Curious Dislikes
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:52PM
#2
RE: Curious Dislikes
There is no doubt that DSCH's symphonies are uneven, ranging from pure propaganda, weak stuff to sublime masterworks and yes historicism can explain this partially. And this does not affect our admiration for the composer at all.
I concur with SKant and would add: it goes without saying that DSCH, LvB, Mozart, Schubert, Handel, Bach.....are great composers and that we admire them and appreciate many of his works. There is no sense in being here just to praise everything they wrote. We are not spokesmen of the Establishment, are we? Even if some of us feel committed, do the composers need this hollow worship?
Come on, the 2nd, 3rd and 12th can bore even a tovarisch past half a bottle of vodka. 7th and 11th have interesting passages revealing the talent of the composer but as a whole they are tiresome (6th and 9th are much more interesting). They're far from the best that are IMO the 4th, 5th, 8th (one of the composer's favourites), 10th, perhaps 14th and 15th.
Re 14th I said perhaps because I am still exploring this work dedicated to Britten who btw made a good recording of the work in 1970 conducting ECO (on BBC?).
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 5:45PM
#3
RE: Curious Dislikes
Again, we're gaining nothing with these kind of discussions, since they're colored by our personal preferences. You like the 7th and 11th, I don't. You dislike the 4th, I love it.
As for the 5th, I abhor most compositions that are showcases of the romantic "per ardua ad astra" cliché. Beethoven's 5th is my least favorite of his symphonies, but at least in 1805 the idea was still fresh. I love all Brahms' symphonies except the first. Tchaikowski's 4th and 5th are pieces I never want to hear again, as long as I live. Mahler's 7th is often called his weakest symphony, and I kinda agree. These pieces are just way too much IN YOUR FACE with their message of victory through hardships. Maybe it's my slight cynical nature, but I've grown weary of pieces that pretend to present a stylized instant-solution for all world problems in under 40 minutes.
To me, Shostakovich's 5th is a particular obnoxious representant of this genre. The 8th and 10th are suspicious as well, but at least their musical value is much higher, and there's some tongue-in-cheek ambiguity in their jolly finales that's absent in the 5th's last movement - where I can only hear the triumph of a repressive regime over a tortured individual.
I find it hard to understand why someone would prefer the ugly Soviet pomp-and-circumstance coda of the 5th over the sublime quiet ending of the 4th, with its fragile chords and the repeated motive in the celesta, in the eeriest C-major ever. Because the 5th has a more classical form? So what?
Finally, for the String Quartets, yes, he excelled, but as some Chamber musicians/friends noticed, he could have written maybe only three or four of them and it would have offered what he wanted to say. Musically, they seem as repetition of the same stuff, of course, in various brilliant ways. However, they do not represent the course of development of Beethoven's String Quartets. Not even Bartok's. He was wiser with the Piano Quintet (only one) and the Piano Trios (only two), the Violin and Viola Sonatas. All one of a kind.
This I fail to understand completely. I used to "marathon" my cd-box of the complete String Quartets frequently, either at home or on the car audio - and the thought that S. repeated himself in these works never occurred to me. In fact, there's such a huge variation in textures and styles that all 15 works stand out as individual masterpieces. Who would ever have thought that S. would ever use dodecaphony (in his 12th quartet)?
There's a site, completely devoted to these works: http://www.quartets.de/
Reading these very interesting articles make me realize the uniqueness and individuality of these 15 quartets even more. Fascinating to read about the internal organisation of this cycle too, the number symbolism S. was so keen of, and the range of keys used.
I really don't think all the richness of invention and inspiration found in these 15 masterpieces could be condensed in just 4, like you suggested, parla :)
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 5:48PM
#4
RE: Curious Dislikes
Just goes to show.Shostakovich's 5th is without doubt a masterpiece, that aside, the only other of his symphonies that does not,for me,go on a bit,is the glorious 11th.After reading the comments here it must be my "Curious like".
The way Shostakovich slowly builds the tension,and then shockingly springs the trap, depicting an event that was to lead to changing the world for a hundred years is very moving.I have visited the Palace Square, St Petersburg and felt,thanks to Shostakovich, have more understanding what happened on that fateful day in 1905 then any history book could possibly inform,
Programme music is a dirty word these days.With the 11th the "programme"adds not subtracts from the music.
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 6:26PM
#5
RE: Curious Dislikes
With the 11th the "programme" adds not subtracts from the music.
As it should do. Alas, in common with the worst music of this kind, take away the programme and there isn't much left.
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 6:28PM
#6
RE: Curious Dislikes
...the richness of invention and inspiration found in these 15 masterpieces could be condensed in just 4...
Plain hilarious. Good to see someone has a sense of humour.
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 6:50PM
#7
RE: Curious Dislikes
Programme music is a dirty word these days.With the 11th.
Yes, we tend to favour the term 'film music' these days
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 6:58PM
#8
RE: Curious Dislikes RE: Curious Dislikes
If the answer is "yes, he wrote bad music because of external factors", then, we admit that the man was a weak and coward person, which can hardly fit the features of a great composer.
Jesus, Dad. You're really embarrassing me. Don't you know, like, how idiotic this is? You're saying that a man threatened with torture, hard labour in a camp and execution is a coward for occasionally writing weaker compositions?
If you want to know why Mom won't speak to you, look no further, Dude.
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 8:16PM
#9
RE: Curious Dislikes RE: Curious Dislikes
[quote=Son of Parla]
[quote=My Dad]
No I don't believe this for a second, he spends all day on this site, how would he find the time to breed.
Tue, Jan 15 2013, 9:33PM
#10
RE: Curious Dislikes
....but that 5th's coda must be put into the right context. That ridiculous percussion declaring a triumph banal and as fake as it can get can only be seen with a mix of irony and sarcasm. This is not imo the victory of the regime over the individual, 50M: perhaps more of a dissimulated protest. If you take this route, it will only enhance your appreciation of the work supposed to be the composer's answer to "deserved critiques".
...no way Shostakovich's string quartets can condensed into only four!
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 12:55AM
#11
RE: Curious Dislikes
So, the thread turned to be a Shostakovich one and it is on fire. Fair enough, even if it is not reasonable or necessary. So, let's see what we have:
- 78RPM: I just not "praise everything they (the established great composers) wrote". I just defend their opus as a whole, where we have to identify the reason d'etre of each published work of the composer. As an individual piece, a Beethoven's bagatelle might be nothing to talk about; as a part of a cycle, it is a different thing and as a part of his piano music has an even more relative value. The same thing with an individual movement of a Symphony or String Quartet; it has a different value and significance on its own and a whole different one within the whole Symphony or String Quartet. So, there is not any "hollow worship", but mere appreciation of the comprehensive opus of the composer where each and every work has each place and role to play.
I can assure you those who play (repeatedly) the 2nd, 3rd and 12th (7th etc) do not share your feelings and, much more, your views, 78RPM. However, if you mean simply you don't like them, no problem. If, however, you mean they are "unworthy" works of Dmitri, you are wrong.
- 50m: I don't "paint" my personal preferences here, since I appreciate, for different reasons, all of Shostakovich's Symphonies. Of course, I don't mean they are all of the same value, but I advocate they belong to a cycle that the composer created and we have to comprehend the role and significance of each one of them. (Beethoven's 4th looks as a weak relative compare to what has preceded or the 8th followed after a monumental 5th, an extraordinary Sixth and a superb 7th. However, the composer wanted it that way and that's the way it is).
If I understand well, 50m, the fault with some Symphonies lies with you. In that case, I am 100% with you. If, however, you pronounce that some of the Symphonies are useless or low or disgraceful works of no or lesser use and value, then, I will insist, you have to face the composer's wish for his cycle of his comprehensive opus.
As for the String Quartets, if you read my post again, I mentioned that this is the feeling of the players themselves who expressed this view. Their argument lies on the fact that, despite the "huge variation in textures and styles" and without denying the "individual" value of each one of them, the composer does not really develop further his language, form and significance of them, in the way that Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak or Bartok achieved. As they explained to me, for a Chamber Music violinist to play Beethoven's op.132 is a dream and an achievement of a lifetime vis a vis to perform op.18, no.3. In Shostakovich, whether they play the 14th or the 9th, it does not make a substantive difference. As you claimed, the variation of textures, the various styles, the narrative changes, but is the 14th or the 15th the culminating point of a developing cycle (In the 2nd, he had already said almost everything!). Personally, I fully enjoy to listen the same stuff in 15 different, brilliant ways. Some musicians might not find that creative or fun.
Finally, "Son", I cannot recognise you (neither your "Mom"). However, we welcome you. We trace some of the "usual suspects", but with such lack of taste, creativity and subtlety (I hope we don't find out you may be some...Jane...).
As for the whatever substance of your comment, do you have any strong evidence that any of the "weaker" compositions of Shostakovich were written at "gun point". I (and Mom) have a bit different information about the actual motivation of tovaritsch Dmitri. A tip: Think about the First and Fourth Symphonies. They were written at times where the "threat" was more than obvious. Be good, Dear yoU, Dear alter Ego.
Parla
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 10:40AM
#12
RE: Curious Dislikes
Shostakovich had 'duties' to perform, that was made clear to him. When it comes to bullies they don't come much bigger than comrade Stalin. But Shostakovich was a sensitive artist, he would have worried more than most about what was in the shadows. We live in different times and different countries and speculation about the actual nature of any danger to Shostakovich will be nothing more than gossip and guesswork and will do any of us lesser mortals no favours.
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 11:30AM
#13
RE: Curious Dislikes
Well, we don't have to speculate all that much. We do know that somewhere between 10 - 30 million people were murdered and/or sent to camps where the death rate was something like 90%. We do know that artists of all kinds were regularly torturned and murdered - regardless of their repute and international standing (Mandelstam, Isaac Babel....) Shostakovich didn't have to worry about what was "in the shadows" because he would have seen what was happening in broad daylight: friends and acquintances disappearing, relatives returning from interrogation...........You can't make this many people disappear in secret. All we can say is that it would have taken superhuman courage - or maybe a kind of madness - to act is if this wasn't happening.
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 12:01PM
#14
RE: Curious Dislikes
There is a misconception in the West that Shostakovich was a quivering wreck due to the evils of Communism and Stalin. Unlike others,for example Rostropovich,Shostakovich embraced Communism and what it stood for. He visited the West and hated every moment of the time he spent there,and could not wait to get home.
Art was important to the Soviets.Shostokovich was important to them for propaganda purposes due to his worldwide recognition.They pulled his strings,and made sure in no uncertain terms that he followed the party line.Life was made difficult for Shostakovich if he strayed from the Party dictate,but he was no martyr.
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 4:26PM
#15
RE: Curious Dislikes
Eliza
I have a REAL problem with the Italian symphony of Mendelssohn - whether it's from my experiences playing it many times, or from having listened to performances from quite early in my life, I cannot say. I really loathe the slow movement, it does nothing for me and certainly conjures up visions, not so much of a 'Pilgrims' March, than a prisoners of war march.
On the other hand I love the String Octet, his violin concerto in E minor, and Elijah I think is one of the 'great' choral masterpieces.
The Scottish symphony and the Reformation symphony I used to love playing, and still enjoy hearing them performed (well).
Ho hum!
50m, it is not only about semantics. I'm really worried that from whatever means "curious dislikes", where, at least it has been accepted that the "fault lies with the listener", now we move again to the "wrongdoings" of (otherwise) great composers, which means now that what we don't like is "bad" music.
Answering some of your points:
- The 11th was a revelation in the live performance with the late Kreizberg. There is also a "live" recording, I believe, but it is not the one that counts. One thing I learned from my professors and some of the senior musicians/friends is not to consider a work of a composer in relation with the sequence of writing, but as an independent one, trying to figure out why the composer wanted it that way, at the particular time of its official edition. So, the 11th and 12th are not supposed to be the "culminating points" of the 10th, but something else that the composer wanted to do. We see that all the time: the 13th is an unexpected work, the 14th a cultural revelation and the 15th a riddle. However, musically, they are all pure Shostakovich and that counts. So what we have to do, as all the true Shostakovich conductors did and do, is to indulge in these works as much as we can to trace the (not otherwise but simply) great composer.
- The 7th is not only "its main theme", which is vulgar as many aspects of Shostakovich's music. It serves a purpose, where "elegance and refinement" have no space and role to play. The Symphony is a towering musical statement for the "horrors of war" and, for all those who have the slightest picture of even a regional conflict", the work is one of a kind.
- If the answer is "yes, he wrote bad music because of external factors", then, we admit that the man was a weak and coward person, which can hardly fit the features of a great composer. By the way, his 5th is his masterpiece, perfectly written, where even the Finale serves the work's narrative. In live performances I have attended, the audiences get crazy from excitement and fulfillment. The work is a "reply" and not an "apology", while his 4th is a work with a sort of dubious direction and resolution. In a live performance with Gergiev, in Berlin, the audience was so perplexed that they barely clap!..As to what they represent or symbolise, you may agree it is a personal perception. For me, the 4th is wondering wherever I feel I can go or carried away, while the 5th is a strict return to formal and classical writing (none from those I know or from what I have read mentioned that when they listen to the 5th, they feel any sort of "repression").
Finally, for the String Quartets, yes, he excelled, but as some Chamber musicians/friends noticed, he could have written maybe only three or four of them and it would have offered what he wanted to say. Musically, they seem as repetition of the same stuff, of course, in various brilliant ways. However, they do not represent the course of development of Beethoven's String Quartets. Not even Bartok's. He was wiser with the Piano Quintet (only one) and the Piano Trios (only two), the Violin and Viola Sonatas. All one of a kind.
Parla