewhat of an influence on Shostakovich given his background playing in klezmer/jewish folk bands; the "jewish themes" in Shostakovich start to appear around the time they became friends (1943 ish). In other respects of course the influence flowed the other way.

Hmm, wait a second, wasn't Shostakovich a fan of Mahler who frequently used klezmer as early as his first symphony?  Surely he was very much aware of Mahler's use of traditional Eastern European Jewish music long before 1943.

[amw]

I'm not a Shostakovich expert by any means but I don't believe Jewish themes start to be a major part of Shostakovich's work until the Piano Trio No.2 (1943ish) in memory of Ivan Sollertinsky (who was also Jewish). I'm sure he knew his Mahler, and had heard plenty of Jewish folk bands in the pre-1933 years when there was still a great deal of artistic freedom, but actually being friends with a musician who was brought up in that tradition is obviously different from studying scores/listening to concerts.

[North Star]

I'm not a Shostakovich expert by any means but I don't believe Jewish themes start to be a major part of Shostakovich's work until the Piano Trio No.2 (1943ish) in memory of Ivan Sollertinsky (who was also Jewish). I'm sure he knew his Mahler, and had heard plenty of Jewish folk bands in the pre-1933 years when there was still a great deal of artistic freedom, but actually being friends with a musician who was brought up in that tradition is obviously different from studying scores/listening to concerts.

Piano Trio No. 2 is from 1944, premiered in November.

The two first met in late 1943, after a score of Weinberg's First Symphony had been sent to Shostakovich. Suitably impressed, he arranged for Weinberg and his family to relocate to Moscow, a particularly difficult permit to obtain, especially in wartime. Weinberg moved into an apartment around the corner from Shostakovich and the two
quickly became friends. They shared their latest compositions with each other and played piano duets together, both in public and privately, perhaps the most famous example being a 1954 recording of Shostakovich's Tenth Symphony. The closeness of their friendship can be noted from Shostakovich's diaries, where Weinberg's name appears more than any other.

[...]

The first group of mutual influence includes Weinberg's Second Quartet, included here because of the impact that it appears to have had on Shostakovich's quartets; in particular, several passages in Shostakovich's Second and Third Quartets echo motifs and themes from Weinberg's Second Quartet.
     While the strong influence of Shostakovich on Weinberg is frequently audible, the reverse process is arguably no less significant. The early quartets of both composers offer several tantalising similarities, suggesting a reciprocal exchange of ideas. It is apparent from Fig. 2-i that several of these quartets were written more or less
simultaneously in Moscow

[...]

Nelly Kravetz has written on Shostakovich's Jewish interests, with reference to Weinberg's Op. 13 and Op. 17 collections of Jewish Songs (dated 1943 and 1944, respectively). 'It is precisely at this period Shostakovich got seriously interested in Jewish subjects... These facts are meant to prove the following assertion: The interest Shostakovich showed in the Jewish subjects was highly aroused by his acquaintance with Weinberg.'

[...]

The dense chromaticism of the [Weinberg Piano] Quintet as a whole is further grounds for arguing that Shostakovich picked up on suggestions and took influence from an earlier piece. More tantalizingly, close resemblances to Shostakovich's later works can be found in the first movement of Weinberg's Second Quartet (1939), which concludes with a meandering cello line. It moves away from its G major tonality, only to return abruptly at the final cadence (Ex. 2.4a and b). Shostakovich's Sixth Quartet features a similar recurring cadence (Ex. 2.4c). Several authors have seized upon Shostakovich's repeated concluding gesture and its potential for a hermeneutic reading. Kuhn describes it as 'the quartet's most disturbing and enigmatic figure... a repeated and increasingly estranged "happy ending"'. Noting the presence of a verticalised DSCH signature, Fanning writes: 'The most tempting "explanation"... is that this cadence betokens Shostakovich's shadowy presence'. [...]
The possibility of Weinberg's influence on the creation of this deeply meaningful gesture has ramifications for the perception and contemporary reception of Weinberg himself. Such distinctive motifs have come to be understood as crucial aspects of Shostakovich's style. If we accept the link, this is one example of how Weinberg may effectively be removed from Shostakovich's shadow. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Weinberg would have shown his earlier compositions to his friend and mentor, given that these must have been among the few possessions that Weinberg was able to take with him when he fled Warsaw and then
Minsk. Shostakovich was even known to have taken Weinberg's advice on quartet writing (a very rare occurrence). Abram Ashkenazy recalled:
Whenever his work was concerned, he was very tough. He never made concessions. Shostakovich never corrected his compositions, never listened to advice. The single exception known to me concerns the Fourth Quartet. We listened to it at Sviridov's apartment after dinner. Dmitri Dmitrievich had the score and played through the complete quartet... Leafing through the score, I saw some clippings. So I asked Shostakovich what they were about: 'You see, Weinberg advised me to make some changes in the finale, and so I did'.

[Maestro267]

Do you prefer Weinberg to Prokofiev and Shostakovich?  I hear him as a distant second who is in awe of the titans but you seem to imply he is more successful in his sound.

No, I never even said that! And even if I did, why would it be such a big deal as you seem to imply? It's not about "success", it's a simple comparison that I have observed from listening to the music of all three composers.

You must hear No.5 - his greatest I think, although not on Naxos.

I'd like to. I saw in another thread here that it invites comparison with Shostakovich 4, so that's certainly piqued my interest.

[Karl Henning]

Leaving aside the question of who is ultimately "better" (which is hard to gauge, given the disparity in sheer familiarity of these composers' works), I know that what I don't hear is someone "in awe". Weinberg was, despite the age difference, eye-to-eye with DSCH in his endeavors, even if there's that quote of his floating about, that might suggest otherwise. Very confident composer, even if not the most confident man (neither was DSCH).

Weinberg probably did exercise somewhat of an influence on Shostakovich given his background playing in klezmer/jewish folk bands; the "jewish themes" in Shostakovich start to appear around the time they became friends (1943 ish). In other respects of course the influence flowed the other way.

And Weinberg got Shostakovich interested in writing string quartets, and their friendly competition resulted in two of the most significant cycles of the 20th century. And since the two were showing / playing their new works to each other all the time, it would be absurd to think there wasn't any influence in the other direction. Bartók was another major influence on Weinberg's style, though the political climate in the USSR was a major factor on how much it manifested itself at a given time.

Yes.

[71 dB]

I drink my coffee with sugar and milk. Shostakovich is kind of black coffee while Weinberg is coffee with sugar and milk. That's why Weinberg is more to my liking. There has always been elements in Shostakovich's music I enjoy (coffee), but also elements I don't like (lack of milk and sugar). Discovering Weinberg's music has been among the most important revelations for me of the last 5 years. It's like Shostakovich corrected for my personal taste. Who's greater? Irrelevant. Weinberg has quickly become one of my favorite composers.

0:)

[Mirror Image]

I drink my coffee with sugar and milk. Shostakovich is kind of black coffee while Weinberg is coffee with sugar and milk. That's why Weinberg is more to my liking. There has always been elements in Shostakovich's music I enjoy (coffee), but also elements I don't like (lack of milk and sugar). Discovering Weinberg's music has been among the most important revelations for me of the last 5 years. It's like Shostakovich corrected for my personal taste. Who's greater? Irrelevant. Weinberg has quickly become one of my favorite composers.

0:)

Interesting analogy. Of course, I respectfully disagree. I do love Weinberg's music or, at least, a lot of what I've heard (many of the symphonies, concerti, several chamber pieces). But there's something deeply disturbing about Shostakovich's music that continues to shake me at my core.

[Karl Henning]

I drink my coffee with sugar and milk. Shostakovich is kind of black coffee while Weinberg is coffee with sugar and milk. That's why Weinberg is more to my liking.

O.  K.

[vandermolen]

I see that there's a Naxos CD of Symphony 13. Any views on this?
I tend to like the earlier ones (1,3,5 and 6) of those that I know. I collected some of the later ones on Olympia but did not like them as much.

[71 dB]

I respectfully disagree.

Normally people just disagree, so that's better. 

Before joining GMG I didn't know/care about what classical music other people like. Such ignorance was bliss. I just enjoyed whatever I like and that's it. After joining GMG that bliss was gone. Suddenly I started stress about not being like others. Why don't I like Verdi? Why don't they like Elgar? Why does this guy ignore Fauré? GMG has been a curse and a blessing. For example now I worry about having just a few symphonies of Weinberg when I should be enjoying those I have (12, 19 & 20).

There's just so much stuff to buy! Lately I have bought more Blu-rays and less classical music. It seems I haven't bought anything by Weinberg since February 2017.  I think I have 14 Weinberg CDs. Do you have more or less?

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I think I have 14 Weinberg CDs. Do you have more or less?

I think that's 13 1/2 more than the average music lover, so you're WELL ahead of the curve! 

[71 dB]

I think that's 13 1/2 more than the average music lover, so you're WELL ahead of the curve! 

Yeah, I wish Weinberg was 1/10 as popular as Shostakovich... 

[SymphonicAddict]

... Why don't they like Elgar? ...

In my case, count me as a guy who does like Elgar's music 

[71 dB]

In my case, count me as a guy who does like Elgar's music 

That's good.  Maybe I should have said not everyone thinks Elgar is one of the greats. Anyway that is the past. I used to take this issue VERY seriously, but nowadays I just don't care and I understand better how people can have differing tastes and how it's not the end of the World.

[vandermolen]

OT

Count me as an Elgar admirer too - especially the two symphonies and the excellent reconstructed Third Symphony. I head the Cello Concero at the Proms a few weeks ago - my daughter's favourite piece of classical music.

[Karl Henning]

That's good.  Maybe I should have said not everyone thinks Elgar is one of the greats. Anyway that is the past. I used to take this issue VERY seriously, but nowadays I just don't care and I understand better how people can have differing tastes and how it's not the end of the World.

Please remember the original Mahler thread, and why it got locked down.

Please do not make non-Elgar threads a referendum on Elgar.