 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time for me to needle "TallGuy" (and maybe even "Timmer", too) with yet another TC thread which questions the former status as a "great" this composer once had (before there was an internet).
http://www.talkclassical.com/37770-shostakovich-one-greats-one.html
So FSMers, waddayathink?: Is music by Dmitri Shostakovich "great", or has DS become a posthumous has-been 30+ years after his death?
Will future generations of the 21st century (and beyond) consider DS as insignificant in comparison to other 20th century composers (such as Luciano Berio or Gyorgy Ligeti) whose music is increasingly lionized as the decades ensue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 23, 2015 - 2:42 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
My first introduction to DS came with part 47 (of 52) of The Great Composers, say some 30 years ago. The LP revealed Symphony No.9 to me and left me distinctly nonplussed ... I much preferred Prokofiev's Symphony No.1 on side A. And when compared with many of the other works in this 52 part series, I'm afraid DS was not quite an also-ran.
Strangely, around the same time I became acquainted with a lovely theme to a British TV series Reilly: Ace of Spies and was surprised to find that the composer of this wonderful melody was ... DS. Still, nothing moved me towards expanding my DS exposure (not even Don Black's witty lyric in the song Aren't You Billy Fisher from Billy enticed me).
A few years later, in May'92, I went with a group to see/hear the visiting Philharmonic Orchestra of Novosibirsk perform, inter alia, DS's Symphony No.5. I've long held the view that music sounds much better on second listening and this symphony's brilliance didn't click. How much I would like to repeat that occasion now that I know the music, albeit not well.
And then a chance online meeting with a fellow film-music fan raised the opportunity to try another piece or two. A few years on I have recordings of his 15 symphonies, four of his string quartets, various concerti and lots of his film-music.
Is he a favourite of mine? That depends as I like too many works by too many other composers to rate his works that highly but there are few recordings in my DS collection which I don't enjoy (okay: Symphonies Nos.2 & 3 are a struggle  ) In what I consider the few heavyweight composers in my classical collection, he ranks behind Bruckner and Mahler for pure enjoyment.
But I don't doubt that his name and his music will out-live me ... and all of us on this forum.
NP: Shostakovich: Symphony No.9 in E-flat major, Op.70 [Barshai/WDR]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 24, 2015 - 7:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
Time for me to needle "TallGuy" (and maybe even "Timmer", too) with yet another TC thread which questions the former status as a "great" this composer once had (before there was an internet).
http://www.talkclassical.com/37770-shostakovich-one-greats-one.html
So FSMers, waddayathink?: Is music by Dmitri Shostakovich "great", or has DS become a posthumous has-been 30+ years after his death?
Will future generations of the 21st century (and beyond) consider DS as insignificant in comparison to other 20th century composers (such as Luciano Berio or Gyorgy Ligeti) whose music is increasingly lionized as the decades ensue?
Just as film music is best judged in the context for which it was written (and we're all film music fans here, I assume), you can gain a better appreciation of concert hall music by having considering the circumstances in which it was written and the influences at play at the time. Despite all the Salieri/Mozart speculation, the mystery of Beethoven's "Elise", the enigma of Elgar's Variations and the astonishing output of Bach (20 children!), for me the most fascinating story of any composer is that of Shostakovich.
His story is that of the 20th century - but as a participant, not just a chronicler. He suffered greatly from the politics of the time, but I'm not saying that allowances must be made because of this, that his music should be marked up because of sympathy for his situation. Unless you know the history of the time, you simply can't appreciate the reasoning for the quirkiness of his lighter stuff, the cynicism of his biting allegorical music, and the weight and majesty of his symphonies.
The seventh symphony is a case in point. Why is there ten minutes of a simple bolero that builds through many repetitions into a terrifying crescendo? What does it represent? How was it received at the time? Unless you know that it was partly written in Leningrad during the Nazi siege and blockade, the symphony is just another piece of music that goes on for a bit then stops, applause, on to the next one.
Consider this alternate course of action - or flight of fantasy, if you like.
Shostakovich doesn't write the seventh symphony. He's "disappeared" by Stalin in the aftermath of the Lady Macbeth furore, or a stray bullet or shell from a Stuka kills him. The people of Leningrad don't have their resolve stiffened by the ragged performance of the symphony played by wounded musician-soldiers and old men, and Leningrad falls. Hitler continues with Barbarossa, and fearing annihilation of Moscow, Stalin sues for peace. Freed from deploying men and weapons on the eastern front, Hitler concentrates on the western front and by use of strengthened U Boat bloackades manages to force Great Britain into surrender.
At this point, the US, decides that it worked in Japan so it can work in Europe and drops a couple onto Berlin and, say, Hamburg. The rump of the Soviet army fills the void and within a year or two the combined German and Russian scientists also have the bomb. Then things get REALLY bad...
Battles win wars, moments win battles.
You can't prove that Shostakovich DIDN'T save the world, just as I can't prove he did.
So a few people don't value his work. No biggie from my point of view.
The word "genius" is easily won these days, and it's easy for everyone, including me, to misuse it. I don't contend that Shostakovich was the last great composer. I do contend that, in the true meaning of the word, he's the last genius composer.
TG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I don't doubt that his name and his music will out-live me ... and all of us on this forum.
Surely, his music will out-live all of us (as will the music by most composers who've ever existed). Nonetheless, I do think the stature of DS' compositions will diminish as future composers will tend to consider his music 'lacking' upon analysis.
What current opinions do French and Finnish spectralists (such as Dufourt, Murail, Saariaho, etc.) hold on Shostakovich, I wonder?
One TC member has gone as far as labeling the music of William Alwyn as 'third tier' ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has Mr Zardoz been here under a different handle?
I don't like Handel, either.  :
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pierre Boulez said that any composer who does not embrace serial technique was "irrelevant." Pierre is being lionized this year, at the age of 90. This is partly for his conducting career. As for his more arrogant pronouncements, I thought they had been consigned to the ash heap of history by now.
Serialism is not embraced by a lot of composers (& listeners) past and present, so this Boulez viewpoint is not representative of what's transpiring currently in this music field.
Nevertheless, the application of computer science and mathematics into musical compositions is here to stay and influences current perspectives on the nature of music.
Iannis Xenakis is one such composer who commenced math application into musical notations.
By the late 1970s, spectralism was born.
These artistic movements are some of the building-blocks in compostion today.
When some of us glance back at the music by high-profile Russians such as Rachmaninov or Profofiev, a few of us might find their music lacking since our sensibilities have been augmented by more recent musical developments.
This is why there exists disagreement over DS: there has occurred a 'sea change' of attitudes regarding past composers, and it will continue. Underdogs from the past might receive re-appraisals as the status of higher-profile composers may subside with the tides of change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The word "genius" is easily won these days, and it's easy for everyone, including me, to misuse it. I don't contend that Shostakovich was the last great composer. I do contend that, in the true meaning of the word, he's the last genius composer.
TG
Howdayaknow, TG? We haven't heard your music yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it's easy to forget the battles Shosty had to endure in his lifetime. But it's also true that critics are very hard on composers and artists: they aren't 'important' until they've suffered. We don't buy Vincent's paintings until he's died, and then we allow them to be 'important' enough to be worth millions. We bathe our hands in Caesar's blood and drink the communion wine. We demand sacrifices. That's a hard thing for a composer to live up to. And who ARE these critics to demand such things anyhow? They aren't doing the suffering.
Rozsa used to quote Max Reger: 'Composers are like pigs: they only come into their own when they're dead'.
So celebrate your composers and don't ask them to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 24, 2015 - 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
Has Mr Zardoz been here under a different handle?
I don't like Handel, either. :
My favourite composer, & the greatest one ever (that's right, not Mozart but Handel), & that lapse of taste does your argument no favours
As for Shostakovich, I'm a fan, & he was a genius (just the first violin & cello concertos would make him that), & after all these years symphony number 6 is still my favourite. All composers go in & out of favour as the years go on, but I don't think Shostakovich has gone out of favour yet, but when he does, he'll roar back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
