Shostakovich: which one is your favourite amongst his works?

[Alison]

A vote for the sixth symphony provided it receives a superlative performance.

[Barbirollians]

The Piano Concerto with Trumpet - especially if Martha Argerich is at the piano !

[Ferretfancy]

The Piano Concerto with Trumpet - especially if Martha Argerich is at the piano !

A slight digression, but the 4 CD set from Argerich and Friends at Lugano last year is a must! Wonderful Mozart, Schumann, Prokofiev and others at the price of a single CD.

[Bryn]

A slight digression, but the 4 CD set from Argerich and Friends at Lugano last year is a must! Wonderful Mozart, Schumann, Prokofiev and others at the price of a single CD.

Is that not a 3 disc set?

[Tapiola]

My own favourite Shostakovich:

Symphonies 14 and 15
String Quartets 6 and 14
Michelangelo Suite (original bass and piano version)
Piano Trio 2

[ahinton]

I've been giving a lot more thought to this very difficult question and going through most of the Shostakovich that I know. Shostakovich's output is studded with so many priceless gems of music that choosing just one as a favourite is harder that the "if you could take only one" question posed near the end of each edition of Desert Island Discs - but if I'm going to put a gun at my own head ("fire! fire!" I could imagine one or two members shouting!), then yes, it just has to be the Fourth Symphony. It's curious that his initial sketches for this monumental work reveal what to all intents and purposes look to be a quite different piece from the one that we know. That he achieved what he did in this work before even reaching the age of 30 is astonishing even by his own exalted standards; that he and the rest of us had to wait more than a quarter century to hear it is almost as deep a tragedy as that portayed in its coda. I understand that, after its première near the close of 1961, he expressed the view that it was his best work of all.

And a warm welcome back to jlw from me, too! for all that I cannot quite equate to your estimation of the Seventh Symphony (though what you write is yet another example of your typical persuasive eloquence in such matters).

[edashtav]

I place 4 and 15 above all else in his symphonic output with 5 and 10 not far behind - but for me it HAS to be the 7th, the Great Symphony of the Siege of Leningrad...

What a redoubtable defence Jayne Lee - those stout citizens who gave their all for Leningrad deserve no less, but your piece is even more impressive when naysayers like me are ready with a sack of dried peas and a homemade firing iron to pepper your post with a fusillade of nasty adjectives about this work: my top ten are :

Bombastic
Appalling
Repetitious
Unworthy
Banal
Trivial
Vacuous
Rebarbative
Unsubtle
Boring.


All that from someone who enjoys most of Shostakovich's works almost as much as Caliban does!

Only one other piece causes me similar distress : Mahler's 8th!

But... keep at it Jayne Lee... maybe I'll suffer a death-bed conversion and that may save me from ... a fate worse than death!

[Roehre]

....
Bombastic
Appalling
Repetitious
Unworthy
Banal
Trivial
Vacuous
Rebarbative
Unsubtle
Boring.....
:

copied some 1920s/1930s critic re Mahler, Edastav

[edashtav]

copied some 1920s/1930s critic re Mahler, Edastav

Oh... Roehre, you could be right.

I must pray every night until I see the light.

I was so angry after hearing the Leningrad a couple of times that I've avoided contact with it for a quarter of a century. Am I man enough to give it another go?

[Petrushka]

Coming late to this thread. JLW isn't alone in rating the 7th so highly. The 5th would be my first choice, I think, but the 7th isn't far behind and JLW's eloquence is almost enough for me to grant it the top spot as I agree with all she says. One of the most telling passages in Testimony is Shostakovich saying that the Psalms of David should be read before a performance, particularly those to do with vengeance. Take a look at Psalm 94 for example and you can hear the fist-shaking ending of the work. There's much that's controversial about Testimony but I feel that this comment rings very true.

The Leningrad Symphony still seems misunderstood even after all the ink that has been spilt on the subject of DSCH and his works in the past 35 years or so since the publication of Testimony

[Suffolkcoastal]

The 7th isn't as bad as been suggested over the years, but I personally don't find it amongst hShostakovich's very finest work either. I still get much more out of the bleak passacaglia in the 8th Symphony.
For me its a close race between his 4th Symphony a work of great originality and nightmarish vision and the 15th probably amongst the most enigmatic of symphonies, which has me ever more puzzled and questioning every time I hear it. I also have a high regard for the 13th probably the most Russian of all his works. Of the chamber works I prefer the Piano Quintet, and the earlier string quartets to the later ones apart from No 12 which I regard very highly. Both Violin & Cello concertos I admire too, the 2nd Cello Concerto being almost as enigmatic at the 15th Symphony. I don't we should overlook Lady Macbeth either, amongst the best 20th century operas IMHO.

[Bryn]

Regarding the 7th, a release on BBC Legends of one of Ted Downes' recorded performances is long overdue.

[Barbirollians]

I think the Leningrad symphony is a masterpiece . It has to be understood in the context of its time and listened to in that manner .

It is undoubtedly vastly superior to self indulgent barbed wire nonsense such as the Lachenmann played at the Proms

[Roehre]

I think the Leningrad symphony is a masterpiece . It has to be understood in the context of its time and listened to in that manner .

It is undoubtedly vastly superior to self indulgent barbed wire nonsense such as the Lachenmann played at the Proms

I'm afraid this is a contradictio in terminis, Barbirollians.
Masterpieces are timeless, which listeners must be able to understand without the context of its time and being listened to in that manner. If that weren't the case, future generations were unable to understand the work, and consequently it is no masterpiece.

Btw, you seem to be really prescient in judging Lachenmann right now

[Barbirollians]

I'm afraid this is a contradictio in terminis, Barbirollians.
Masterpieces are timeless, which listeners must be able to understand without the context of its time and listened to in that manner. If that weren't the case, future generations were unable to understand the work, and consequently it is no masterpiece.

Not at all - the same applies IMO to Fidelio and many works of literature.

The banality of that symphony is in the context of the banality of evil . A work that is expressly related to a historical event should be considered and listened to in that context.