Prom 69: Boston Symphony Orchestra Bernstein and Shostakovich – 3.09.18

[edashtav]

I am rather taken with the composer's own version of the 4th, for 2 pianos, four hands, as played by him with Weinberg, for a select few, during the 1940's. There is a much more recent performance recorded by Chandos.

That’s an interesting observation, Bryn, so when DSCH described his 4th as a failure in 1956, he would have done so knowing his work from that two piano version.

[BBMmk2]

This has to be one of the best live performances in this season of the Proms. Words are superlative.

[Pulcinella]

This has to be one of the best live performances in this season of the Proms. Words are superlative.

Which dead performance has been the best so far, then, BBM?


You might mean TV broadcast to watch, which we did last night.
I was a little surprised, given that the team has recorded the Berstein, that Alsop didn't seem as comfortable with it as she did with the Shostakovich. She didn't seem to engage much (eye contact) with the players in either main work (even without the score in the Shostakovich, but maybe in that case she was concentrating hard on trying to remember it instead!).
I was a little surprised too, if J-YT is such an exponent of the work as SK told us he was, that he needed the score: but the rate at which the pages got turned over was perhaps a clue. I wonder how it ranks in the 'fiendishness' scale for a piano soloist.
They certainly got good use out of their orchestral keyboard player too: two other pianos on stage and a celesta for her to play.

[BBMmk2]

Which dead performance has been the best so far, then, BBM?


You might mean TV broadcast to watch, which we did last night.
I was a little surprised, given that the team has recorded the Berstein, that Alsop didn't seem as comfortable with it as she did with the Shostakovich. She didn't seem to engage much (eye contact) with the players in either main work (even without the score in the Shostakovich, but maybe in that case she was concentrating hard on trying to remember it instead!).
I was a little surprised too, if J-YT is such an exponent of the work as SK told us he was, that he needed the score: but the rate at which the pages got turned over was perhaps a clue. I wonder how it ranks in the 'fiendishness' scale for a piano soloist.
They certainly got good use out of their orchestral keyboard player too: two other pianos on stage and a celesta for her to play.

There are several Prom concerts I need to catch up on TV.

[ahinton]

I had a book on musical appreciation, given to me in the 1960s. It says that Shostakovich 4 was destroyed by the composer. Maybe there's still hope for Sib. 8.

There's no evidence of this and, whilst its full score is not known still to exist, the orchestral parts survived whatever might have happened to that score (and the 2-piano version remained in existence).

[ahinton]

Boulez put them all in the single category : third pressing Mahler [as in olive-oil fractions]

That "comparison" has always struck me as odd, since Boulez caimed to admire Mahler yet at the same time openly detested Shostakovich; for all that the statement lacks anything meaningful, one might as well wonder whether he sought to draw a distinction between symphonies of the unfiltered / organic / extra virgin variety...

[ahinton]

Well, JLW expresses the hope that I see this thread and I confess that I did not do so until this morning otherwise I'd have offered my own two-pennarth about the Shostakovich. Like Jayne and others, I find the Fourth Sympohony one of the peaks of Shostakovich's achievement and I suspect that his criticism of it in the mid 1950s carries about as much weight (and was perhaps fuelled by a similar kind of externally imposed necessity) as the "Soviet artist's reply to just criticism" attributed to him in respect of its immediate symphonic successor. He did indeed perform a volte-face on this in the aftermath of its première some five years later, encouraged, no doubt, by the performance.

I have little to add to Jayne's excellent good sense (no surprise there, then!) about this monumental work other, perhaps, than to mention that the first recording of it that I ever acquired (sadly, I no longer have it) was that by the Philadephia Orchestra under Ormandy in which the notes by Peter Heyworth referred to a "sprawling canvas" or some such thing which, even on first hearing, struck me as most peculiar, given that the whole seemed to me to be a most successful melding of sonata form principles and episodic writing and that an acute sense of logical narrative underpinned the whole, even the passages that the innocent-eared newcomer might least have expected to occur where they do. Yes, the proportions of the movements are perhaps somewhat unusual, its middle one being so much shorter than the outer ones. The one exception to the sense of direction that informs the remainder of the symphony seems to me to be the passage immediately preceding the lead-up to the heavy brass and timpani laden peroration towards the work's close, but even this strikes me as an episode deliberately contrived to make the listener wonder where on earth the music is going and why, which makes that chorale outburst all the more effective when it does come, seemingly out of nowhere. What's also extraordinary about the beginning of the symphony's two-section coda is the sheer extent of the mock-triumphalism that characterises it; one has only to compare its C major opening to the beginning of "Praise to the holiest" in Gerontius and "Die Sonne" from Gurrelieder, for example, to be struck by how the latter two are of a glorious and victorious manner whereas the Shostakovich is dripping with tragedy - a remarkable achievement in itself.

Edashtav's remarks are very interesting, not least in his references to the Sorabji Sixth Piano Symphony (I attended Jonathan Powell's spectacular performance of this in Oxford as well!), although it is not acceptable for a tightly organised symphony to "luxuriate" if and when its music needs to?(!). Sorabji himself seemed for years to take every opportunity and none to denounce Shostakovich as a mere over-publicised Soviet lackey who pressed into service such talent as he possessed in order to become "the universal provider of the commonplace"; he deplored the Seventh Symphony in particular. When I asked him about this, he admitted that he thought Shostakovich's First Symphony promised so much which most of his subsequent work deplorably failed to deliver, but I doubted how many of the composer's works to which he had actually listened in recent years; this was in the early 1970s and I urged him to give Shostakovich another go, which he did, with the First Violin Concerto, Tenth Symphony, Thirteenth Symphony and, finally, the Fourth Symphony and the outcome was the most complete volte-face about any composer's work that he ever made. He particularly admired the way the first movement of the Tenth Symphony seemed as though given in one long breath and the Fourth Symphony's closeness to his beloved Mahler and the extended pedal point with which the symphony closes. So much had his views changed, in fact, that he worried as to whether Shostakovich might ever have read any of his damning critical writings about him or had them drawn to his attention and I said that I thought this to be most unlikely. He was unconveinced, however, and even planned to write a letter of apology to Shostakovich; he might well have done this but for Shostakovich's death...

I digress, of course (for which I ask forgiveness) - but I have to agree with Jayne that Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony is indeed one of the greatest from the past century, along with Mahler's Sixth and Ninth, Schmidt's Fourth and a handful of others, not least his own Tenth.

[edashtav]

That "comparison" has always struck me as odd, since Boulez caimed to admire Mahler yet at the same time openly detested Shostakovich; for all that the statement lacks anything meaningful, one might as well wonder whether he sought to draw a distinction between symphonies of the unfiltered / organic / extra virgin variety...

Not to mention ‘cold-pressed’, ahinton.

[edashtav]

Thank you, Ahinton, for your fascinating revelations re Sorabji’s late volte-face over the music of Shostakovich. I first got acquainted with KSS’s thoughts when sent to Bournemouth School’s library during Wednesday afternoon 6th form games’ sessions, from which I was exempted. What were on the shelves? Around Music and Mi Contra fa by KSS. Being young and impressionable, the strong opinions expressed in the two books shaped my attitudes.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That "comparison" has always struck me as odd, since Boulez caimed to admire Mahler yet at the same time openly detested Shostakovich; for all that the statement lacks anything meaningful, one might as well wonder whether he sought to draw a distinction between symphonies of the unfiltered / organic / extra virgin variety...

I think it was a bit more than just a "claim" - Boulez' Mahler performances and recordings demonstrate deep understanding and remarkable perception of that Music. And Boulez isn't the only Musician to admire Mahler but dislike (or, at least, avoid the majority of) Shostakovich's Music (I think that Haitink is the only conductor who has recorded complete Symphony cycles of both.)

But the Olive Oil comparison seems as silly to me as Karajan's describing Elgar as "second-hand Brahms". Conductors are prone to voicing "interesting" opinions - Bernstein's reaction to Bruckner made it quite clear that the conductor put the composer firmly in the "Extra Virgin" category, f'rinstance.

[ahinton]

Not to mention ‘cold-pressed’, ahinton.

Indeed - and I didn't mention it because Maître Pierre had already famously done so!

[ahinton]

I think it was a bit more than just a "claim" - Boulez' Mahler performances and recordings demonstrate deep understanding and remarkable perception of that Music. And Boulez isn't the only Musician to admire Mahler but dislike (or, at least, avoid the majority of) Shostakovich's Music (I think that Haitink is the only conductor who has recorded complete Symphony cycles of both.)

But the Olive Oil comparison seems as silly to me as Karajan's describing Elgar as "second-hand Brahms". Conductors are prone to voicing "interesting" opinions - Bernstein's reaction to Bruckner made it quite clear that the conductor put the composer firmly in the "Extra Virgin" category, f'rinstance.

Well, yes - I used the word "claim" not to imply any doubting as to the veracity of Boulez's remark about Mahler but merely to point out that he did actually say something about it; "statement" might therefore have been more appropriate.

But yes, I agree about both Boulez's and Karajan's observations which each tell more about them than they do about Shostakovich or Elgar (or Mahler or Brahms, for that matter).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

.. a most successful melding of sonata form principles and episodic writing and that an acute sense of logical narrative underpinned the whole.

Absolutely - the work is a magnificent fusing of two seemingly contradictory Musical traditions: the older Symphonic inheritance from Tchaikovsky and Mahler, with the newer "modular" structuring of Debussy and Stravinsky: the challenge to the Symphonist to revitalise the Sonata Principle with the Fauvist dynamism created in The Rite of Spring. So, Shostakovich sets up a work-long opposition between the March and the Waltz - juxtaposing and superimposing the different "personalities" between and within these two Musical types (military march, funeral march, parade - Viennese waltz, Landler, Valse Triste) that plays out magnificently over the entire work, sometimes seeking to reconcile the two characters, but never quite succeeding - but revealing/discovering new Musical "territories" as a result, which are far more interesting than a successful reconciliation could have been. (And that's leaving out of the discussion the Tonal narrative of the work, and its perfect and individual instrumentation.)

Structurally, there is nothing in the Symphony that is unfamiliar to listeners familiar with both the Mahler Sixth and the Rite - nothing extraneous; every moment is essential - and is as astonishing an Artwork as either of those. The pinnacle of the composer's entire output as far as I'm concerned - only the Fifteenth matches it - and, yes, one of the greatest Symphonies of the Twentieth - or any other - Century.

[ahinton]

Absolutely - the work is a magnificent fusing of two seemingly contradictory Musical traditions: the older Symphonic inheritance from Tchaikovsky and Mahler, with the newer "modular" structuring of Debussy and Stravinsky: the challenge to the Symphonist to revitalise the Sonata Principle with the Fauvist dynamism created in The Rite of Spring. So, Shostakovich sets up a work-long opposition between the March and the Waltz - juxtaposing and superimposing the different "personalities" between and within these two Musical types (military march, funeral march, parade - Viennese waltz, Landler, Valse Triste) that plays out magnificently over the entire work, sometimes seeking to reconcile the two characters, but never quite succeeding - but revealing/discovering new Musical "territories" as a result, which are far more interesting than a successful reconciliation could have been. (And that's leaving out of the discussion the Tonal narrative of the work, and its perfect and individual instrumentation.)

Structurally, there is nothing in the Symphony that is unfamiliar to listeners familiar with both the Mahler Sixth and the Rite - nothing extraneous; every moment is essential - and is as astonishing an Artwork as either of those. The pinnacle of the composer's entire output as far as I'm concerned - only the Fifteenth matches it - and, yes, one of the greatest Symphonies of the Twentieth - or any other - Century.

Loud cheers to that! Very well put!

[edashtav]

Absolutely - the work is a magnificent fusing of two seemingly contradictoryi7 Musical traditions: the older Symphonic inheritance from Tchaikovsky and Mahler, with the newer "modular" structuring of Debussy and Stravinsky: the challenge to the Symphonist to revitalise the Sonata Principle with the Fauvist dynamism created in The Rite of Spring. So, Shostakovich sets up a work-long opposition between the March and the Waltz - juxtaposing and superimposing the different "personalities" between and within these two Musical types (military march, funeral march, parade - Viennese waltz, Landler, Valse Triste) that plays out magnificently over the entire work, sometimes seeking to reconcile the two characters, but never quite succeeding - but revealing/discovering new Musical "territories" as a result, which are far more interesting than a successful reconciliation could have been. (And that's leaving out of the discussion the Tonal narrative of the work, and its perfect and individual instrumentation.)

Structurally, there is nothing in the Symphony that is unfamiliar to listeners familiar with both the Mahler Sixth and the Rite - nothing extraneous; every moment is essential - and is as astonishing an Artwork as either of those. The pinnacle of the composer's entire output as far as I'm concerned - only the Fifteenth matches it - and, yes, one of the greatest Symphonies of the Twentieth - or any other - Century.

I have to echo ahinton’s paean of praise for this post, Ferney, for it’s thoughtful and, I think, original in its approach. Whilst I can go all the way and bow my head in abasement having been battered by bumpers from For 3’s fastest bowlers, I
need to be circumspect faced with such testimonies.

I still feel that whilst Shostakovich’s 4th has defensible virtues, it is not to be rated as great. On my side of the divide is Robin Holloway who wrote a savage piece in the magazine The Spectator in 1907. Here are two paragraphs (the emboldening is mine) culled from Galina [please don’t call me DSCH’s pupil] Ustvolskaya’s website:

[…]’In fact the 15 symphonies, for all that they contain the worst of him (outside copious commercial/functional jobs), are far more various in range as well as quality. No.1 still remains a perfect product of adolescent genius, setting up all his later routines with effervescent freshness and brevity – perky, energetic, hectic, sentimental, tragic – before they set in cement. The wild constructivism of the next two and the sheer bravura excess of the 4th can sweep all before them provided one doesn't look too closely. This early phase now stands as Shostakovich's clear high-point, its twin peaks the two operas, The Nose, a masterpiece of zany Dada, and the great but equivocal Lady Macbeth. For the problems begin before the official repression. Was Stalin so wholly wrong about this work? The prevalence of parody, `wrong-note' strains used equally to make frenzied murder and incompetent policemen look absurd, and above all the massed bands accompanying the guilty adulterous bed, are deeply subversive and offensive and are meant to be. Lady Macbeth knocks us for six, but humane it is not, till in the closing scene the defensive grimace subsides and such overwhelming pity is evoked that reproach is abashed (unfortunately Stalin had long since left the theatre in disgust).

[…]
The terrible nature of Shostakovich's circumstances mustn't prevent a balanced response to his actual notes. If it does, emotional blackmail is committed, which for all its rewards involves illusion and delusion – a flattering identification with suffering heroism, a holier-than-thou priggishness in the rush to empathise with oppression. To deplore this is to risk appearing stony-hearted. But what else is there to go on, in works of art, but their artistic workmanship – in music, the actual notes? All human experience can be encompassed and expressed in music's actual notes, when they show themselves to be capable of containing what's entrusted to them. Chez [?]Shostakovich I submit that the intrinsic quality of most of the oeuvre is not strong enough to carry the weight currently put on it – which suggests in turn that what is required of it is lightweight too.”

You will note that Holloway’s second paragraph deals with what I term the “special pleading” for DSCH that is evident in Jayne’s defence of his music.

I shall end this post by quoting Pierre putting a bit more detail about his Shostakovian blind-spot:

Boulez never conducted the music of Shostakovich. "I have to tell you that I have very mixed feelings about this music. It is often said that Shostakovich is the `more recent' equivalent of Mahler; but I would say that to compare Shostakovich with Mahler is like comparing Meyerbeer with Wagner. The musical substance of his work is trivial. Okay, I can accept that he worked under great pressure, that he was afraid and that he rebelled discreetly. But, for me, that's not enough of an excuse." (Independent, 29 Jan 1999)