Essential Shostakovich Discs

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If he'd been writing for a British or German or American orchestra he might well have written different music.

Moving even further away from the topic, I wonder if Dave's suggestion might have a bearing on the work of Prokofiev? I don't know those works particularly well, but is there a correlation between the Music he wrote in Russia before 1920, that which he wrote in the States in the '20s, and again in the Soviet Union in the '30s & '40s?

[Richard Barrett]

Moving even further away from the topic, I wonder if Dave's suggestion might have a bearing on the work of Prokofiev? I don't know those works particularly well, but is there a correlation between the Music he wrote in Russia before 1920, that which he wrote in the States in the '20s, and again in the Soviet Union in the '30s & '40s?

I'm not a Prokofiev expert but I have the impression he always wrote with a Russian orchestral sound in mind (much use of low-register trumpets for example).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not a Prokofiev expert but I have the impression he always wrote with a Russian orchestral sound in mind (much use of low-register trumpets for example).

Oh yes - that's a definite Prokofiev characteristic.

[HighlandDougie]

Thanks Cali. I am rather anxious to know what Forum Members think about the recordings that Andre Previn made with the LSO of DS's music? I feel that the 4th, 5th, and 8th are one of the highpoints of his tenure there.

BBM

Apologies for nitpicking but Previn's 4th is with the Chicago SO. The EMI recording of the 5th is also with that orchestra; the earlier RCA recording is with the LSO. The EMI 8th is with the LSO. I had the LPs of all of them but haven't heard them for a long time. Loved the 8th, less impressed with the 4th (compared with Kondrashin) and the RCA LSO 5th rather paled set against Ancerl.

[jayne lee wilson]

Cheers CS - I'd found it quite quickly in fact, just putting Svetlanov in the search box and glancing through the albums knowing what the cover looks like thanks to the HMVdigital Petrushka posted above.





Yes but not with the Berlin Phil - the CD I referred to was a one-off concert performance I think.

Incidentally while writing, NB all that Jurowski's performing No 15 with the LPO next Wednesday 22nd and it's live on R3

There was never a complete Sanderling DSCH cycle (that really would be buried treasure - well apart from 15 of course...). AFAIK, All we have are the often-reissued Berlin Classics/Edel Berlin SO recordings of 1,5,6,8,10 and 15; the Swedish RSO of No.8; the French NO one of No.10; a 15th in Cleveland; finally that live Philharmoniker 15th.

That Jurowski concert does look inviting, with the Denisov, and Kopatchinskaya in the Berg. I often forget to check the listings these days... but will try to attend in the HCH...

[Nick Armstrong]

There was never a complete Sanderling DSCH cycle (that really would be buried treasure - well apart from 15 of course...). AFAIK, All we have are the often-reissued Berlin Classics/Edel Berlin SO recordings of 1,5,6,8,10 and 15; the Swedish RSO of No.8; the French NO one of No.10; a 15th in Cleveland; finally that live Philharmoniker 15th.

That Jurowski concert does look inviting, with the Denisov, and Kopatchinskaya in the Berg. I often forget to check the listings these days... but will try to attend in the HCH...

Thanks jayne - I've never investigated the Berlin Classics series, I'd assumed wrongly that it was complete.

[cloughie]

BBM

Apologies for nitpicking but Previn's 4th is with the Chicago SO. The EMI recording of the 5th is also with that orchestra; the earlier RCA recording is with the LSO. The EMI 8th is with the LSO. I had the LPs of all of them but haven't heard them for a long time. Loved the 8th, less impressed with the 4th (compared with Kondrashin) and the RCA LSO 5th rather paled set against Ancerl.

There is also a later LSO 8 on DG, and 6, 10 and 13 with LSO on EMI.

[Dave2002]

The presence of DSCH at rehearsals and performances of his orchestral works working with the Musicians of one of the greatest orchestras ever recorded means that the onus is on you to demonstrate that these are not the sort of timbres, tempi, and/or orchestral balances he preferred.

You have supplied extra information which would tend to indicate that you are correct. Thank you for that - it does tend to sway my opinion. I still think some of the Russian recordings are pretty bad, though perhaps the later ones, which I've not heard, are indeed better.

You may like to note that I did indeed value the performances by Russian orchestras which I heard in 1968 and the 1970s very highly - but I was trying to make that point.

I take the point also that some of these performances may in fact be "more authentic" than some so-called authentic performances of works by Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc., where we have only a few ways of knowing - though some are trying to make a best guess at instruments, timbres, and styles of performance of music of pre 20th Century musicians.

There is no onus on me to do anything - I can think for myself. You can choose to ignore or accept my input, as I can do yours. Both of us have views which are based on experience, access to some information, and some not so explicit beliefs. One such belief relates to whether the composer is always the best judge, or has the right to "own" his or her own work. Mostly I do believe that. One has also to take into account the role of the audience - which these days may be "measured" by CD sales or other seemingly obvioius metrics. A composer who only writes for him/herself may have no need of an audience. I'm not a composer, so I don't know what motivates composers. It's probably a complex mix of trying to survive financially by creating works which will gain some acceptance, and hence bring revenue, plus some other artistic values - a desire to create new things. Shostakovich is even more difficult to assess, as it seems fairly clear that he was not writing in a political vacuum.

[richardfinegold]

I think that Dave has done a good job holding down the fort while I was busy stamping out disease today.
I think the notion that Shostakovich would have viewed blatty Soviet brass and other imperfections of the Soviet playing/sound reproduction as the ideal that he would have strived for in his writing as ludicrous. We know that he sought scores and recordings from the West at every opportunity, when even to try to obtain them would possibly invite the most severe of repercussions. We know that he positively leapt at every chance that he was offered to work with non Soviet musicians, even if he had to pay the price of being exploited by the regime for propaganda purposes ( his trips to Dresden, New York, etc). At the bare minimum, we can infer that his attitude would have been "viva la difference" regarding differences in styles between Soviet and Western orchestras.
Throw in his love of Mahler, Bach, Wagner, American Jazz and Tin Pan Alley, Gershwin, and so forth and he emerges as a much less specefically Russian musician, and more of an International and cosmopolitan (to ironically borrow a term that was used against him by Stalin's henchmen) Composer. Given that orientation, the importance of Russian only interpreters diminishes. And if having Russian players is of value, many of the Western Orchestras have had their ranks swollen by Russian emigres.
I prefer interpreters that emphasize his links to Bach, Beethoven, Mahler etc , and less to Glinka and Khachiturian. The Fitwilliams, Haitink, Nelsons, V Petrenko, Bernstein fit the bill. It's a matter of taste and preference. However, I think it is a mark of greatness when the music of a Composer does not depend upon the advocacy of his/her compatriots, and becomes truly universal

[BBMmk2]

BBM

Apologies for nitpicking but Previn's 4th is with the Chicago SO. The EMI recording of the 5th is also with that orchestra; the earlier RCA recording is with the LSO. The EMI 8th is with the LSO. I had the LPs of all of them but haven't heard them for a long time. Loved the 8th, less impressed with the 4th (compared with Kondrashin) and the RCA LSO 5th rather paled set against Ancerl.

Many thanks, HD. Yes you are right there. I was thinking of the earlier RCA recording of the 5th as well. which I think is much better than the later Chicago version

[BBMmk2]

There is also a later LSO 8 on DG, and 6, 10 and 13 with LSO on EMI.

I never knew about the later LSO on DG. Thank you cloughie.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

rfg presents a very common-sense-based summary by somebody with a proper job of his preferences. But there are holes in his presentation which become immediately obvious when he refers to "blatty Soviet brass" - now, if this were a quotation from the composer, his case would be won hands down, and it would be a very foolish person who would argue against him (not that I have ever let a little matter like that stop me). But it isn't such a quotation - it's a projection onto the composer of rfg's own preferences; preferences that many (including Alpie) share, but which some Musicians (who lament the demise of such individual timbral characteristics) don't.

The presentation then moves away from the sound of Russian orchestras onto DSCH's internationalism - arguing against an argument that hasn't been put forward. No one has suggested that DSCH didn't seek scores and recordings from the West, nor that he was a narrow, parochially-minded nationalist; nor that he didn't enjoy/relish the sound of his work as played by non-Russian Musicians. (Nor, for that matter, that these can be preferable to some Soviet performances - as I said, I personally prefer Haitink to many Soviet-era performances.)

What has been stated, by Petrushka and myself, is that the sounds of the orchestras that he grew up hearing - long before he heard any recordings - and that surrounded him when he was writing them, and that he worked with in rehearsal and preparation for their premieres, ensured that we hear the sort of tempi, balances, and timbres that he had in mind. These (perhaps paradoxically) emphasise the composer's links with the Germanic masters that the composer adored quite as clearly as do the Western orchestras - but they ALSO emphasise the Russian sound that is also at the root of his language; far from diminishing the importance of Russian performers, this enhances their importance - making clear the rich amalgam of ingredients that make up his individual style that some Western orchestras smooth over in their performances, precisely because they are focussed on "emphasizing the links with Bach, Beethoven, Mahler" at the expense of the links with Glinka and Musorgsky. Which is not to say that his work "depend[s] on the advocacy of his compatriots", but that, if we're genuinely keen on the "truly universal" aspects of his work, then it's paradoxical to then play down (and even deride) the specifically Russian-sounding elements. Personally - and acknowledging that this is indeed a matter of personal taste and preference - I think the notion that Shostakovich would have considered Western-style performances preferable to those of the Musicians with whom he worked is ludicrous.

[Pulcinella]

The Fitzwilliam Quartet gave the UK premieres of DSCH's final three quartets, number 13 with the composer present, and according to Britten (in this link: http://www.fitzwilliamquartet.org/biography.html) they were the composer's favourite interpreters of his quartets.
I wonder what appealed to DSCH about the Fitzwilliams, and what he might have said to them at rehearsals.
It's all probably documented somewhere.

[Alison]

Enjoyed the universality debate. My personal taste is western probably because I grew up with this music played in London concert halls played by the resident orchestras. Occasional forays into Soviet performances havent brought the extra revelations clearly experienced by others.

If anything my problem has been with Berlin and Vienna Philharmonic performances where the extra luxuriance has rather blunted pleasure.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Enjoyed the universality debate. My personal taste is western probably because I grew up with this music played in London concert halls played by the resident orchestras. Occasional forays into Soviet performances havent brought the extra revelations clearly experienced by others.

- rfg has a profession that brings him into contact with more traumatic matters in a month than I experienced in my entire career as a teacher. It would be churlish in the extreme for me to suggest that the recordings that he loves and which help sustain his emotional equilibrium are "wrong" and he must stop listening to them AT ONCE! - and that has not been my intention. (Which, come to think of it, is juat as well - if it had, rfg knows all the latin names of the places that he would be quite in order to suggest where I might take such an intention.) All but one of my Live concert experiences of DSCH's works have been given by Western orchestras, and - insofar as I have enjoyed the Music - the performances have given me great pleasure, excitement, and fulfilment.

The extra "tang" of the timbres of those pre-homogenised Russian instruments add an extra frisson that I regret has been lost - a frisson that ensured that the sound connected the Music both to its Germanic and Russian roots. There is nothing (AFAIK - and nobody has yet provided anything to suggest otherwise) to suggest that the composer disliked this Russian sound, or preferred the Western version(s) in Live performance (I could understand that he might well have preferred European recording standards) - and plenty to suggest that he was more than happy to work with the sounds of his native orchestras (and the balances and tempi he would get from their conductors) even when he appreciated the performances by foreign orchestras of the same works. (Just as, parenthetically, I'm sure Bruckner would have appreciated Mravinsky's performances of his Ninth Symphony and Rozhdestvensky's performances of the cycle of Bruckner symphonies.) These were the orchestral sounds he knew would be produced at the premieres of the works - the performances he knew would occur - so the recordings of those performances do privilege us by taking us* closer to the sounds he worked with; whether or not we like them or can tolerate the recorded sound quality.

If anything my problem has been with Berlin and Vienna Philharmonic performances where the extra luxuriance has rather blunted pleasure.

- Karajan with the Berliners are a special case, though; and I love the Mravinskian speed of the finale of the Tenth in HvK's second recording. I hope the Live in Moscow recording becomes affordably available soon.

Edit: * = those of us interested in such matters, of course.