Shostakovich 4

1/4/2013

4 Comments

 
All right! We've closed the conversation on Denk's Ligeti/Beethoven recording. (Well, continue to discuss it if you want to, but I'm putting this out there for discussion now:

To completely change gears from solo piano work, I thought we'd listen to something for full orchestra. Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony is one of my all-time favorites. It's definitely 20th century, but, like most Shostakovich, it's also quite neo-Romantic. Shostakovich's music can quickly change from showcasing sharp wit to displaying great terror. Shosty 4 sticks a little bit closer to horror.

The most famous of his symphonies is No. 5. I've always loved Shostakovich 4 and 5, but it's fascinating, actually, how different they are. Just give this a minute or so at the beginning:
The most famous part of this symphony starts at about 17:00. Listen to that for a minute or so, too. Yeah, you've heard that part.

Anyway, Shostakovich actually shelved No. 4 for a good long while, because he was afraid it would get him in trouble. He had somewhat of a shaky relationship with Stalin - at times Shosty was in his good graces, at other times he was under house arrest for being subversive. One such work that Stalin didn't much care for was Shostakovich's "Lady MacBeth of Mtensk."  The 4th Symphony is pretty similar to said opera, so Shosty was afraid to have it premiered and get in trouble again. No. 5, then, was almost an apologetic work. It's much more palatable. Just as good as 4, but also more often heard.

I'm not an expert on Shostakovich recordings myself, so I did some light research on which was the best No. 4. I couldn't quickly and easily find the ones that were suggested, so I picked the Bernard Haitink/Chicago Symphony Orchestra recording from 2009... It was the first to come up on Spotify, and I like the picture.

Before I give too many more of my thoughts, I'd like to hear what you guys think. I'll pipe in more after that.
4 Comments
Rameen
1/10/2013 09:39:16 am

Okay, after listening to a movement per night, I HAVE THOUGHTS:

I must admit that it was hard for me to listen to this music intently the entire time, so...I tuned in and out sometimes. My first impressions are a little different from how I felt after I studied the work a little (thank you, Wikipedia) and read an interesting bit about how the human ear processes sound.

Before I get into it, a word on that last thing. Right now, I'm read "The Power of Habit," a book I recommend. It's mainly about the neurology and psychology of habits, and how most of what we do is habit. There's one passage, though, about how habits affect what songs are and are not popular on the radio, and it describes how the human ear naturally gravitates toward what is familiar. It does this because if it didn't focus on that, then it would be constantly bombarded by sounds and, unable to organize and prioritize them, it would hear everything as overwhelming noise.

However, I've also read that humans tend to look for things that are different, as a form of survival. When we were at the beginning of our evolution, new or different usually meant dangerous - an unusual movement in a bush or a strange new sound often meant trouble.

While these two views of human nature and the ear are contradictory, I'd venture to say that we are more easily attracted to familiar sounds, and that new sounds engage us more easily but also appeal to us less. Of course, I'm speaking in great generalities and you are free to chime in, but I think that what I'm saying is particularly applicable to this work. for reasons I'll soon enumerate.

MOVEMENT THE FIRST

Upon first (and only full) listen, I found this movement to be engaging but also jarring and difficult to wrap my head around. What I love about the movement is also what I take issue with: namely, that there is so much variation. Each time a surprisingly new idea emerges, your brain is immediately drawn to it, because it’s different from what came before it. Unfortunately, that also makes the movement feel more like a bunch of mini-movements arbitrarily thrown together. It’s interesting, but because of all the variety, it’s also not immediately memorable: by that I mean that there are no tunes I might have really hummed back after hearing it, besides what I’d literally just heard at the very end.

Today, I read that Shostakovich actually plays with form in this movement in really interesting ways. As Michael can probably more fully elaborate upon, there are two main themes here. Shostakovich, though, adds so much extra material and employs so many disguising tactics – such as creating a “recapitulation” section by arranging the “exposition” section backwards and in reverse orchestration – that the themes are difficult to distinguish. This is all well and good and pretty cool from a theoretical perspective, but it also leaves the audience (or me, at least) a little baffled and, depending on their expectations, a little unsatisfied.

MOVEMENT THE SECOND

I enjoyed this movement more, because it felt more cohesive. I was able to more strongly connect emotionally to this, although I’m still not sure entirely what emotion I felt. Suspense, perhaps? Shostakovich, like many Russian composers, is certainly good at setting atmosphere. I liked the general sense of instruments responding to one another here, passing the theme between each other. There’s also some great contrast in articulation here.

Apparently, Shostakovich was greatly influenced by Mahler, especially his scherzi. I must admit that I’m not terribly familiar with Mahler, but now that I’ve read that, I hear it more. I still think this music is a little too cacophonous and irreverent to sound terribly similar to Mahler, but I can see why someone would make the comparison.

MOVEMENT THE THIRD

This may be my favorite movement in the symphony. This feels like one full movement and isn’t quite as heterogeneous as the first movement, but it’s still got that same sneering quality as in the other movements. I love the smoky, wafting feeling at the beginning, and I think it gives this portion enough contrast to distinguish it from the other two movements. There’s still emotional contrast when it moves on, but it somehow feels more cohesive than the other movements. I really loved the end swell, because at first you so want it to be that big Mahler or Beethoven movement where you’re crying and uplifted, and instead it quickly becomes dissonant. It’s still moving, but not quite as sentimental as those types of moments can sometimes get. The final nine or ten minutes leave me with chills.

Analysis makes it difficult to place this movement into clear sections, but I don’t mind that so much, because the transitions are smoother than in the first movement.

Overall, I like this piece, but I can’t say I&rsqu

Reply
Rameen
1/10/2013 11:57:51 am

ARGH.

...I can't say I'd want to attend a live performance of the whole thing because I doubt I'd be able to listen to it all the way through. I wouldn't mind listening to one of the movements on its own again, but I didn't love it as a whole.

I think an interesting argument can be made here either for or against composers paying more attention to what audiences might want. My original comment expanded on that, but I want to know what you two think...or I'm just too annoyed that I lost my comment to want to continue elaborating.

Thoughts?

Reply
Michael link
1/10/2013 12:07:41 pm

Instead of adding too many of my own thoughts, I'll just give my reactions to Rameen's thoughts:

First, it's a shame the end of your comment got cut off.

About familiarity vs. the new in music: Daniel Levitin's fantastic book "This is your Brain on Music" has a section where he basically predicts the Pandora radio station - you tell it things you like, and it plays you things similar to it. Levitin has one idea that is not in Pandora, though, that would be a great addition: an "adventuresome" dial. You get what you want, but the more adventurous you're feeling, the farther it will stray from the exact things you told it you liked. This makes so much sense to me: Sometimes I just want the "comfort food" of things I know, but sometimes I'm itching to be challenged, surprised.

Along those lines, I'll agree that the first movement is a little too all over the place. The wild energy of this symphony is what attracts me to it, though. Maybe when I first heard it my "adventuresome dial" was turned up.

The Mahler/Shosty thing makes perfect sense to me. It's true that Mahler sounds tame compared to Shostakovich, but they're a product of their times: Mahler sounds simply barbaric compared to, say, Brahms.

And yes, the third movement is my favorite, too. I first heard this on the radio (Baltimore station, the DC station would never play anything like this) and I listened through partway into the third movement to the end. I was absolutely rapt.

Reply
Molly
1/12/2013 02:14:24 am

Dmitri Shostakovich: Keeping percussionists gainfully employed since 1935!

I had a listen to the entire symp hony straight through while walking along the Potomac in a park near my apartment.

Like Rameen, I found myself sometimes had difficulty focusing on it, especially during the first movement. But, because of that, I was able to note which moments really caught my attention, for instance, the sort of manic fuguing strings midway throught the first movement.

My initial reaction to the piece was to describe it as cinematic. In fact, I almost got a sense of narrative from it, although, that could just be my opera-obsessed brain having difficulty relating to anything purely abstract. I thought it was full of imagery of violence, contrasting with moments of calm that have a feeling of unease. I also. I thought the music felt urban, and industrial.

I also noted the way that it was orchestrated. I often find that composers of this period can get a little heavy-handed with brass, especially desciples of Mahler. Shosty uses brass in a judicious way that allows it to have maximum imput when all those tubas and trombones join in. There was also a moment with the English horn that stood out to me.

Rameen said, "I really loved the end swell, because at first you so want it to be that big Mahler or Beethoven movement where you’re crying and uplifted, and instead it quickly becomes dissonant." and I couldn't agree more. That was probably my favorite moment (I think it was repeated two or three times?) of the whole piece, and I think it exemplifies what I said about the way he uses brass. And the ending was absolutely gorgeous and did not go where I expected it to. I LOVE it when music surprises me.

Reply



Leave a Reply.