Classical Music Forum banner

Shostakovich symphonies

20K views 112 replies 47 participants last post by  Heck148 
#1 ·
Which are your favorite shostakovich symphonies? Which ones are over or underrated in your opinion?
 
#31 ·
I thoroughly enjoy listening to Shostakovich's symphonies. My favourites in no particular order of preference are probably 1, 4, 5, 9, 10 & 15. I really like the quirky ninth. The first is a terrific opener. I've played in orchestra the fifth, the ending is quite exciting with everyone playing their hearts out.

And my views of the seventh? I like it, except for the tedious opening movement. But I did hear my local orchestra play it, and live it was rather intense.

I have a confession to make, I can't remember nor distinguish between the sixth, eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth. I should make the effort to do so.
 
#35 · (Edited)
On the radio just finished: The Los Angeles PO with Gustavo Dudamel in a program including Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5. The players did quite well, and it's kind of a treat since Dudamel seems to visit Shostakovich seldom. But what a symphony that is!

And after the symphony broadcast, a surprise: Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 11, played by the Borodin Quartet. Who says radio is dead? :lol:
 
#37 · (Edited)
With possible exceptions of 2 and 3, each of the Shostakovich symphonies is a gem well worth exploring numerous times. This is not "happy music" or even "optimistic music", certainly, but it is "truthful music" and speaks volumes about the human condition in a particular time and particular place which, if we heed the warnings, will prevent this music from becoming a universal statement. Which, ironically, indeed makes it a universal statement.

The 5th remains a shattering masterpiece, I contend, and one of the strongest symphonies in the history of the form. As absolute music it is astounding; as program music it raises itself to an even higher level.

And so much of Shostakovich's music shares in these sentiments. I cherish both the 1st and 9th for their brevity and imaginative scope. There is really nothing like either, except perhaps for each other. And the 8th and 10th, works seemingly cut from the same cloth but uniquely their own nonetheless, never leave me cold, though they do drain me emotionally and leave me disturbed and angry.

I remain a fan of the dark vocal symphonies, the 13th and 14th, so poignant in their pessimistic visions. Yet, this is song, one of the greatest achievements of mankind, and in some sense song is always hopeful, and so are these symphonies. We listen to them in lamentation yet hope that the oppression they speak of will find an end someday amongst us humans.

From my perspective, symphonies 7 and 11 share a tonal hue that is cinematic in presentation. The repetitive march of the 7th and the "Eternal Memory" movement of the 11th remain favorite orchestral works which I will often play as separate entities from their full symphonic settings. Both movements (and these symphonies as a whole) are Shostakovich the populist at his grandest.

Symphonies 4 and 12 share a space, too, to my ears. These are enigmatic works, both highly modernistic and unique in Shosty's oeuvre. These two elude my memorization of their lines in ways that defy my understanding. I know so much of Shostakovich's symphonic music by heart that I can hum along anticipating each coming moment in symphonies 1, 5, 8, 9, and 10, for examples. Yet I approach 4 and 12 always with fresh ears, as if hearing them for the first time. A strange phenomenon, to me.

The most puzzling of all the symphonies, and a towering masterpiece as well, is the strange and enigmatic final symphony, number 15. I have heard the work many times, but always with wonderment about what it all means. Is this Shostakovich in full retreat, or is it an outlook of an optimistic future, one where human repression and oppression are ended and a new dawn strikes the world?

I always lament that Shostakovich did not live to see the end of the Soviet Union, and though Russia today is still not the land of democratic openness and full societal freedom, it has come a long way from the era catalogued by Shostakovich's music, especially the symphonies. I have long contended that these 15 music works speak better than anything else about the history of the Soviet Union; that we can experience Communist oppression via this oeuvre, emotionally and feeling-wise, in a way no history book can present.

I cherish the fifteen string quartets in much the same way. I hear them as private statements, and hear the symphonies are public statements from the composer. I fantasize that someday I will parallel the symphonies and quartets in an extended (marathon) listening session, the public symphony number one followed by a hearing of the private quartet number one, and so on through to the fifteenth work. I've not yet done this task, though I think of starting it often. Still, I wonder if I am physically and emotionally fit enough to withstand such an assault. There are few composers whose music is as powerful as that of Dimitri Shostakovich.

Shostakovich's music (the quartets, the symphonies, the concerti, the piano variations, the incidental music) is in frequent rotation in my listening sessions, and shall remain so. These artistic masterworks deserve our strong attentions so that we may learn from them the costs of human oppression. And in these contemporary times the symphonies remain powerful contemporary statements, though we should hope, and I believe Shostakovich himself did, that these works would be best relegated to a time passed, to become "period pieces" for reminding us rather than be living examples of what is worst about the human condition.
 
#40 ·
I’m very hesitant to tie Shostakovich’s music to his political experience in the Soviet Union. After all, our ideas of what his life was like are based mostly on those garish comic books we carry around in our heads. He definitely had two periods where he had good reason to be worried, but otherwise he served in the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR from 1947 to 1962 and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union from 1962 until his death. And he was invited to join the Party (considered an honor) in 1960 and he accepted. You will search in vain for any negative comment he made about the Party or his nation aside from informal comments to friends, and I’m sure there were plenty of those from just about everybody (as there are, today, in my own country).

Better to take his music on its own account.
 
#52 ·
I'm very hesitant to tie Shostakovich's music to his political experience in the Soviet Union. After all, our ideas of what his life was like are based mostly on those garish comic books we carry around in our heads. He definitely had two periods where he had good reason to be worried, but otherwise he served in the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR from 1947 to 1962 and the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union from 1962 until his death. And he was invited to join the Party (considered an honor) in 1960 and he accepted. You will search in vain for any negative comment he made about the Party or his nation aside from informal comments to friends, and I'm sure there were plenty of those from just about everybody (as there are, today, in my own country).

Better to take his music on its own account.
Yes, but friends reported he berated himself for having joined the party, calling himself a cowardly worm for doing so. He seems not to have regarded it as a proud moment. And it is good to remember Richard Taruskin's words to the effect that there were no dissidents in Stalin's USSR, no living ones anyway.
 
#41 · (Edited)
It's hard to believe the warmed-over accounts of Shostakovich's life under Stalin being posted on this forum. Some of you just have no idea, and when you read some of the quotes attributed to him, you think every word is a lie. You can hear the bitterness and sarcasm in some of his music. You might well consider the counter political forces in the Soviet Union that would seek to discredit him rather than own up to the horrors of what life under Stalin was actually like. Sheesh. I suppose some of you who can't believe a word of what the composer was saying would have been quite happy to trade places with him as he genuinely feared for his life and the life of his friends. And of course, some of you would still like to believe that his Leningrad Symphony had nothing to do with the War. Jesus. You know why? Probably because you don't care for the Symphony.

Forced to live for most of his life under a totalitarian regime - one moment in favor with Soviet leaders, then just as quickly out of it again - for much of his career Shostakovich was judged by political rather than musical criteria. He once described life under Stalin's regime as "unbelievably mean and hard. Every day brought more bad news and I felt so much pain. I was so lonely and afraid." Denounced in 1936 as "an enemy of the people", friends he had once considered loyal supporters began crossing the street to avoid him. To know him was dangerous; to associate with him, potentially fatal. He risked execution or deportation to the Gulag yet played the system just carefully enough to survive, publishing music that earned him praise for "not having given in to the seductive temptations of his previous 'erroneous' ways"; at least, that is, until his second denunciation for "formalism" and "western influences" in 1948, after which most of his music was banned.

Without party guidance I would have displayed more brilliance, used more sarcasm - Dmitri Shostakovich

Following Stalin's death in 1953 in you can almost feel, in his music, the gigantic breath of relief, as he could start to publish not just the "desk drawer" works he'd kept under wraps for years, including the Fourth Symphony, but also works in which he could openly give musical expression to the brutalities he and his contemporaries had endured under Stalin's purges. "Without party guidance," he later said, "I would have displayed more brilliance, used more sarcasm, I could have revealed my ideas openly instead of having to resort to camouflage." [unquote]

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150807-shostakovich-the-composer-who-was-almost-purged

The history of his Symphony No. 4. Nope... no political interference or problems here that he might possibly have privately objected to-

Dmitri Shostakovich composed his Symphony No. 4 in C minor, Opus 43, between September 1935 and May 1936, after abandoning some preliminary sketch material. In January 1936, halfway through this period, Pravda-under direct orders from Joseph Stalin[1]-published an editorial "Muddle Instead of Music" that denounced the composer and targeted his opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. Despite this attack, and despite the oppressive political climate of the time, Shostakovich completed the symphony and planned its premiere for December 1936 in Leningrad. After rehearsals began, the orchestra's management canceled the performance, offering a statement that Shostakovich had withdrawn the work. He may have agreed to withdraw it to relieve orchestra officials of responsibility. The symphony was premiered on 30 December 1961 by the Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra led by Kirill Kondrashin.[unquote]

It's always a tribute to the composer when Americans try to rewrite Russian history from a safe and sanitized point of view because they just don't know who to believe when reading about him, despite living almost his entire life under the microscope of political criticism and occasional rewards. During the Great Purge or the Great Terror which occurred from 1936 to 1938. It was estimated that at least 600,000 people died at the hands of the Stalin-led Soviet government.
 
#57 ·
Getting back to the music, my own opinion is that only the 3rd is truly awful; the other 14 having merits whether I personally like them or not.
I don't like No.14 as, to me, it's not a symphony - solo voices and a chamber band do not make for a symphony in my musical world.
I feel that no.13 is underated; a lot of time is spent discussing the content of the Yevtushenko poems, especially 'Babi Yar', but I think in doing this, so often the impact of the music gets lost. The superb way that the poems have been set to the voices, and the outstanding orchestral writing, not to mention the power of the music as a whole (and I don't just mean 'power' in terms of the loud bits, but in the overall impact - some of the quiet passages are extremely powerful, particularly in 'At the Store').
Needless to say, No.13 is among my favourites, along with 1,4,7,8,9,11,12 (yes, I know...) and 15.
 
#59 ·
This business of Shostakovich and the political situations he wrote in is very messy. Firstly, there are conflicting accounts of how he felt about the situations and it is easy to see motives both ways for misrepresenting these. And then there is the fact that the political situation and its impact on art changed many times during Shostakovich's life. For a while after the Bolshevik revolution the avant garde was very acceptable, indeed it chimed with the "revolutionary" times, but then official policy changed towards wanting music that the masses would understand and could relate to. Then came Stalin and a period of extraordinary repression which affected most aspects of public and private life, including the arts. Although music was the least affected of the arts this was a scary time for composers. Mostly, the threat concerned losing the right to an audience and a livelihood but, of course, worse things could happen, too. Then, after Stalin, there was a slow thaw but restrictions remained. So it wasn't always the same: there were bad times and somewhat better times. And, then, you need to consider the pride that the Soviet regimes could gain from having a great composer active - and often thriving - in the USSR. This was important to them. Shostakovich was a privileged person.

Another angle is the feelings and attitudes that Shostakovich might have had about things - including non-artistic things - that were happening in his country through all these different times. We do not know very much about these - the sources are very contradictory - but it is easy to imagine that the neighbour-spaying-upon-neighbour culture that typified much of Stalin's period was something he (along with many much more vulnerable intellectuals) deplored. And it is also easy to imagine that he would have hated the bureaucratic nature of state institutions for guiding and promoting music, the talentless ruling over the talented. Of course, this sort of thing happens in other places and not only police states, and is often a great source of irritation (to say the least) to the creative artists who might depend upon it. Combine it with Stalinist terror, though, and it must have become much more than an irritation. But we do need to remember that music was one of the most honoured and least oppressed areas of intellectual activity in the USSR.

Through all of this Shostakovich wrote both public and more private music. There is a distinctive voice and a clear evolution running through it all. You can see the impact of the time when the arts became more controlled and oppressed and the time when things became more free in his art, but the overwhelming feel of his output (both private and public) suggests one artist who experienced the odd disappointment but did not find it too difficult to adapt with his artistic integrity intact.

It is also worth remembering that Shostakovich was not the only composer who worked in a politically difficult environment. Schubert's Vienna, to give one example, was also politically difficult for someone who moved in the circles that Schubert moved in. He was beaten up by the secret police, an indignity that was never visited upon Shostakovich, on at least one occasion. And, so many great composers saw around them appalling situations - poverty, oppression, terrible wars - and, yes, these experiences will have found their ways into their music, music that speaks of the human condition and not just a particular instance of it.

So, I do agree that it is the music that matters and that speaks to us - in my opinion - of something much bigger than the mere political environment in which he lived. And I suggest that the coherence of his vision throughout his life, a life that saw many changes in his own circumstances, is the strongest argument we have that we must not reduce his art to mere politics.
 
#62 ·
Denunciation, Stalin Prize, Denunciation, Stalin Prize...stick, carrot, stick, carrot...

In a way I think Shostakovich's gutsiest symphony is the 9th, especially as he publicly stated that he intended to compose a choral symphony "about the greatness of the Russian people, about our Red Army liberating our native land from the enemy". The 9th did not turn out that way, and I'm surprised Shostakovich didn't get into hot water immediately for producing a work which ended up being completely at odds with his original statement.
 
#63 · (Edited)
Denunciation, Stalin Prize, Denunciation, Stalin Prize...stick, carrot, stick, carrot...

In a way I think Shostakovich's gutsiest symphony is the 9th, especially as he publicly stated that he intended to compose a choral symphony "about the greatness of the Russian people, about our Red Army liberating our native land from the enemy". The 9th did not turn out that way, and I'm surprised Shostakovich didn't get into hot water immediately for producing a work which ended up being completely at odds with his original statement.
Yes, and the 6th was supposed to be a vast tribute to Lenin, and Lady MacBeth was supposed to be the first of a cycle about Russian women (when it was popular and uncondemned) … Shostakovich made those kind of promises all the time. Good point about the 9th.
 
#65 · (Edited)
Barshai’s recording of the Shostakovich 1st is brilliant. It’s perfect as one of the greatest 1st Symphonies ever written, in my opinion. I hate to see it lumped in with No. 2 and 3, and I think even those were honest failures. I think listeners should look for better performances of the 1st, such as Barshai’s, for ex. Even with number 2 and 3, it was Shostakovich before the authorities started irrevocably messing with his head with charges of “formalism“ like with some of his later works. How he managed to write anything with confidence is a miracle, and I hope the point is never lost.
 
#66 ·
Barshai's recording of the Shostakovich 1st is brilliant. It's perfect as one of the greatest 1st Symphonies ever written, in my opinion. I hate to see it lumped in with No. 2 and 3, and I think even those were honest failed attempts. I think listeners should look for better performances of the 1st, such as the well performed and recorded Barshai's. Even with number 2 and 3, it was Shostakovich before the authorities started irrevocably messing around with his mind like with his later symphonies. How he managed to write anything with confidence is a miracle, and I hope the point is never lost.
Agree that the 1st is a real treat. When it was first performed, on DSCH's graduation from the conservatory, it brought him attention not just in Russia but globally. It was pretty obvious that he was something special. Certainly one of the very greatest "Firsts", along with Brahms and Mahler.
 
#69 ·
I don't hate it, it's good visceral razzmatazz, and I don't know whether it's meant ironically or not. I'm not big on musical irony; words work better. But I think the rest of the symphony is fine, one of my favorites by a composer I don't much empathize with. I still sometimes think he never equaled the inventiveness, wit, energy and concision of the first symphony, but I know many listen to him for other qualities.
 
#70 · (Edited)
>since then there has been a perennial debate over whether it is sincerely triumphant or sarcastic

I guess that makes sense, though I feel like the debate was always DS' point and he'd consider it a success that we can't still can't decide one way or another. I thought the debate in itself was the symbolism he intended. But I understand what you're saying, that could be viewed as a weakness as opposed to a strength
 
#71 · (Edited)
Many do debate about whether the finale is some sort of political statement. Those who hear it as "sincerely" triumphant might imagine he was just acceding to the most important demand of Socialist Realism, that is, ending optimistically. Some of those who think its exuberance and pomp are over the top like to think it was a sarcastic poke at the powers that were. Conductors wishing to emphasize one or the other political interpretation could do so by downplaying or exaggerating certain features. I am in fact suspicious of both political interpretations. Shostakovich was certainly composing a finale he thought would satisfy the need for plausible optimism. And if he overdid it (if once thinks he did) how could one possibly distinguish between sarcastic over-exuberance and a more than normal but benign desire to please based on his political vulnerability? How could one even be sure Shostakovich himself would know the difference?

My favorite interpretation of the finale's significance is one suggested by Richard Taruskin.* He hears a musical connection between part of the finale and a song Shostakovich had written on a poem by Pushkin called "Renewal" (or something like that), leaving open the possibility that Pushkin's text is a hidden key to the symphony's interpretation. The poem describes a canvas obscured by a barbarian painter who splashes paint across it. The poem says that eventually the obscuring coat will peel away to reveal the true image the artist intended. Taruskin doesn't come out and say it, but one way to interpret this data might be to hear the finale as the obscuring coat. Strip it away and the symphony ends with a slow movement which, according to Taruskin, invokes Russian funeral music traditions. It becomes a tombstone for his friends and others who had died in the recent purge. But, of course, no one is ever going to perform it without the finale and arguing that it is in fact a three movement symphony trying to get out is the wildest speculation.

*"Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth: Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony." In Shostakovich Studies. Ed. David Fanning. Cambridge University Press (1995): 17-56.
 
#75 ·
I really love most of them, but the REAL standouts are: S4, S5, S7, S9, S10, S11 for me.

I feel he is one of the greatest symphonist ever, and these are my favs that wrote in that medium (in no order):

DSCH
Mahler
Sibelius
Vaughan Williams
Lutoslawski
Ives
Copland
 
#77 ·
I agree, #11 is underrated....very fine work...give 1. 4, 6, 7 some time...these are all wonderful works....1 and 4 are from DS' pre-Stalin period.....the genius and flamboyant scoring are readily apparent....#1 is an amazing first symphony...stunning, really...4 was written right as Shostakovich got into trouble with the Great Leader and Teacher, the Steel Man....DS' works take on a darker hue and of course, Russia was soon plunged into the terrible inferno of WWII...don't forget #9!!
 
#79 ·
The Shostakovich symphonies certainly are a bit of a mixed bag. The 4th is probably my favourite, but I'm incredibly fond of the 14th and the 15th as well. The popular 5th, 7th and 10th are great but not something I love listening to too often. In a way I still feel like I'm discovering these works, even though I've heard them countless times: just a few months ago I listened to the 8th and was positively perplexed by what I was hearing.

I'm going to hear quite a lot of Shostakovich this season in Helsinki, including the 11th which I'm looking forward to very much. Come to think of it, I've only heard the 1st, 4th, 10th and 15th symphonies live!
 
#80 ·
...I've only heard the 1st, 4th, 10th and 15th symphonies live!
I've been going to concerts for 50 years and have only ever heard 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 live. The 5th repeatedly. I've been playing concerts for almost as long, and have only had the chance to play 1, 5, 9, and 10. I'd love to play 4! Someday, an orchestra somewhere will begin doing Shostakovich Festivals like they do festivals for Mozart, Beethoven, and Mahler. It'd be great to hear all the symphonies and concertos as well as some of the ballet or film music with a first-class orchestra and a sympathetic conductor. Helsinki would be a good place to do it, too!
 
#81 · (Edited)
Shostakovich's are among the toughest to put in qualitative order, except that I think 15 is for sure his greatest masterpiece (and one of music's all time masterpieces).

If forced to choose it would probably go something like the following (with only his 15th secure, rankings 2nd place through 9th place potentially interchangable and all of them among his best work imo. Below that are probably his "least great").

(1st) Symphony No. 15
(2) 7
(3) 8
(4) 1
(5) 10
(6) 11
(7) 9
(8) 6
(9) 5
(10) 4
(11) 3
(12) 12
(13) 2
(14) 13
(15) 14

His 5th Symphony in particular moves around a lot for me, sometimes seeming diabolically ambiguous, in mesmerizing conflict/anguish with itself; other times seeming thematically indecisive/confused and perhaps mitigating a bit of its own momentum. Sometimes I rank it as high as his 2nd best, other times as low as his 9th best and all rankings in between...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lisztian
#84 · (Edited)
Shostakovich's are among the toughest to put in qualitative order, except that I think 15 is for sure his greatest masterpiece (and one of music's all time masterpieces).

If forced to choose it would probably go something like the following (with only his 15th secure, rankings 2nd place through 9th place potentially interchangable and all of them among his best work imo. Below that are probably his "least great").

(1st) Symphony No. 15
(2) 7
(3) 8
(4) 1
(5) 10
(6) 11
(7) 9
(8) 6
(9) 5
(10) 4
(11) 3
(12) 12
(13) 2
(14) 13
(15) 14

His 5th Symphony in particular moves around a lot for me, sometimes seeming diabolically ambiguous, in mesmerizing conflict/anguish with itself; other times seeming thematically indecisive/confused and perhaps mitigating a bit of its own momentum. Sometimes I rank it as high as his 2nd best, other times as low as his 9th best and all rankings in between...
Interesting list. The only people I've ever seen consider the 15th to be the best are you and Scaruffi. From what I can tell 4 is also usually considered to be among the very best, and 13/14 at the least in the upper half. I say all of this without knowing the works too well though, and I'm sure you'd know them better than me! The main point of this post is I'm noticing that opinions on Shosties symphonies are more varied than most other composers.
 
#85 ·
Using the same split as I just posted for Mahler:

Hors concours (limited to my favourite 100 compositions in classical music): 7
Essential (one tier lower, but definitely musts to have in my collection): 4,5,8,10,13,14
Important (one tier lower, but still desirable to have): 1,6,9,11,12,15
Good to have (another tier lower, but indeed good to have): 2,3
 
G
#87 ·
For me the essential Shostakovich is the string quartets and other chamber music, especially the viola sonata.

Among the symphonies, I have very strong positive associations with 10, 15, 9, 5, 6 (in roughly descending order). The others are a blur, I have to revisit them.
 
#88 ·
I agree that the 15th has to be the best of his symphonies. It's in turns cryptic, profound, humorous, and apocalyptic -- the perfect Shostakovich symphony. If I had to rank them today, I'd say:

(1) 15
(2) 8
(3) 10
(4) 5
(5) 9
(6) 13
(7) 1
(8) 4
(9) 7
(10) 11
(11) 12
(12) 14
(13) 6
(14) 3
(15) 2

I think 14 will rise in my estimation, but it's a tough nut to crack and I don't know enough performances yet to have a more holistic view.
 
G
#89 ·
I didn't approach the Shostakovich Symphonies methodically, and only came upon the 15th relatively recently. It instantly became a favorite, more or less tied with the 10th as my favorite among Shostakovich's symphonies. I like the way it skirts a line between ironic and apocalyptic. :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top