[Cheyenne]

I performed a small play about him with a girl of Eastern European descent, who translated a few things here and there, and taught me how to actually pronounce his name! The main point was to show how even completely instrumental music could be deemed unacceptable by the government, and how composers would be accused of "formalism" therefore. Rest assured nobody in the classroom knew who he was.

We played a small clip from The Fourth Symphony, and the chilling looks on people's faces I will not soon forget.

 

[Crudblud]

I'll be honest: I think Shostakovich's music sucks, and sometimes I think his fans feel the same way. I say that because I've never had anyone try to sell me on his music, it's always his biography, as if I should be duty bound to listen because he lived under a tyrannical regime. Well I don't buy it, I have never heard anything from Shostakovich that I find valuable in its own right, and I cannot bring myself to like music on faith that there are "hidden political messages" in it. Give me a break.

 

[aleazk]

Shostakovich? Well, I wouldn't say I would spit on his music... but close.

 

[Art Rock]

Just to push back a bit after the last few posts: I think he is one of the best composers ("best" referring to my own taste). His symphonies cycle is second only to Mahler for me, his concertos, songs, piano works and chamber music are very much worthwhile as well.

 

[Morimur]

Well, his quartets are decent -- let's not forget them. But really, why listen to Shostakovich when one has Bartók? The latter renders the former irrelevant.

 

[aleazk]

It seems to me that Shostakovich and Prokofiev are probably the greatest Russian composers of the twentieth century (with a very honorable mention going to Rachmaninov, whom I can sometimes love more than either of the others). I wouldn't presume to say which of the two is greater - but I like Prokofiev a lot more. The important thing for me - next to just enjoying the music of course - is to try to understand what makes a highly regarded composer, in both his skills and his message, so highly regarded.

You don't count Stravinsky as Russian because he lived most of his life outside this country, or you just consider all of the mentioned composers simply superior to him?

 

[Neal]

The thread question is poorly framed, which is no surprise since it comes from ArtMusic. Of course, Shostakovich isn't the "last" of anything, so my answer is "no". At the same time, I love his music and play it often - it speaks to me.

 

[violadude]

I'll be honest: I think Shostakovich's music sucks, and sometimes I think his fans feel the same way. I say that because I've never had anyone try to sell me on his music, it's always his biography, as if I should be duty bound to listen because he lived under a tyrannical regime. Well I don't buy it, I have never heard anything from Shostakovich that I find valuable in its own right, and I cannot bring myself to like music on faith that there are "hidden political messages" in it. Give me a break.

I don't agree with the first part that all his music sucks but I love the rest of what you wrote here. The over-emphasis on Shostakovich's life as a reason for liking his music gets incredibly tiring.

 

[Blancrocher]

I don't agree with the first part that all his music sucks but I love the rest of what you wrote here. The over-emphasis on Shostakovich's life as a reason for liking his music gets incredibly tiring.

One of the more interesting wrinkles on the theme came from Schnittke, who thought not only about Shosty's life but his life as a musician, and specifically the ways in which he reused his earlier compositions in successive ones and mixed his own themes with those of other predecessors. Many of Schnittke's own early works serve as a kind of commentary on the master's methods (though I think Schnittke always had an original voice, fwiw).

 

[Guest]

For me, the issue is about definitions of 'last', 'great', 'well-known'....

I love his music, but there's only one reasonable answer, given the circumstances of the question.

 

[GreenMamba]

I'll be honest: I think Shostakovich's music sucks, and sometimes I think his fans feel the same way.

So you think people are just pretending to like his music? This is exactly the equivalent of those who say no one really likes Schoenberg, Webern, Xenakis, Messaien, et al., they just pretend to so they can appear intellectual.

 

[Crudblud]

So you think people are just pretending to like his music? This is exactly the equivalent of those who say no one really likes Schoenberg, Webern, Xenakis, Messaien, et al., they just pretend to so they can appear intellectual.

Taken out of context like that, I can see why you would come to that conclusion. However, in the context of the rest of the post it's quite clear what I meant: that because so often the music is sold on the strength of the biography, I sometimes get the impression that people believe the music is great simply because of the composer's life story and not because of the music itself. I admit to being hyperbolic in claiming that the music sucks, but what you're accusing me of is simply not true.

 

[aleazk]

So you think people are just pretending to like his music? This is exactly the equivalent of those who say no one really likes Schoenberg, Webern, Xenakis, Messaien, et al., they just pretend to so they can appear intellectual.

I think you are missing the point in Crud's argument. He's not saying that because he doesn't like Shostakovich's music then everybody saying the opposite actually are posers.

He says that he finds odd that the people that likes his music usually defend it by appealing to the political arguments rather than to the quality of the music (quality that, we suppose, it's there, since these people like the music). So, he says, somewhat sarcastically, that perhaps these people don't like the music then, or that this quality is not there, or even both.

Edit: ups, Crudblud already explained himself!

 

[clavichorder]

I think you are missing the point in Crud's argument. He's not saying that because he doesn't like Shostakovich's music then everybody saying the opposite actually are posers.

What you posit as what Crudblud was actually saying, is practically just a refined and more argumentatively convincing sounding version of what you said he's not saying.

 

[starthrower]

I'm just trying to describe how it sounds to me. Perhaps it is I who am missing something.

I've collected a number of recordings over the years, but I'm not that drawn to his music. However, there are inspired bursts here and there that give me a thrill. But a lot of it is rather gray and overbearing, and not very interesting to my ear. But with any music, I always keep in mind that it's my brain that's in flux, but the music stays the same. I'll always come back to things and hear them differently.

 

[aleazk]

What you posit as what Crudblud was actually saying, is practically just a refined and more argumentatively convincing sounding version of what you said he's not saying.

No, because I could reach that conclusion independently of even knowing Shostakovich's music, since it's based on the lack of comment about the actual quality of the music by its fans.

When people make similar attacks to 'atonal' music, the first thing we say is that the music is good, not that we like Webern because we have pity of him considering the way he died, or when someone criticizes Ligeti we say 'but keep in mind that his family was killed in a concentration camp'. No, we say that the music is awesome and make detailed comments about the music.

 

[KenOC]

I hope that a dismissal of Shostakovich's music (odd though that seems) is not caused by the supposed motives for other people's liking it.

 

[clavichorder]

Aleazk:

Now, its my turn to tell you that you missed what I was getting at.

This is what you said.

"I think you are missing the point in Crud's argument. He's not saying that because he doesn't like Shostakovich's music then everybody saying the opposite actually are posers."

And now this is what you are saying:

"No, because I could reach that conclusion independently of even knowing Shostakovich's music, since it's based on the lack of comment about the actual quality of the music by its fans.

When people make similar attacks to 'atonal' music, the first thing we say is that the music is good, not that we like Webern because we have pity of him considering the way he died, or when someone criticizes Ligeti we say 'but keep in mind that his family was killed in a concentration camp'. No, we say that the music is awesome and make detailed comments about the music."

It seems to me like you are implicitly expressing that Shostakovich fans are posers. And yet you said that crudblud wasn't doing that. He wasn't doing quite that, but close.

 

[aleazk]

Aleazk:

This is what you said.

"I think you are missing the point in Crud's argument. He's not saying that because he doesn't like Shostakovich's music then everybody saying the opposite actually are posers."

And now this is what you are saying:

"No, because I could reach that conclusion independently of even knowing Shostakovich's music, since it's based on the lack of comment about the actual quality of the music by its fans.

When people make similar attacks to 'atonal' music, the first thing we say is that the music is good, not that we like Webern because we have pity of him considering the way he died, or when someone criticizes Ligeti we say 'but keep in mind that his family was killed in a concentration camp'. No, we say that the music is awesome and make detailed comments about the music."

It seems to me like you are implicitly expressing that Shostakovich fans are posers. And yet you said that crudblud wasn't doing that. He wasn't doing quite that, but close.

Yes, the conclusion is that they are posers. I never said that this was not the conclusion in Crudblud's post. I talked about the argument and the reasoning leading to the conclusion, which, from the logical point of view is correct (seen as a plausibility argument). Greenmamba took it out of context and made an analogy with the usual attack to atonalism, which, as you and I noticed, is not as refined and argumentatively convincing when compared to Crudblud's reasoning.

 

[Cheyenne]

The more I listen to Shostakovich, the more I realize how few of his works I actually like..: Symphony 4, symphony 14, Violin Concerto 1, Cello Concerto 1 -- but those are works of tremendous quality, and I would feign dismiss them.

The political agenda pushing is annoying but irrelevant.