[clavichorder]

I think we were missing what each other was saying.

At any rate, I don't agree that Shostakovich listeners are all or even mostly, posers. That's a somewhat arrogant assumption and generalization and Greenmamba is right in that saying that, it is similar to anti modernists saying that atonal music listeners are just trying to appear smart.

Neither statement is necessarily accurate, and really, probably isn't.

It is my personal opinion about Shostakovich's music, that there is a bit of a Brahms effect to it. It can be very well crafted and brilliant, and yet there is something off putting about its tone when you aren't in the mood for it. I have never put him on a pedestal for his hard life or oppressive circumstances. I just think musically, he's like a more muddy Prokofiev with some powerful thematic ideas.

 

[violadude]

I think Shostakovich's best work is in his string quartets, the pre-symphony 5 works and post-symphony 12 works.

 

[clavichorder]

Some of my favorite Shostakovich pieces are actually early works. Three Fantastic Dances op 5 for solo piano.

 

[violadude]

I wouldn't say that Shostakovich lovers are faking it or something like that. I'd direct the over-emphasis on biography to certain works rather than the fans. Take Symphony 5 for example. This piece is not only considered Shostakovich's best symphony but one of the greatest symphonies of all time. The fact that it is considered as such baffles me and I get the impression that it's the "hidden messages" and the story behind the piece that make people think they like it more than the actual music by itself would suggest. I'm not saying the piece is totally un-redeemable, the 2nd movement is fun and the 3rd movement is beautiful. But that last movement is awful, sorry. No amount of whining about Stalin is going to make that last movement sound better than it does.

The real kicker though is that people talk about the 5th symphony and Shostakovich's change in style at this point in his life as a good thing. Is it a good thing? So are they saying that repressed Shostakovich is better than free Shostakovich? So wouldn't Stalin be the good guy in this situation? It just doesn't make sense to me at all that the point where Shostakovich was forced to write music that he obviously wasn't as proud of is the point where people start marking his greatest achievements.

So, according to people who go on and on about the 5th Symphony, is Shostakovich truly a great composer if he had to be repressed to start writing his best music?

 

[Crudblud]

A little while ago a friend (who presumably would prefer to remain anonymous in this instance) shared with me an article on Shostakovich written by Robin Holloway, which (besides piquing my interest in revisiting certain early works) says, quite reasonably:

"The terrible nature of Shostakovich's circumstances mustn't prevent a balanced response to his actual notes. If it does, emotional blackmail is committed, which for all its rewards involves illusion and delusion — a flattering identification with suffering heroism, a holier-than-thou priggishness in the rush to empathise with oppression. To deplore this is to risk appearing stony-hearted. But what else is there to go on, in works of art, but their artistic workmanship — in music, the actual notes?"

Furthermore, and for the last time, I never actually said that Shostakovich fans were posers; my point is, has always been, that I sometimes get that impression when I hear the all-too-common defences relying on his biography and on "hidden messages" inside the music, but never the music itself. I'm not really sure what else is expected of me. Whatever people choose to read or not read into my words is their business, and I don't see the point in continuing to defend myself against attacks on things I didn't say.

 

[Blake]

It's always going to depend on who you ask. I think there were more inventive composers after him. But if 'greatness' is judged by how widespread his recognition is, then I guess Shosty would be greater than... say, Morton Feldman and his omnipresent cigarette. But I find Feldman's music to be far more striking and potent.

 

[KenOC]

...Furthermore, and for the last time, I never actually said that Shostakovich fans were posers; my point is, has always been, that I sometimes get that impression when I hear the all-too-common defences relying on his biography and on "hidden messages" inside the music, but never the music itself.

Agree with this totally. Shostakovich was never widely popular in the West when he was seen as a stooge of Communism. His popularity grew greatly after he was re-cast as a secret rebel against a tyrannical regime.

None of which has much to do with whether he was a "great composer." That depends on whether he wrote great music. In my view, he did.

BTW, I'd guess that Feldman's cigarettes were a lot better than the ones Shostakovich was stuck with.

 

[Andreas]

The problem with this question is that people's definitions of what constitutes a "great composer" differ widely, as do their qualifications for being considered "one of the great composers".

While this is true, you could, frankly, pretty much fold up this forum if common definitions and everyone's agreement on them were the prerequisites for discussion.

As to the OP, I think the last two are still alive: Boulez and Penderecki.

 

[violadude]

I think it's ridiculous to even talk about the "last great composers" unless it's in the context of general human extinction. There will be great composers of every generation as long as we are around.

 

[Andreas]

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.

Honestly, us westeners putting down Shostakovich is so pitiable. It's so easy. "Mahler with wrong notes", Charles Rosen says. Cute. But certainly no points for originality there. In fact, Charles, your statement seemed like "Boulez with other words" to me. Oh well.

 

[starthrower]

I don't think it will ever be like the bygone era. There's a very slim chance of becoming a household name no matter how great the artist or composer, because the major record labels and orchestras will keep recycling their warhorses.

I've been listening to classical radio five hours a day, five days a week for the past two weeks. I hardly ever hear any music less than 120 years old. And I'm listening to two different stations.

 

[Guest]

Honestly, us westeners putting down Shostakovich is so pitiable.

An odd observation. Only those who belong to TC can answer the OP, and if it's full of 'westerners' who don't like Shostakovich, what can you expect? I don't find it pitiable at all, though as a fan of DSCH, it's a slight disappointment.

 

[senza sordino]

I rather like the music of Shostakovich. And I have a difficult time separating the music from the biography. I don't separate the music from the setting and biography for any composer and work. I can't really agree with that Stravinsky quote, "music can only express itself and nothing more", or something like that. When I listen to a piece of music I enter the composers world, his / her time and setting and situation.

When I listen to Shostakovich I enter the world of drab Soviet style living quarters, and when I listen to Mozart I put on a powered wig. Not literally, but that's me. Nowt queer as folk.

I have performed Shostakovich a few times in our amateur orchestra, including the fifth symphony. It's a lot of fun making as much noise as possible.

 

[Woodduck]

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?

A strange slip of the memory! But I think you may be right that I don't exactly think of him as Russian in the same sense and degree as the others. His neoclassical aesthetic, his broad international influence, his rather "French" intellectual attitude, and his emigration all make him seem more international than Russian. Apologies to Russians everywhere, and to Igor, if he's listening.

 

[Xaltotun]

I think it's ridiculous to even talk about the "last great composers" unless it's in the context of general human extinction. There will be great composers of every generation as long as we are around.

That is certainly so, if being a great composer is genetical. But if it has more to do with our environment and society, then great composers could, in theory, disappear. Although our potential to be great composers would remain, it would not be realized.

 

[KenOC]

Voting games on another forum chose the ten best works from each decade. Each of these works placed in the top ten of its respective decade:

Shostakovich: Symphony #1 (1925)
Shostakovich: Symphony #5 (1937)
Shostakovich: Piano Quintet (1940)
Shostakovich: Symphony #8 (1943)
Shostakovich: Piano Trio #2 (1944)
Shostakovich: 24 Preludes & Fugues for Piano (1951)
Shostakovich: Symphony #10 (1953)
Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #1 (1959)
Shostakovich: String Quartet #8 (1960)
Shostakovich: The Execution of Stepan Razin (1964)
Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #2 (1966)
Shostakovich: Symphony #15 (1971)
Shostakovich: Sonata for Viola and Piano (1975)

I can't see how anybody who is at all familiar with these works -- any of them -- could dismiss Shostakovich's status as a major composer.

But of course, anything's possible.

 

[Blake]

I think he was very good. But somehow I feel that all this attention he gets is a bit much... when so many later composers are continuing to progress the state of music and hardly get any recognition. A damn shame.

 

[ArtMusic]

This is what I figured, and I'm glad and happy for you.

But, as gently as I can, I'd like to suggest that the post-Shostakovich composers you're dismissing here might seem less odious to you after a similar amount of exposure and study.

I think you are reading a touch too much into my words -extrapolating far more than I innocently intended, my good man.

 

[ArtMusic]

Voting games on another forum chose the ten best works from each decade. Each of these works placed in the top ten of its respective decade:

Shostakovich: Symphony #1 (1925)
Shostakovich: Symphony #5 (1937)
Shostakovich: Piano Quintet (1940)
Shostakovich: Symphony #8 (1943)
Shostakovich: Piano Trio #2 (1944)
Shostakovich: 24 Preludes & Fugues for Piano (1951)
Shostakovich: Symphony #10 (1953)
Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #1 (1959)
Shostakovich: String Quartet #8 (1960)
Shostakovich: The Execution of Stepan Razin (1964)
Shostakovich: Cello Concerto #2 (1966)
Shostakovich: Symphony #15 (1971)
Shostakovich: Sonata for Viola and Piano (1975)

I can't see how anybody who is at all familiar with these works -- any of them -- could dismiss Shostakovich's status as a major composer.

But of course, anything's possible.

Nice. His piano quintet is quite nice.

 

[GreenMamba]

I think the argument that Shostakovich's defenders are always pointing to his biography is a bit of a straw man argument. The debate usually goes like this:

A: His 7th symphony sucks.
B: Well, yeah, he wrote some works for purely political reasons.

Do those who praise his chamber music defend it on merely on political grounds?

And as far as his 5th symphony is concerned, ViolaDude, no it isn't his best, just as Sibelius' 2nd isn't his best. I can see how both are popular, but that's not the fault of the composer.