Poll
Question:
Overall, which do you prefer in Shostakovich's output, his symphonies or SQs?
Option 1: Symphonies
votes: 14
Option 2: String Quartets
votes: 12
Hoping to lighten the mood a bit......Shostakovich's symphonies and SQs are regarded as some of the greatest ever written in each genre, so I thought it would be interesting to see which cycle members prefer. Naturally, I voted for the symphonies, because I'm an orchestral nut! :D His SQs, though, are greatly powerful works indeed. I guess this poll really comes down to whether members prefer orchestral or chamber music, but there's always exceptions! :)
Definitely the quartets, because there are no duds among them. The symphonies are more variable.
Quote from: Velimir on October 03, 2013, 12:15:35 PM
Definitely the quartets, because there are no duds among them. The symphonies are more variable.
Yes, the symphonies are indeed quite variable in quality. Nos. 2, 3 and 12 are far from top-drawer Shosty, though I still enjoy them quite a bit. There's been two symphonies of his I've never quite warmed to-the Ninth and the Fourteenth. I don't know if I would categorize them as lesser Shostakovich, but they're my least favorite of the cycle. But, the love I have for nos. 1, 4, 5-8, 10, 11, 13 and 15 far outweigh my opinions of the others. :)
Thanks for reminding I need to revisit the SQ's again.
The quartets are indeed less variable in quality, but there are so many stunning symphonies, too.
Kyjo, we can still be friends even though you haven't warmed to the 9th. But that the same goes for the 14th.. :-\ 8)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 03, 2013, 12:29:30 PM
No contest for me (and this is true for all composers who wrote multiple works in both forms): I always prefer the quartets.
While I enjoy symphonies, especially from the Classical period, I much prefer chamber music, and the string quartet is arguably the pinnacle of that genre.
I feel the opposite. Haydn and Mozart's string quartets I feel are much more satisfying works than their symphonies. But Shostakovich's symphonies are interesting because they are varied in tone and style. His string quartets are impressive but I like the symphonies a bit more.
Okay I read that wrong.
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 12:28:24 PMI've never quite warmed to-the Ninth and the Fourteenth.
Fascinating...those are in my top 4.
Sarge
What Velimir said. And I too count the symphonies 9 &14 among his 5-6 best.
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 12:28:24 PM
Yes, the symphonies are indeed quite variable in quality. Nos. 2, 3 and 12 are far from top-drawer Shosty, though I still enjoy them quite a bit. There's been two symphonies of his I've never quite warmed to-the Ninth and the Fourteenth. I don't know if I would categorize them as lesser Shostakovich, but they're my least favorite of the cycle. But, the love I have for nos. 1, 4, 5-8, 10, 11, 13 and 15 far outweigh my opinions of the others. :)
Oddly enough I rather like the 12th Symphony. The new Symphony No 4 (Petrenko) is terrific.
My favorite symphonies are #4-15. I don't care for the first three that much.
Symphonies for me. Mainly because of No. 13, 14 and 15. All amazing contributions to the symphony.
Surpringly, coming from a supposed chambernut, it is close, but I would have to chose the symphonies. :)
Quote from: vandermolen on October 03, 2013, 01:08:17 PM
Oddly enough I rather like the 12th Symphony. The new Symphony No 4 (Petrenko) is terrific.
+1. I too, really enjoy the 12th symphony. Envious that you already have the Petrenko 4th. :'( I'm sure it will soon be available across the pond.
Edit: Petrenko's 4th will be available in Canada as of October 29th.
I need to do a listening survey of the String Quartets first. I know the Symphonies fairly well, but don't know the String Quartets at all well (except for the famous ones like 8 ), so it doesn't make sense to vote on this. I know by now that my favorite symphonies are 1, 4-6, 8-10 and 15; that 13 and particularly 14 are deeply moving but for special "occasions"; that I'll probably never learn to love 7 or 11.
As of today..............Symphonies. This can very well change tomorrow, as the quartets are all great. The 10th, 13-15th, and 4th symphonies are among my favorite works in his catalog.
However, if all chamber works were included in the poll, it would have changed the result. The Second Piano Trio in E Minor op. 67 is a game changer...............
Quote from: vandermolen on October 03, 2013, 01:08:17 PM
Oddly enough I rather like the 12th Symphony. The new Symphony No 4 (Petrenko) is terrific.
Yes, I do too, and although many consider it to be his weakest symphony, I enjoy it a lot. I like it better than nos. 2, 3, 9 and 14, actually.
I like one Shostakovich symphony and one Shostakovich string quartet, so it's a tie, I guess :P
Quote from: DavidW on October 03, 2013, 12:34:39 PM
I feel the opposite. Haydn and Mozart's string quartets I feel are much more satisfying works than their symphonies. But Shostakovich's symphonies are interesting because they are varied in tone and style. His string quartets are impressive but I like the symphonies a bit more.
I find that the further into 'newer' music I go into, I tend to prefer orchestral works.
From Baroque to the early Romantics, I tend to prefer chamber and solo instrumental works.
Quote from: amw on October 03, 2013, 03:18:40 PM
I like one Shostakovich symphony and one Shostakovich string quartet, so it's a tie, I guess :P
;D
Now I am curious, which one of each to you like? :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 03, 2013, 04:41:15 PM
;D
Now I am curious, which one of each to you like? :)
The symphony I like is No. 14, which I suppose is no surprise, I'm not the only committed non-Shostakovichian to single it out for admiration. (I also like the beginning and ending of No. 15, but lose interest in the middle.)
The string quartet I like, however, is No. 3, which not even Shostakovichians seem to remark on very much. For me, though it has so many of the Shostakovich style clichés that make most of his work rather tedious and repetitive, it hangs together quite well and is rather poignant, particularly the last two movements. I suppose it was one of the first works in which he used some of these clichés (passacaglia,
morendo al niente ending, "pastorale" finale etc) so they had a certain degree of freshness. The Second Piano Trio from around the same time is another such piece that I also enjoy. (I seem to recall enjoying bits of String Quartet No. 2 as well, actually, though I felt it dragged on a bit long. Haven't listened to it in ages, I have it in LP transfer form with the Beethoven Quartet coupled with Shostakovich himself playing his Piano Quintet, there are worse ways to spend a Friday afternoon I suppose)
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 12:28:24 PM
There's been two symphonies of his I've never quite warmed to-the Ninth and the Fourteenth. I don't know if I would categorize them as lesser Shostakovich, but they're my least favorite of the cycle.
Hmm, now I'm curious. What is it that you don't like about the Ninth? Or if it's simply never clicked, do you have any theories as to why?
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 05:07:21 PM
Hmm, now I'm curious. What is it that you don't like about the Ninth? Or if it's simply never clicked, do you have any theories as to why?
I know you aren't asking me, Brian, but thought I'd chime in. ;D
I think Shostakovich's 9th Symphony is a marvelous, marvelous symphony. Perhaps, I think it unfairly suffers from that "slender Greek maiden between tow big Nordic giants" syndrome, similar to Beethoven's 4th?
I like a greater percentage of the symphonies (4, 7,8, 10, 11, 14 especially) than I do of the string quartets, but I think the quality of the quartets is uniformly higher than that of the symphonies. There are some low points in the symphonies (2, 3, and 15, I'm looking at you), but none in the string quartets.
(If you wonder why I picked on 15--it just doesn't gel for me.)
So my answer is "both".
Quote from: Brian on October 03, 2013, 05:07:21 PM
Hmm, now I'm curious. What is it that you don't like about the Ninth? Or if it's simply never clicked, do you have any theories as to why?
It's not that I don't like the Ninth, it just doesn't have as much of an impact as most of the other symphonies. I like Shostakovich's lighter side, but I prefer the PCs and the ballets to the Ninth. Perhaps the fact that it lies sandwiched between two monumental masterpieces, the Eighth and the Tenth, contributes to my opinion of it. I do like the 2nd movement quite a bit though. It's quite haunting actually.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 03, 2013, 01:08:17 PM
Oddly enough I rather like the 12th Symphony. The new Symphony No 4 (Petrenko) is terrific.
I like the
Twelfth all right, though my honest opinion (right or wrong, it has the virtue of honesty) is that, if the
Twelfth were the
best of his fifteen, we should not really think at all much of him as a symphonist.
Yesterday Tapatalk ate a post I had composed, so here I am trying afresh 16 hours later . . . I actually think very well of the
Second and
Third. They have a bravado which I love to hear, a certain character which is necessarily absent from any of the music written after the composer got burnt; and yet already an assurance (an assurance which carries their apparent wildness). The only thing "
wrong" with these symphonies, which is generally treated summarily as artistically fatal, is the embarrassing weakness of the texts (which reminds me of a schoolmate who wrote a review of the then-latest Bruce Springsteen album in which he concentrated exclusively on the texts — I'm sorry,
lyrics — and he said nothing, nothing at all, about the music). But face it, the equivalent artistic nicety does not get at all in our way of enjoying many an opera.
Now, perhaps my earlier opinion about the
Twelfth would hold true about equally of the
Second and
Third, that if they were the best which
Дмитри Дмитриевич had to offer, at the last we should think nothing of him in particular as a musical force. But I find them better than many give them credit for (and, well, I like them a good deal better than the
Op.112, sorry).
Quote from: kyjo on October 03, 2013, 03:12:15 PM
Yes, I do too, and although many consider it to be his weakest symphony, I enjoy it a lot.
Well, as you probably infer from my recent post, I
do consider it his weakest symphony, but at this point, that fact does not interfere with my enjoying it ;)
Quote from: amw on October 03, 2013, 03:18:40 PM
I like one Shostakovich symphony and one Shostakovich string quartet, so it's a tie, I guess :P
We can guess the quartet, but which symphony? ;)
Well, I ought to have gone on reading . . . . 0:)
Quote from: amw on October 03, 2013, 04:57:45 PM
The symphony I like is No. 14, which I suppose is no surprise, I'm not the only committed non-Shostakovichian to single it out for admiration. (I also like the beginning and ending of No. 15, but lose interest in the middle.)
In fact, I
am surprised (and pleasantly). My working hypothesis (though I knew it was speculative, and not anything certain) was the
Op.47.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 04:23:00 AM
Well, as you probably infer from my recent post, I do consider it his weakest symphony, but at this point, that fact does not interfere with my enjoying it ;)
Agree with you, Karl. I for one enjoy the 2nd, 3rd and 12th symphonies. They are not my 'least favourites' of Shostakovich's symphonic output, either. :-[
Not really a fair poll IMHO because these are two different genres being pitted against each other. One has a huge a palette of colors to draw from. The other is limited. This said, I'm more of a symphony fan than an SQ fan, so the symphonies win hands down.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 03, 2013, 04:40:26 PM
I find that the further into 'newer' music I go into, I tend to prefer orchestral works.
From Baroque to the early Romantics, I tend to prefer chamber and solo instrumental works.
Same here. While pre-20th century music had chamber and piano music as the most intimate musical expression, 20th and 21st century composers became much more bold, imaginative and surprising with their orchestral works blurring the boundaries between chamber, choral and orchestral. Combining the more innovative approach to orchestral with the broad range of color that an orchestra is capable of and modern orchestral became an amazing genre.
String quartets, easily. The symphonies are far too variable in quality, with some being outright clunkers (eg, the 12th). That written, the 13th Symphony is possibly my favorite single DSCH work.
Quote from: Todd on October 04, 2013, 08:34:05 AM
That written, the 13th Symphony is possibly my favorite single DSCH work.
Nothing wrong with that. From end to end the 13th is certainly one of the most consistent of his works, it's such a hauntingly beautiful experience.
+ 1
String quartets!
For me it is definitely the string quartets, which I have discovered only somewhat recently, and with which I have become almost obsessed. They combine a challenging modernism with a yearning melodicism in a way that I rarely hear elsewhere (including in the same composer's symphonies). The second quartet (and its haunting second movement) is a particular favorite. I am still trying to listen to the symphonies more closely, thinking that there must be more to them emotionally than initially meets the eye (or ear), given the inspired quality of the quartets, though I continue to find the "martial" blaring throughout most of them somewhat tedious. So far, the one section of the symphonies that feels as moving to me as any of the quartets is the very end of the Fourth Symphony, with its haunting/haunted outro. I assume he would have made more music like that in subsequent symphonies, but was too terrified to provoke the conservative censors.
The 9th symphony is not only my favorite Shostakovich symphony, but it is one of my favorite symphonies ever. I can't stand the 7th and I don't like the 5th much either. The 1st is okay -- impressive for a first, for sure .Oddly, I don't think that the 2nd and 3rd are as bad as people make them out to be. I can appreciate them more because they are truly products of their time.
Quote from: EigenUser on May 25, 2014, 05:23:15 PM
The 9th symphony is not only my favorite Shostakovich symphony, but it is one of my favorite symphonies ever. I can't stand the 7th and I don't like the 5th much either. The 1st is okay -- impressive for a first, for sure .Oddly, I don't think that the 2nd and 3rd are as bad as people make them out to be. I can appreciate them more because they are truly products of their time.
No mention of the 4th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th? ???
Quote from: North Star on May 25, 2014, 10:02:53 PM
No mention of the 4th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th? ???
Oh, I've heard the 13th and didn't like it. Not surprised, though, since I don't really care for choral symphonies.
never heard the others :blank:
Quote from: EigenUser on May 26, 2014, 01:39:08 PM
Oh, I've heard the 13th and didn't like it. Not surprised, though, since I don't really care for choral symphonies.
never heard the others :blank:
Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor. Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:
2,3,4,7,11,12,13
Would he be part of the repertoire? No. They are like Beethoven's First, they aren't programmed just on their own merits.
Of the rest, all of which are in varying degrees good and flawed, which are masterpieces? 14, probably 10.
I would count some of the late song cycles as masterpieces, but they aren't part of this poll. :)
So I vote quartets. But above those I voted the preludes and fugues and CC2.
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor. Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:
4,7,11,13
Hmm? These are all masterpieces.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 26, 2014, 02:06:36 PM
Hmm? These are all masterpieces.
No. 4,11,13 are all worth listening to, but they get programmed, and recorded, on the basis of the Shostakovich name. If Nonamesky wrote they'd be obscure. 7 was of course a phenomenon. It might earn its place in the repertoire as a show piece and for its history, but it's not remotely a masterpiece.
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 02:18:34 PM
No. 4,11,13 are all worth listening to, but they get programmed, and recorded, on the basis of the Shostakovich name. If Nonamesky wrote they'd be obscure. 7 was of course a phenomenon. It might earn its place in the repertoire as a show piece and for its history, but it's not remotely a masterpiece.
Ok then. :) Just my opinion. I think these are all masterpieces.
I respect your opinion and Nonamesky's.
The only one's I, personally, would not consider as masterpieces are 2, 3, 12....maybe 14 - Even though I enjoy these symphonies. Got to remember that Shostakovich shares top spot for me as a favourite composer. :D I'm biased. 8)
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor. Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:
2,3,4,7,11,12,13
Would he be part of the repertoire? No. They are like Beethoven's First, they aren't programmed just on their own merits.
Of the rest, all of which are in varying degrees good and flawed, which are masterpieces? 14, probably 10.
9? :( How can anyone not like 9? It's so happy!
Many people would consider 5 to be a masterpiece.
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor.
Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the
Leningrad seems to have more substance.
(weirdo alert: i like the 2nd, 3rd and 4th better than any of the other symphonies except the 14th)
additional note: Shostakovich himself thought the 4th was his finest achievement
Quote from: amw on May 26, 2014, 02:56:22 PM
Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the Leningrad seems to have more substance.
That is my favourite movement of all of Shostakovich's symphonies. :D :-[
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 26, 2014, 03:00:33 PM
That is my favourite movement of all of Shostakovich's symphonies. :D :-[
I fear you're a lost cause.
Quote from: amw on May 26, 2014, 02:56:22 PM
Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the Leningrad seems to have more substance.
Of late I've come to think of the Tenth in the context of Rachmaninov's Second (same key), as a sort of "grand finale" for the Russian nationalist symphony tradition. I know this is probably totally ahistorical and wrong and inappropriate, but I like thinking of the Tenth that way, as a final summation of all the conflicted and tumultuous tradition that came before it.
Quote from: EigenUser on May 26, 2014, 02:54:39 PM
9? :( How can anyone not like 9? It's so happy!
Many people would consider 5 to be a masterpiece.
The fits into my good and flawed category, better than those listed ...
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
The fits into my good and flawed category, better than those listed ...
No, 9 is flawless. It's short and sweet. For me, the most common flaw I find is over-longness.
Quote from: amw on May 26, 2014, 02:56:22 PM
additional note: Shostakovich himself thought the 4th was his finest achievement
He was right.
8 and 11 come close though.
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:
2,3,4,7,11,12,13
Would he be part of the repertoire?
Well, if the question is,
Is there music there worthy to stand as repertoire?, my answer is, in the case of the
Opp. 43, 60 & 113, yes.
The
Leningrad, ironically, has suffered from its historic significance, and (non-ironically) has been routinely abused in Academia (even in contexts where 20th-c. symphonies are accepted as valid artistic expression). I'm all for not forcing anyone who doesn't want, to listen to the piece; but it is great music. Even a self-appointed critic like
Lenny, who when he recorded the piece with the
NY Phil edited out a passage or two from the variations in the first movement, later saw light, and his recording with
Chicago, if perhaps a bit idiosyncratic, demonstrates the cumulative power of the work.
The
Thirteenth . . . well, I see that
Nate has trouble with choral symphonies, e.g. But I find that the piece works brilliantly, both as a symphonic collection of movements, and as quasi-operatic dramatic text depiction; I guess I had not made that "operatic" connection until this morning . . . but (not that this will make any difference to those who won't care for the piece) when
Ledi Makbet fell under the cloud,
Shostakovich (who had a marvelous gift for the stage) perforce turned his back on opera. Later on (and, I think, partly spurred by his painstaking revision in
Katerina Izmailova) his "opera itch" was re-awakened . . . and this impulse found IMO marvelous expression in the
Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Symphonies, the
Michelangelo Suite, and
The Execution of Stepan Razin.
The
Fourth is, simply, a marvelous symphony. Like the
Prokofiev Second, a piece magisterially perfect, but which resists easy admittance to the symphonic repertoire. There are reasons, but the reason is not that either piece is at all lacking.
Now, the
Second and
Third have the drawback of third-rate boilerplate Communist texts set as choral finales; so even at best, they are peripheral to Standard Repertory . . . but even as unexceptionable a piece as the
Mendelssohn Lobgesang is thus peripheral. Are they Great Symphonies (the
Shostakovich Second and
Third, I mean)? No; but music can be compellingly good, without rising to that exalted state.
Quote from: amw on May 26, 2014, 02:56:22 PM
Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements . . . .
Just a note that you seem to be mistaking your impression of a piece, with The Final Word. In my experience, the music of that opening movement has been entirely unforgettable — more than that, captivating.
Quote from: amw on May 26, 2014, 03:20:28 PM
I fear you're a lost cause.
Perhaps the cause is mistaken ;)
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 02:18:34 PM
No. 4,11,13 are all worth listening to, but they get programmed, and recorded, on the basis of the Shostakovich name. If Nonamesky wrote they'd be obscure.
If
Nonamesky had written the
Beethoven Eighth, it would be obscure; your argument is a fallacy. The literature, of necessity, expands. The
Thirteenth, with the timely
Yevtushenko texts, is impossible to "extricate" from its epoch; but then, the same is true of the
Beethoven Op.125 with the
Schiller text.
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 02:18:34 PM
7 was of course a phenomenon. It might earn its place in the repertoire as a show piece and for its history, but it's not remotely a masterpiece.
Well, that's an opinion. There are world-class artists with the opposite opinion. No, not
opposite; with a better, and broader-minded opinion. For your opinion here boils down to that petty matter,
I don't like to listen to it. Nothing
wrong with not liking to listen to any piece, even the
greatest of pieces. The need to takes one's dislikes and equate them to the touchstone for
what is a masterpiece is, frankly, tiresome, and unworthy of you.
From string quartets 4 and 12 are no doubt to me the most perfect and my personal favorites. They can change though some day, maybe after few relistenings. Out of the symphonies, it's much harder to pick one or two over others. I haven't even listened to all of them very often, at least compared to string quartets. Maybe I'll return to them later...
Quote from: karlhenning on May 27, 2014, 05:52:11 AM
Just a note that you seem to be mistaking your impression of a piece, with The Final Word. In my experience, the music of that opening movement has been entirely unforgettable — more than that, captivating.
+1
I also love the opening movement of
Symphony No. 6 for this very reason.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 27, 2014, 05:44:51 AM
The Fourth is, simply, a marvelous symphony. Like the Prokofiev Second, a piece magisterially perfect, but which resists easy admittance to the symphonic repertoire. There are reasons, but the reason is not that either piece is at all lacking.
Individual DSCH symphonies seem to rise and fall in popularity, and the 4th has definitely been rising for the past 20 years or so. It used to be a curiosity, now it's not quite standard rep. Its gigantism, in an age addicted to Mahler, is one of the factors that helps it.
Quote from: amw on May 26, 2014, 02:56:22 PM
Here's a stink bomb for youse guys—what is the big deal about the 10th? It's not tragic like the 8th, programmatic like the 11th or weird and insane like the 4th. It just seems to be extremely average and not really special in any way. Least memorable of Shostakovich's opening movements, pointlessly dragged out for 25 minutes... carousel music for the 3rd movement... endless introduction to the finale killing the slightest bit of energy the music might have accumulated. The scherzo is fun, but that's 4 minutes out of 60 total. Even the Leningrad seems to have more substance.
The 10th is nearly my least favorite of Shosty's symphonies (the bottom of the barrel belongs to the 7th) but I assume it's some strange quirk of taste that prevents me from appreciating it because it's damn near worshipped here. In the Symphony poll it placed first with 52 votes received from 67 voters (tied with the Fifth). Clearly there is something wrong with
us, amw ;D
My votes went to 4, 8, 9, 14 and 15. The poll:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,18962.msg538175.html#msg538175
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 27, 2014, 08:19:50 AM
The 10th is nearly my least favorite of Shosty's symphonies (the bottom of the barrel belongs to the 7th)
:D
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac87/white22mtn/bazooka_Gopher.jpg)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 27, 2014, 08:19:50 AM
The 10th is nearly my least favorite of Shosty's symphonies (the bottom of the barrel belongs to the 7th) but I assume it's some strange quirk of taste that prevents me from appreciating it because it's damn near worshipped here. In the Symphony poll it placed first with 52 votes received from 67 voters (tied with the Fifth). Clearly there is something wrong with us, amw ;D
My votes went to 4, 8, 9, 14 and 15.
Our votes align, apart from my swapping
7 &
10 for
9 &
14 (which I like mighty well, too) . . . .
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 27, 2014, 08:27:21 AM
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac87/white22mtn/bazooka_Gopher.jpg)
I deserve that :laugh:
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 27, 2014, 08:30:37 AM
I deserve that :laugh:
Sarge
;D Well, for now, I am just aiming. The rodent sniper hasn't fired yet, just waiting for my signal. :D ;)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 27, 2014, 08:19:50 AM
The 10th is nearly my least favorite of Shosty's symphonies (the bottom of the barrel belongs to the 7th) but I assume it's some strange quirk of taste that prevents me from appreciating it because it's damn near worshipped here.
I am not a fan of the 10th, nor 7 and 8 (among others). I grew up watching Soviet movies from the early days and these Shostakovich symphonies remind me so much of that familiar cliche-ish communist sound. It is unmistakable. I can't believe how well-eudcated westerners could fall in love with that sound. If we let you watch a hundred Soviet movies you'd get sick of that sound, I'd bet.
Quote from: springrite on May 27, 2014, 08:35:39 AM
I am not a fan of the 10th, nor 7 and 8 (among others).
OK, your turn, Paul. ;D I may just fire, because the 8th is my favourite. ;) 8)
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac87/white22mtn/bazooka_Gopher.jpg)
Quote from: springrite on May 27, 2014, 08:35:39 AM
I am not a fan of the 10th, nor 7 and 8 (among others). I grew up watching Soviet movies from the early days and these Shostakovich symphonies remind me so much of that familiar cliche-ish communist sound. It is unmistakable. I can't believe how well-eudcated westerners could fall in love with that sound. If we let you watch a hundred Soviet movies you'd get sick of that sound, I'd bet.
I'm grateful I can enjoy the (very great) Eighth without the political baggage.
Sarge
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 27, 2014, 08:33:05 AM
;D Well, for now, I am just aiming. The rodent sniper hasn't fired yet, just waiting for my signal. :D ;)
You do know I keep trying to like the 10th. One day it might just click...if I don't get blown up first!
Sarge
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 27, 2014, 08:37:22 AM
OK, your turn, Paul. ;D I may just fire, because the 8th is my favourite. ;) 8)
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac87/white22mtn/bazooka_Gopher.jpg)
Nothing like Gopher Pellets to scare me off!
Go KINGS Go!
Quote from: springrite on May 27, 2014, 08:39:49 AM
Go KINGS Go!
Indeed, Paul. I hope the Kings finish off Chicago. If the Kings play the Rangers in the final, I'm rooting for L.A. :)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 27, 2014, 08:39:18 AM
You do know I keep trying to like the 10th. One day it might just click...if I don't get blown up first!
Sarge
Absolutely! :)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 27, 2014, 08:38:08 AM
I'm grateful I can enjoy the (very great) Eighth without the political baggage.
Sarge
Agreed. Wish I could keep the political garbage off of my mind.
Quote from: springrite on May 27, 2014, 08:35:39 AM
I am not a fan of the 10th, nor 7 and 8 (among others). I grew up watching Soviet movies from the early days and these Shostakovich symphonies remind me so much of that familiar cliche-ish communist sound. It is unmistakable. I can't believe how well-eudcated westerners could fall in love with that sound. If we let you watch a hundred Soviet movies you'd get sick of that sound, I'd bet.
I understand, well, part of my brain does, anyway.
I hate when Other Stuff interferes with Art.
Quote from: springrite on May 27, 2014, 08:35:39 AM
I am not a fan of the 10th, nor 7 and 8 (among others). I grew up watching Soviet movies from the early days and these Shostakovich symphonies remind me so much of that familiar cliche-ish communist sound. It is unmistakable. I can't believe how well-eudcated westerners could fall in love with that sound. If we let you watch a hundred Soviet movies you'd get sick of that sound, I'd bet.
That's funny. My wife (who is Russian) reduces all of DSCH to "the Germans are coming."
Quote from: EigenUser on May 26, 2014, 01:39:08 PM
Oh, I've heard the 13th and didn't like it. Not surprised, though, since I don't really care for choral symphonies.
never heard the others :blank:
Well, hear the others - they're my favourites, and none of them is choral (although 14 does have two singers)
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
Well, since my role on GMG seems to be to throw the stink bombs, Shosty's symphonies are often pretty poor. Imagine this was his complete symphonic oeuvre:
2,3,4,7,11,12,13
Would he be part of the repertoire? No. They are like Beethoven's First, they aren't programmed just on their own merits.
Is any
Haydn symphony programmed just on its own merits? Does it mean that the music is any lesser?
QuoteOf the rest, all of which are in varying degrees good and flawed, which are masterpieces? 14, probably 10.
I would count some of the late song cycles as masterpieces, but they aren't part of this poll. :)
So I vote quartets. But above those I voted the preludes and fugues and CC2.
I agree, 14 & 10 are great, as are the song cycles (which I don't know as well as I should), CC2 and Op. 87.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 26, 2014, 02:26:27 PMThe only one's I, personally, would not consider as masterpieces are 2, 3, 12....maybe 14 - Even though I enjoy these symphonies. Got to remember that Shostakovich shares top spot for me as a favourite composer. :D I'm biased. 8)
We can still be friends. . . maybe. 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 27, 2014, 05:44:51 AM
The Leningrad, ironically, has suffered from its historic significance, and (non-ironically) has been routinely abused in Academia (even in contexts where 20th-c. symphonies are accepted as valid artistic expression). I'm all for not forcing anyone who doesn't want, to listen to the piece; but it is great music. Even a self-appointed critic like Lenny, who when he recorded the piece with the NY Phil edited out a passage or two from the variations in the first movement, later saw light, and his recording with Chicago, if perhaps a bit idiosyncratic, demonstrates the cumulative power of the work.
The Lennygrad? :)
I'm surprised that the 6th gets so little love. This is a harrowing work, especially that first movement. The second and third movements, which are fast, make for an unusually structured symphony. The last movement of the 6th I refer to as 'demonic circus polka.' :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on May 27, 2014, 05:22:19 PM
I'm surprised that the 6th gets so little love. This is a harrowing work, especially that first movement. The second and third movements, which are fast, make for an unusually structured symphony. The last movement of the 6th I refer to as 'demonic circus polka.' :)
It's a good one, indeed. Love that final movement! Good description, John. :)
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2014, 03:23:36 PM
Of late I've come to think of the Tenth in the context of Rachmaninov's Second (same key), as a sort of "grand finale" for the Russian nationalist symphony tradition. I know this is probably totally ahistorical and wrong and inappropriate, but I like thinking of the Tenth that way, as a final summation of all the conflicted and tumultuous tradition that came before it.
Interesting; if there's a Shostakovich symphony I'd think of in that light it would be the Fourth, which seems to be attempting to simultaneously encompass and draw a veil over the entire nationalist symphonic tradition, while 2, 3 and 5 proclaim the birth of the socialist realist symphonic tradition. (Of course there remained some overlap for a couple of decades, because Myaskovsky.) Perhaps it's the abstract, classical nature of the 10th that makes it seem more "Russian" and less "Soviet", I don't know.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 27, 2014, 08:19:50 AM
The 10th is nearly my least favorite of Shosty's symphonies (the bottom of the barrel belongs to the 7th) but I assume it's some strange quirk of taste that prevents me from appreciating it because it's damn near worshipped here. In the Symphony poll it placed first with 52 votes received from 67 voters (tied with the Fifth). Clearly there is something wrong with us, amw ;D
Indeed ;) People definitely like it for some reason, it's just evidently not one I'm in sympathy with; the same with the esteem for the Preludes and Fugues, most of which I can't even tell apart so formulaic is his invention, yet for others they're on par with Bach. It is a mystery.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 27, 2014, 05:27:11 PM
It's a good one, indeed. Love that final movement! Good description, John. :)
:D
The Sixth is marvelous, no question!
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2013, 04:23:00 AM
Well, as you probably infer from my recent post, I do consider it his weakest symphony, but at this point, that fact does not interfere with my enjoying it ;)
Being the "weakest" of such a wonderfully strong set does not make it weak! ;D
Indeed!