Shostakovich Symphonies, Cycles & Otherwise

[Karl Henning]

1973 Karl. For original LP release.

So possibly a little later, if his Shostakovich essay in The Symphony appeared as is on initial publication in 1967.

[Christo]

So possibly a little later, if his Shostakovich essay in The Symphony appeared as is on initial publication in 1967.

I completely missed the presumed negativity in the original essay; have to re-read it to see what you're all referring at; speaking for myself, it helped me 'discover' Shosty's symphonies. 

[Karl Henning]

I completely missed the presumed negativity in the original essay; have to re-read it to see what you're all referring at; speaking for myself, it helped me 'discover' Shosty's symphonies. 

Do!

An essay which pretty much opens with (I've left the book home, so I paraphrase) there can be no question that Shostakovich is as great a symphonist as Sibelius (the best that can be said of which is, that it is a snide assertion) does not much invite me to give the author any slack (and, of course, I am as keen an admirer of Sibelius as nearly anyone).  I very nearly quoted the paragraph about the Eighth, only I got tired of typing yesterday     . . . but the salient points are (1) Layton doesn't think it one of Shostakovich's best symphonies (or, he does, but he doesn't think much of it, anyway), and (2) how could it be, when it is not designed as a composition, but is just an anti-war poster.

This is why I quoted Keller's intelligently thorough dismantling of the "dismissal" of Tchaikovsky's Fourth, on the fallacy that the after-the-fact program which Mme. von Meck teased out of the composer was somehow a "blueprint."  Layton doesn't appreciate the musical fabric of the Shostakovich Eighth, but substitutes discussion of the character of the music as a response to the war, as if (a) that is enough, and (b) the way he perceives it all will serve as a referent.

[Heck148]

'Despite its tranquility,however, the overall impression left by the Eighth Symphony is one of profound pessimism shot through with an abundant compassion for the appalling suffering for war-torn humanity.'
(From the end of Robert Layton's booklet note for the Previn LSO recording of Shostakovich's Eighth Symphony).

Hmmm..I don't find much "tranquility" in Shostakovich Sym #8...it is dark, stormy, violent [esp inner mvts], brooding...this is not the glorious triumph of the 7th symphony...but rather the terrible destruction and chaos caused by total war...an entire nation bull-dozed and ravaged by violent war.

[Karl Henning]

In my own gradual evolution w/r/t the Shostakovich symphonies, the last two to which I was reconciled were the Eleventh and the Twelfth.  (Maybe it seems strange that I came to appreciate the Second and the Third before these.  But that was driven to a great extent by these scores dating from before l'affaire Pravda;  we have a finite number of pieces which the composer wrote when he was artistically and mentally free from considerations which after "Muddle Instead of Music" were absolutely unavoidable.  Part of the virtue of the Opp. 14 & 20, as I see it, is we have musical snapshots of the assured young composer, when he could still do as he pleased, and feel "to hell with any critic.")

Worth pointing out that, musically, I "grew up" in an environment where the general disdain for Shostakovich's music as a whole (perhaps marginally offset by grudging appreciation of this or that "exceptional" singleton work – the Piano Quintet, say, or the Fifth Symphony) as typified by Layton's essay in The Symphony was the institutional norm, but where this sleepy orthodoxy was resisted by a number of individuals, a resistance which had not yet coalesced into any musicological counter-insurgency.  Thus it was that (for instance) my conducting instructor at Wooster indirectly taught me to love the Thirteenth Symphony;  Simon Rattle led the Cleveland Orchestra in the Tenth, which was one of those life-changing musical experiences;  and I discovered the Fourteenth Symphony on my own initiative.

Still, at that comparatively early age, by perhaps a combination of the institutional prejudice having seeped in at partial unawares, and (what is the classic challenge in the case of Haydn, e.g.) the natural difficulty of coming to grips with a large and diverse œuvre, I was slow to listen to a number of the symphonies with an open mind.

So that at one point, even while I admired and enjoyed the variety over the course of the symphonies – the austere economies of the Fifth Symphony, the monumental somber tread of the Eighth, the mercurial gaiety of the Ninth, the wry song-cycle of the Fourteenth – I nevertheless "objected" to the Eleventh as something essentially unlike any of the other symphonies, for instance.  And I certainly took more or less as read that the Eleventh and Twelfth were inconsiderable "quasi-cinema" symphonies.  (I know some folks use "movie music" as praise, but half the time it strikes me as code for "there isn't enough musical logic in the piece itself.")

Thus, at the point where I very much liked 13 out of the 15 symphonies, anyway, the catalyst for changing my mind towards the Eleventh was, of course, the personal experience of a friend – and, a musical friend, one who has commissioned a few works from me – who had heard the San Diego Symphony play the piece live.  It was the point at which I understood that I was being musically lazy, that I was dismissing (failing to listen attentively, and in fairness, to) the Eleventh simply because that was the attitude towards the piece in four or eight written sources which were my first indirect "knowledge" of the piece.  (And I knew, for instance, that this was my exact and personal complaint with Harlow Robinson in the case of three or six Prokofiev scores:  a critic who simply failed to appreciate the merits of a score, routinely refreshing "the conventional wisdom" that the piece was inferior.)  Shostakovich handles the musical scale (I mean, scope, not do-re-mi) and process in a different way than his other symphonies, and in a way which feels entirely and strikingly new;  and I had been slow to credit that.

I won't go on to bore anyone here.  The reason I am posting is, that last night I listened again to the Twelfth, and my opinion about the piece has ratcheted up a few notches.  The superficial differences between the Eleventh and Twelfth have always been obvious, so that my reconcilement to the Op.103 did not necessarily transfer to the Op.112.  I suddenly realized last night as I was listening to the first movement, how much it felt like Shostakovich writing a symphony movement, as if it were the Festive Overture.  (And as a result, I began thoroughly to enjoy what he was doing with the material, with the form, with the scoring.)

[Madiel]

If there's one concern I have about the 8th right now (and by extension, much of the cycle), it's a concern about works traversing very similar emotional territory repeatedly.

The very start of the 8th is extremely reminiscent of the start of the 5th. Turns out the Petrenko cycle notes make the connection between the opening movements, which I hadn't re-read when listening to the 8th earlier today, so I'm not going out on a crazy limb here.

There are of course deviations between the two works, but there are also an uncomfortable number of similarities. And while I can't recall clearly all the other symphonies right now, not knowing them well enough, how many am I going to find with a big slowish bleakish 1st movement? The same kind of relentless or marching scherzo (heck, the 8th gives me two of those in a row!)? How many times before it comes a limiting trope?

I know, Haydn produced quite a similar kind of opening movement more times than Shostakovich wrote symphonies. But they're entertaining and less than half the length. Somehow it's more noticeable when you're being asked to endure 20 minutes of pain each time.

[Karl Henning]

If there's one concern I have about the 8th right now (and by extension, much of the cycle), it's a concern about works traversing very similar emotional territory repeatedly.

The very start of the 8th is extremely reminiscent of the start of the 5th.

That was the first thing which struck me, the first time I heard the Eighth, too.

Similarly, the first time I listened to the Fourth, at the end, I almost remembered nothing about the piece, except that the trio section of the middle-movement scherzo was obviously similar to a poignant tune in the Fifth (a piece with which, by then, I was very familiar, indeed).

The common thread?  Two hour-long-plus symphonies, rich in detail, and I found that my ear was "drinking from a firehose," and had naturally picked out what was already familiar.

Shostakovich wrote a great deal, and with fluent ease.  The Case Against says, he was able to write that much, because he simply repeated himself on several occasions.

My opinion is based on, to take one example, the tune which is shared by the Fourth and Fifth Symphonies, and furthermore with one of the Pushkin Romances, Op.46.  It is recognizably the same musical object. (And in fact, Shostakovich's friend Sollertinsky, indignant at the forced shelving of the magnificent Fourth, wrote bitterly of the Fifth being 'cobbled together from broken shards of the Fourth' ... I do not remember the quote properly.)  But where Shostakovich is artful, and self-aware, and making something of a private game with the sympathetic listener (as I see it) is, it is an object re-contextualized:  it sounds a bit different, means something a little different, at that formal point, in that particular piece.  Just the same notion, I think, as with his use of his musical monogram;  and as with the "percolating percussion" riff which is shared between the Fourth Symphony, the Fifteenth, and the (second? I should chide myself for not being certain) Cello Concerto.

Now, I could almost see someone mounting a reasonable counter-argument with the dotted string-choir figure which links the Fifth and Eighth Symphonies.  For me, though, once I knew the Eighth as a whole better, the distinctions meant more than the initial similarities.

But looking back on my own listening history, I sympathize completely with your questioning.

[Madiel]

There are two problems with focusing on the date of the symphony.

One is that it doesn't explain why other wartime symphonies don't sound quite the same.

The other more serious problem is that it doesn't explain why symphonies written at other times sound similar. Saying "it's 1943, what else could he write?" isn't a great answer to the concern that he is producing a repeat of 1937.

Anyway, I suspect it's simply that I don't find the 8th sufficiently engaging, perhaps in part due to the extra length. I'm listening to the 10th at the moment and while the stylistic similarities are again quite clear, in Petrenko's hands the 10th is gripping and I'm not feeling as if the 5th is being rerun again.

[Karl Henning]

The composer was a more private person than the Moscow publicists' use of his work would lead us to believe;  we have scarcely any genuinely reliable instances of the composer saying "this is what this piece means," but instead a very practical (usually tacet) 'acknowledgement' of what was put on his plate.  (Neither the "Soviet artist's reply to just criticism" subtitle for the Op.47 nor the Stalingrad schematic for the Op.65 originated from the composer.)   And his internal discipline worked at the music with a disregard for external calamities which those close to him found surprising.

He was working on the a minor violin concert at the time of the 1948 Congress.  That was the time of the Zhdanov Decree, one of the signal humiliations of his life (and one big reason why he did not elect to write another symphony until Stalin was dead).

In 1948, when the 'historical' Zhdanov Decree was published, he was working on his Violin Concerto.  When the Concerto was finished he played it on the piano for me and for some other composers.  I asked him, 'At which point were you exactly in the score when the Decree was published?'  He showed me the exact spot.  The violin played semiquavers before and after it.  There was no change evident in the music. [Shostakovich: A Life Remembered, p.220]

[jlaurson]

The composer was a more private person than the Moscow publicists' use of his work would lead us to believe;  we have scarcely any genuinely reliable instances of the composer saying "this is what this piece means," but instead a very practical (usually tacet) 'acknowledgement' of what was put on his plate.  (Neither the "Soviet artist's reply to just criticism" subtitle for the Op.47 nor the Stalingrad schematic for the Op.65 originated from the composer.)   And his internal discipline worked at the music with a disregard for external calamities which those close to him found surprising.

He was working on the a minor violin concert at the time of the 1948 Congress.  That was the time of the Zhdanov Decree, one of the signal humiliations of his life (and one big reason why he did not elect to write another symphony until Stalin was dead).

Funny enough, I just read (wrote) about that VC, recently... but only very cursory since it's really about DSCH-VC-2:

...But Shostakovich wrote his Violin Concerto No.1 for the drawer in 1947. After the first denunciation in 1936 (the Lady Macbeth affair, "Muddle instead of Music"), the climate was tense for Shostakovich and he wisely shelved his grandly vicious Fourth Symphony. In 1948 the second round of attacks on composers was launched by Stalin, and Shostakovich held back not only with the Fourth Symphony (finally premiered in 1961) but also the First Violin Concerto (which his friend and chamber music buddy David Oistrakh premiered in 1955), the Fourth String Quartet, the song cycle From Jewish Folk Poetry, and other works that might have signaled trouble. When he turned to the concerto form for the last time, in 1967, it was again David Oistrakh for whom he wrote.

[Karl Henning]

Synchronicity! 

[Mirror Image]

I'd argue that, so far, Rozhdestvensky's USSR Ministry of Culture Symphony cycle on Melodiya is shaping up to be my go-to Shostakovich for these works. Of course, I haven't heard everything from his set as I just acquired it a few days ago, but so far I've heard his 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th, and 11th. Extremely compelling performances that seem to be able to probe not only the emotional depths of these works, but also maintain an uncanny sense of architecture, but also the lyrical aspects that each of these symphonies contain. His approach is in direct contrast with the Petrenko set that I've been also listening to, but I believe I understand where Wanderer is coming from in his comments about Petrenko, but this doesn't necessarily diminish my overall impressions that I believe Petrenko is a good conductor, I just think he is a bit 'too smooth' and could stand with a bit more bite, especially when talking about those more violent moments like in the second movement, The Ninth of January, in the 11th. Anyway, just a few thoughts I thought I'd share with everyone who is currently looking, and deciding, on a Shostakovich set to acquire. The unfortunate part of my strong recommendation for Rozhdestvensky is the fact that his set is incredibly rare and hard-to-find. I do hope the heads at Melodiya wise up and reissue this set as it's in dire need of it.

[aukhawk]

I remember I saw Rozhdestvensky with the Leningrad PO in London back in the '70s.  The orchestra were drilled to within an inch of their lives (the violin section completely as one, like clones, and even when laying out for a long period, sitting at alerto with the bows hovering ready over their strings) - very Soviet-like - but the conductor by contrast was a real flamboyant showman - most un-Soviet-like - and really milked the applause at the end by leaping up onto the podium with his arms thrown wide!

[Mirror Image]

I remember I saw Rozhdestvensky with the Leningrad PO in London back in the '70s.  The orchestra were drilled to within an inch of their lives (the violin section completely as one, like clones, and even when laying out for a long period, sitting at alerto with the bows hovering ready over their strings) - very Soviet-like - but the conductor by contrast was a real flamboyant showman - most un-Soviet-like - and really miked the applause at the end by leaping up onto the podium with his arms thrown wide!

Very nice story. I'd love to have seen that concert. But the questions I have is did you enjoy the performance? Do you remember what the program was?

[aukhawk]

Oh yes it was a real thrill to see and hear the Leningrad PO in action, they were a top band at that time.  Rozhdestvensky himself was an impish little man with a frantic arm-waving style.  I can't be sure but I think it must have been Tchaikovsky, the 4th Symphony - is that  the one where the strings don't have much to do for a whole movement?  I have this memory of them all sitting there at the ready, bows set, for several minutes on end - quite remarkable.  The orchestral equivalent of soldiers being made to march the goose step.

I've probably only attended about 6 orchestral concerts in all my long life, so each one is memorable.  (I prefer listening to recordings.)  Probably the best of all was Kurt Sanderling conducting my local band, the BBC Phil - Shostakovich Symphony 15 - spellbinding last movement, audience holding their breath.  It was Sanderling, I think, who really brought the BBC's 'second' orchestra, the Philharmonic, up to a new high standard.

[Jo498]

If one does not insist on completeness, I think some of the Rozhdestvensky is easier to find as BMG/Melodiya twofers and singles. I have 1, 4-9,11 and 13 from that set without really systematically searching for them, just occasions on ebay and elsewhere.

[Mirror Image]

Oh yes it was a real thrill to see and hear the Leningrad PO in action, they were a top band at that time.  Rozhdestvensky himself was an impish little man with a frantic arm-waving style.  I can't be sure but I think it must have been Tchaikovsky, the 4th Symphony - is that  the one where the strings don't have much to do for a whole movement?  I have this memory of them all sitting there at the ready, bows set, for several minutes on end - quite remarkable.  The orchestral equivalent of soldiers being made to march the goose step.

I've probably only attended about 6 orchestral concerts in all my long life, so each one is memorable.  (I prefer listening to recordings.)  Probably the best of all was Kurt Sanderling conducting my local band, the BBC Phil - Shostakovich Symphony 15 - spellbinding last movement, audience holding their breath.  It was Sanderling, I think, who really brought the BBC's 'second' orchestra, the Philharmonic, up to a new high standard.

Excellent. I'm jealous, especially of that Kurt Sanderling performance!

[Mirror Image]

If one does not insist on completeness, I think some of the Rozhdestvensky is easier to find as BMG/Melodiya twofers and singles. I have 1, 4-9,11 and 13 from that set without really systematically searching for them, just occasions on ebay and elsewhere.

You could probably find them all if you really searched for them, but given their rarity, it would be a costly affair. I paid an arm and a leg for the complete set trust me, but I figured that by the time I bought them all individually, I didn't come out that badly in the end.

[Sergeant Rock]

You could probably find them all if you really searched for them, but given their rarity, it would be a costly affair. I paid an arm and a leg for the complete set trust me, but I figured that by the time I bought them all individually, I didn't come out that badly in the end.

Roz's is one of my favorite cycles too although I haven't completed it yet. I've been collecting the individual CDs since the 90s. Have 4-10, 12, 14 and 15. Especially love his 4 and 15.

Sarge

[Jo498]

But the complete set seems even rarer!
Some of the singles are quite expensive, but others are not browsing amazon.de I think one could cobble together the set with the twofers and some singles for around 100-120 Euros. Maybe I should sell some of mine if the price is right... (I have twofers with 1,5,6,9 and 7+8 and singles of 4,11,13)