Curious Dislikes
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 6:03PM
#2
RE: Curious Dislikes
50milliarden You say ".......I can imagine playing the viola in a Haydn symphony is less exciting or even "creative" than playing a solo concerto." That suggests to me that you've never played them!As Porgy and Bess said 'It ain't necessarily so"!! Some of the inner parts of Mozart and Haydn works are not merely exciting, but also technically as demanding if not more so than many solo pieces, and certainly more so than just playing melodies.
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 6:45PM
#3
RE: Curious Dislikes
50milliarden You say ".......I can imagine playing the viola in a Haydn symphony is less exciting or even "creative" than playing a solo concerto." That suggests to me that you've never played them!As Porgy and Bess said 'It ain't necessarily so"!! Some of the inner parts of Mozart and Haydn works are not merely exciting, but also technically as demanding if not more so than many solo pieces, and certainly more so than just playing melodies.
You're right in assuming I never played them. But during the last couple of times I payed my local symphony orchestra a visit (before I abandoned live concerts alltogether) I noticed the long faces of the 2nd violinists and violists and thought "gosh... no wonder these people are payed so well, it must be horrible work they're being forced to do."
Wed, Jan 16 2013, 8:23PM
#4
RE: Curious Dislikes
Although Shostakovich joined the communist party it would be wrong to label him as a willing and active political party member. As it is wrong to see Strauss as a nazi. Both were artists and as usual politically naive. Both were used by the system. Both probably at times used the system.
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 12:40AM
#5
RE: Curious Dislikes
50m, I guess you are the one who might be difficult to please, to use your expression.
What I tried to say about examining the work as a whole is not an obligation, but a way to comprehend why a composer of the stature of Bach wrote a tiny easy come easy go Prelude along with the huge magnificent Fugues, Toccatas etc. instead of simply dismissing the "poor" Prelude as a "poor thing". It has nothing to do with the completist obsession. I feel a much more substantive appreciation and comprehension of Beethoven's Sonatas by listening one by one and as a part of the Piano work of the composer.
As for the Bach's example, I don't advocate to listen to every single published and unpublished work, but, simply to the works related to each genre. Individual Cantatas never ring a bell to me, but as a part of the Bach's output make much sense.
I didn't claim Dmitri necessarily wrote all the Symphonies as a cycle. At least, probably not from the very First, but what I'm saying is that the composer who wrote the masterful 10th (one that we may all agree), he put his signature on the 2nd, 3rd etc. So, instead of dismissing them as works of bad circumstances and unworthy of the composer, we should try to find out why he wrote them musically first. If he was satisfied of the musical oeuvre first, the "gun point" situation and the external forces do not count almost at all. The issue is if he ever regretted he had to compose these works, but, then, he would simply had to denounce them, maybe at the end of his life.
As for the Quartets, I don't complain about anything. Those who see maybe more, as players, notice that they cannot find anything substantially new in each Quartet as a for of development of the language, form and so on. Whether they play the 2nd (a long one with almost anything we are going to encounter in almost any other Quartet) or the 13th, they don't notice any particular difference except for the "variation" of say the same thing in another wonderful, brilliant way. Go back to Beethoven: play op.18, no.2, then op. 95 and, finally, op.131. The differences among them in the development of the language, form, structure, harmony is immense.
As for the individual players in a Haydn Symphony, I can assure you they enjoy it thoroughly even if their part is not that challenging. The whole experience is a joy throughout and they are happy to be a part of it. In the String Quartet, however, the four individuals are four soloists contributing almost equally to the music-making. So, their view counts...in one or the other way.
Finally, Shostakovich has never been at a "gun point" situation. He had at least a minimal "space and room" to compose his music and he was a patriot, never a bland Soviet though.
Parla
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 2:53AM
#6
RE: Curious Dislikes
Back to the 5th's coda: I think it is a bit more than fairy tale the interpretation I mentioned erlier, 50M. See, even though we know that the famous Testimony has credibility issues, the words atributted to the composer make some sense:
"I think that it is clear to everyone what happens in the fifth. The rejoicing is forced, created under threat, as in Boris Godunov. It's as if someone were beating you w/ a stick and saying: 'Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing', and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, 'Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing' What kind of apotheosis is that? You have to be a complete oaf not to hear that".
Besides it seems there are two ways of playing that peroration and one of them would emphasize the banality of that triumph, supposedly the one intended by the composer. The way the conductor reads such a passage seems to make a difference too. There are more evidences that the 5th is not a work to celebrate such a triumph though this has been a disputable matter and, it seems, it will be for a long time
Anyway, if we only focus on the work itself, it's very hard to believe the other way: the symphony is filled w/ haunting passages, w/ fear, doubts, uncertainties....where such a finale could come from? If DSCH wanted to lead that mouvement to a true apotheosis, we know very well that he could have done this in a very convincing way, far from any doubts about his real intentions.
That's the way I've been listening to the 5th, the other way, I must admit, would spoil it terribly.
One more thing: I second HistoryMan's comments about the imbroglio involving DSCH, soviet regime, West.....but this topic deserves a new thread.
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 10:36AM
#7
RE: Curious Dislikes
Although I'm not very keen on his 13th and 14th song cycles, or his 3rd, 7th, 11th and 12th propaganda posters. I do feel that the 2nd symphony, although not a great work, is an interesting work, before the choral finale (but even Beethoven made a mess of his). I think if we take the 3rd out of the equation and knock the comrades singing off the end of the 2nd then the first 3 efforts show a young composer trying new things and developing his own boundaries. OK, he had them thrust on him for the 5th, but the 1st, 2nd and 4th are, if taken as a group apart from the rest, are unique and individual works.
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 11:30AM
#8
RE: Curious Dislikes RE: Curious Dislikes
Besides it seems there are two ways of playing that peroration and one of them would emphasize the banality of that triumph, supposedly the one intended by the composer. The way the conductor reads such a passage seems to make a difference too. There are more evidences that the 5th is not a work to celebrate such a triumph though this has been a disputable matter and, it seems, it will be for a long time
Anyway, if we only focus on the work itself, it's very hard to believe the other way: the symphony is filled w/ haunting passages, w/ fear, doubts, uncertainty
We would all appreciate the art of Shostakovich so much more if only politics could be kicked in the long grass.Mahler writes a banal passage,and he wrote a few!,we accept it as part of the score.With Shostakovich,for us in the West,it's always politics.Maybe just for once he has something else on his mind.
Hearing Svetlanov's,a Soviet through and through,interpretation of the final of the 5th is a shock.Completely different then,say Ormandy or Previn. I am not saying Svetlanov's version is correct,but there and again I am used to hearing that final "our" way.I have not heard the composer's son Maxim's version for ages,must give it a listen,but it is quite possible that his interpretation is also tainted by politics.
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 12:18PM
#9
RE: Curious Dislikes
Is anyone forced to play music in an orchestra? Why did they go through their early training, then college or university (in some exceptional cases) only to enter a profession where they are forced to play?
And without knowing where your local symphony orchestra is, I would doubt they are that well paid. Could it be that their 'long faces' werre largely because they were concentrating hard on technically demanding passage work?
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 2:26PM
#10
RE: Curious Dislikes RE: Curious Dislikes
We would all appreciate the art of Shostakovich so much more if only politics could be kicked in the long grass.Mahler writes a banal passage,and he wrote a few!,we accept it as part of the score.With Shostakovich,for us in the West,it's always politics.Maybe just for once he has something else on his mind.
Hearing Svetlanov's,a Soviet through and through,interpretation of the final of the 5th is a shock.Completely different then,say Ormandy or Previn. I am not saying Svetlanov's version is correct,but there and again I am used to hearing that final "our" way.I have not heard the composer's son Maxim's version for ages,must give it a listen,but it is quite possible that his interpretation is also tainted by politics.[/quote]
Certainly, however as far as Mahler is concerned read the notes written by Leonard Bernstein to accompany his CBS Mahler recordings, he sees politics everywhere. In Shostakovich you can't go far wrong with Mravinsky 5 and 8, Rozdestvensky 1, 2 and 4 (Russian disc), Sanderling 10 and 15 and Jansons 6 and 9. Haitink is a conductor I admire but his 5th (amongst others) is maybe a little too influenced by Volkov's Testimony. Still the Gramophone and Radio 3 rated it very highly, so what do I know!
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 1:43PM
#11
RE: Curious Dislikes
Sibelius.
I love his symphonies 1,3,4, 6,and 7. I detest the 2nd and 5th! Why! All that triumphalism, I think, repels me. And those staggering giant chords at the end of the 5th are awful, to my ears!
I also loathe the violin concerto - something false about it that I find hard to verbalize.
Dvorak
The New World symphony is a really poor show. Just a pot-boiler with good melodies. But I love the 6th and some of his chamber music, especially the piano quintet
Brahms
A favourite of mine, but the piano quartets strike me as plain dull. Whereas the piano trios are glorious
Beethoven
Oh, I have never taken to the Violin Concerto. Just sub-par for me, almost uninteresting, no drama. Still, RVW felt the same! The Brahms Violin Concerto is heaven!
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 2:07PM
#12
RE: Curious Dislikes
Is anyone forced to play music in an orchestra? Why did they go through their early training, then college or university (in some exceptional cases) only to enter a profession where they are forced to play?
And without knowing where your local symphony orchestra is, I would doubt they are that well paid. Could it be that their 'long faces' werre largely because they were concentrating hard on technically demanding passage work?
I was being sarcastic of course. It's entirely possible that it wasn't the music but the fatness of their paychecks (or the lack thereof) that made them zone out with a visible "wish I weren't here" expression on their faces.
Which would be a mere public relations problem if the performance wasn't so dreadful in other fields too.
As for DSCH, I agree with 78rpm that the discussion needs a separate topic. And if a discussion reaches the point of parla openinging his familiar box of tricks and starts twisting and amending his original statements in order not to be forced to agree with anything anyone else says, it's time to abandon ship alltogether, I guess.
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 3:13PM
#13
RE: Curious Dislikes RE: Curious Dislikes
And if a discussion reaches the point of parla openinging his familiar box of tricks and starts twisting and amending his original statements in order not to be forced to agree with anything anyone else says, it's time to abandon ship alltogether, I guess.
That's Dad, alright.
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:27PM
#14
RE: Curious Dislikes
Still, RVW felt the same!
Did he? What did he say then?
Thu, Jan 17 2013, 5:48PM
#15
RE: Curious Dislikes RE: Curious Dislikes
Beethoven
Oh, I have never taken to the Violin Concerto. Just sub-par for me, almost uninteresting, no drama. Still, RVW felt the same! The Brahms Violin Concerto is heaven!
Sub-par! No way.The greatest violin concerto in my view.I am not overkeen on the Brahms concerto,but would never describe it as sub-par.
I wonder why we should be obliged to do that. Each composer has both a set of important key works and a lot of insignificant fluff in his catalogue. Cut out the fluff and our appreciation of that particular composer won't change. Speaking from my own experience: I wrote a LOT of small-scale works, mostly for practical choir and church use, which don't reflect my style, and which aren't important in connection to the key works in my oeuvre. I just include them in my collection because I'm a completeness freak.
I think it's a rather recent thing: our obsession with complete oeuvres, complete cycles and complete performances. While in earlier times, a conductor took some key works from a composer's worklist and concentrated on those, knowing those to bring out the best in him and he being able to bring out the best in them. See the big Mahler conductors from the 50's and 60's, who often completely ignores certain symphonies (Klemperer, Walter). Nowadays every conductor feels obliged to do his own complete Beethoven, Bruckner and Mahler cycles, just because the public seems to demand it. In some cases it works, in most cases it doesn't.
Another example: We know that at least a third of Bach's works are lost, inclusing more than 100 cantatas, 2 or 3 passions and a lot of chamber music. Does that mean our view of Bach would change if we got the change to know and perform those lost works? Sure. But does the knowledge that we only know 2/3's of his complete oeuvre affect our view of him as one of the greatest composers ever? Hardly.
If you can give me some evidence that S. planned his cycle of symphonies as an indivisible whole - as one work with 15 movements, so to speak - I'm with you. And even then I think I should have the right to call some of the "movements" weaker than others.
But as far as I know, S. never planned such a thing. His cycle of string quartets, however, DOES show a strong unity and some carefully planned organisation (for instance: the same key isn't once used twice, and there's a clever and clear pattern in the succession of keys.)
So, when it comes to the symphonies, you're objecting against singling out individual works from the cycle as weaker than the others. While in the case of the quartets you complain about there being too much organisation and too little individuality. You're a hard to please person, you know that? ;)
Sorry to put it bluntly... but why should we care?
I can imagine playing the viola in a Haydn symphony is less exciting or even "creative" than playing a solo concerto. Still, it's the sum of all elements - including the unfunny and boring ones - that makes a masterpiece, and it's the message to the audience that counts, not necessarily the perception of the individual musicians.
Strange that you quote these two works, because I think they're prime examples of S. writing music while he was enjoying relative freedom of expression. The first was written not long after Lenin's death, when Stalin's reign wasn't as oppressive as it would become later. Russian avant-garde art blossomed, and there was little or no talk about "formalism" and "western decadance" yet. Not sure what threat you mean in connection to this composition.
As for the 4th, it was written in the wake of Lady Macbeth, one of S.'s most bold and experimental and works. He must have thought he could get away with it - both the opera and the symphony being challenging, difficult and "elitist" works. The infamous condemnation of the opera must have come as a terrible shock to him, and he certainly wasn't prepared for it, otherwise the 4th symphonie wouldn't have been written in a style that was even more radical than the opera. The 5th was the symphony that was written at gunpoint, not the 4th. I don't know what caused the 4th to be such a dark and depressing work, but it's dark nature didn't stem from political oppression. After all, S. told aan interviewer in 1935: "I am not afraid of difficulties. It is perhaps easier, and certainly
safer, to follow a beaten path, but it is also dull, uninteresting and
futile." Those aren't the words of a composer who's afraid of his life or his career.
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.
Good point, and yes - we shouldn't believe all the fairy tales about him. One of those fairy tales by the way is the misconception that the "happy" finales of the 5th, 6th 8th and 10th symphonies have some kind of hidden layer or are written with mocking intent. Like I pointed out in an earlier post, I don't believe that's the case in the 5th specially.