Originally posted by Alain Maréchal
View Post
BaL 05.04.25 - Shostakovich: Symphony 10
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BillMatters View PostI have always thought the second movement was more a portrait of those who had to work for Stalin, i.e. rushing around to do his bidding and thereby stay alive.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by oliver sudden View Post
That certainly seems a much more realistic interpretation than the Testimony version!"The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard Haitink
Comment
-
-
That's interesting, Petrushka. I had thought that Testimony had been conclusively discredited, thoough as I haven't read it I'm not in a position to say. . I've always relied on Isak Glikman's book of letters (Faber) but I've not had a chance to see if and where it contradicts what is said in Testimony.
I do sometimes think, though, that disporportionate attention is paid to the possible links between recent composers' lives, the political events taking place at the time, and their music. Maybe it's because those events are so close to today. This isn't done wth composers who lives centuries ago and whose lives or political views are obscured from us by time and an absence of documentation.
Comment
-
-
There are two particular issues, I suppose. One is whether the things in the book are plausible as coming from Shostakovich, the other is whether it is indeed, as it purports to be, a text by Shostakovich dictated to and edited by Volkov.
There’s a quote from Maxim on the Wikipedia page:
David Fanning … [asked Maxim] in 1991 if his attitude toward Testimony had changed in any way: "No, I would still say it's a book about my father, not by him. The conversations about Glazunov, Meyerhold, Zoshchenko are one thing. But it also contains rumours, and sometimes false rumours. It's a collection of different things —real documentary fact and rumour. But what's more important is that when we take this book in our hands we can imagine what this composer's life was like in this particular political situation —how difficult, how awful it was under the Stalin regime.”Last edited by oliver sudden; Yesterday, 09:50.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by smittims View PostThat's interesting, Petrushka. I had thought that Testimony had been conclusively discredited, thoough as I haven't read it I'm not in a position to say. . I've always relied on Isak Glikman's book of letters (Faber) but I've not had a chance to see if and where it contradicts what is said in Testimony.
I do sometimes think, though, that disporportionate attention is paid to the possible links between recent composers' lives, the political events taking place at the time, and their music. Maybe it's because those events are so close to today. This isn't done wth composers who lives centuries ago and whose lives or political views are obscured from us by time and an absence of documentation.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Petrushka View Post
The second movement needs to sound totally vicious, almost unhinged, and then you get the 'portrait of Stalin'. Exhilarating? It should be like the hounds of Hell snapping at your heels!
Comment
-
-
David Gutman dealt with this work in 'Gramophone' in 2021:
Love it or hate it, the work has attracted countless interpreters – from both the East and the West. David Gutman relishes these aural riches
Interesting choice(s).
I've been bemoaning for ages not being able to find the very elusive HvK live in Moscow version (which I remember downloading as the CD is rare and expensive) among the chaos of my downloads only to be delighted to discover that it is now - cheaply and easily - available from Presto. Not the Highest of Fi but it's a terrific performance.
Comment
-
Comment