|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.208.117.121
In Reply to: RE: OK - you convinced me (even though I don't like shostakovitch!) - it's downloading now posted by Chris from Lafayette on March 25, 2017 at 10:04:21
,
Follow Ups:
Madeline says it's bigly hideous! ;-)
(She'd never heard it before.)
Really, turned up ALL the way?
I couldn't come close to that without leaving the house!
50-60% on my Tube Gear, and 10:30 on the Solid Stage Gear, usually a good bit less, depending on Music and Source Component.
I regularly get my ears blown out on gigs, don't want that at home...
It was about 50% - I'd get thrown out of the house if it was much more than that! ;-)
Ah, got it!
Being thrown out is better than being blown out, tho.
Not fair. I can't listen until tonight. Don't you just love the way the sound in that hall expands without becoming harsh?
don't even bother if you don't pay careful attention to that. The history here is vital.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
When music is dependent on its text or its non-musical background to such an extent, so much the worse for the music itself. Unfortunately, this kind of dependence occurs far too often in far too many of Shostakovitch's works. And as I've said before, this situation has given rise to a certain class of listeners who consider themselves Shostakovitch experts just because they've been initiated into the secret non-musical background (culled from the pages of "Testimony" and other crap musical literature) of many of Shostakovitch's works. Music should rise or fall on the basis of its own merit - not because of some story about some evil Kommissar.
you're probably right, but I still wonder if I don't hear "Nazi" when I listen to Wagner.
Jeremy
Shosty stands on its own. Just consider the string quartets. They are the quintessential reference for rainy, overcast themes via shosty's tonal palette which consists of grey, grey and then some more grey. Shosty is my favorite composer because he brings out emotions thru dissonance and the heavy tonal pallet.
I liked shosty long before I read of his background and context.
All this said, to each his own. I don't like Mozart , but love shosty.
a miserable, cold, windy, bleak, gray winter afternoon, watching the sleet or freezing rain outside while downing a tumbler or two of straight vodka. Shostakovich is all about quintessentially Russian black comedy or blacker tragedy.
As French as Debussy is, as British as Elgar is, as American as Copland is, as Spanish as Granados is, as Hungarian as Bartok is, Shostakovich is even more Russian. Those who can't or won't put themselves in that frame of mind may as well go elsewhere.
Pretty much sums it up.
I would rather listen to almost any other Russian composer. Wait a minute - strike the "almost" from that sentence!
The problem with Shostakovitch is not that he's Russian. No, the real problem is that he often writes very poor-quality music IMHO! Which is then often excused (even venerated!) by a coterie of listeners who insist that the subjective quality of the music will greatly improve, if only one studies the tangential, non-musical aspects of the works sufficiently well.)
To paraphrase Playboy readers, I only listen to Shostakovich for the music.
Classic!
At the risk of igniting a semantics debate, I'd suggest that in the case of many of Shostakovich's works--aside, for example, from his reliance on Yevtushenko's text in the Thirteenth--it might be more accurate to portray the music as not so much dependent on its non-musical background as reflective or evocative or expositive of it (the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fifteenth Symphonies, as well as the Eighth String Quartet, come to mind). You may consider that a distinction without a difference, but to me it sets the tone, if you will, for how I'll listen to the piece and determine whether it "speaks" to me "musically".
I'm no Shostakovich "expert", though I've read what you deem "crap" in addition to any number of other works and commentaries and actually have the protagonist of one of my unpublished novels interview the composer, which in turn leads Shostakovich to provide the solution to one of the protagonist's thorniest problems. But I think context (including what you call "non-musical background") is not necessarily detractive from (nor condemnatory of) a composer's work. I mean, what's Fantastique without Harriet Smithson?
Okay, I got that out of my system. I'll just conclude by saying that Shostakovich gets a lot of playtime here. Mostly because of the music itself.
:-)
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
No need for historical perspective. I liked Shostakovich long before reading about him.
n
the history in the text: the vast mass murder at Babi Yar, the persecution and tenacity of singular geniuses, the quiet dignity and suffering of Russian women, etc. With this piece, it IS mainly about the text; the music is primarily, and wonderfully, supportive.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
Edits: 03/25/17
unless one wants to try to integrate Yevtushenko's text with music from The Nutcracker rather than the music Shostakovich composed for the work.
They're both Russians, but somehow I don't think it would work.
Chris is just jealous because he's not in the secret club, unless the password is "Resurrection," "Pathetique" or "Moonlight." : )
When MWE says that "It's all about the textual content... don't even bother if you don't pay careful attention to that. The history here is vital", and you say, "It stands on its own. . . no need for historical perspective", I say both of those statements can't be true about the same piece at the same time.
Sorry, I don't want to bother with music which merely supports a text, or which needs a history lesson in order to make sense. As I said, music either stands or falls on its own. In any case, music is the higher art and it soars to the heavens. The denotative aspect of words (in literature and history) shouldn't drag it back down to earth.
And, BTW, I speak as one who is totally moved by the music of the inventor of the symphonic poem, Franz Liszt. But in Liszt's music, the poetry is merely the stimulus for the music - it does not determine the boundaries of the music.
You're simply reassured (release endorphins here) by whatever music that meets your expectations, or follows cultural rules which you deem righteous.
Liszt as an exemplar of coherence? Really????
I hope that you have your Shostakovich epiphany some day, but if you don't, that's OK too.
But I think you're exaggerating MWE's point.
. . . of Shostakovitch fans, and it's a way of listening to music which I (if I may say so) profoundly disagree with. Sure, I came on pretty strong, but I'm not saying that this way of listening can't provide a certain level of satisfaction to these listeners though. As MWE has already said, de gustibus non est disputandum (although I'm unsure what part of speech he was using for disputandum!).
And now, after all this "weeping and gnashing of the teeth" discussion, here's the kicker: despite Madeline's description of the first movement as "hideous", I actually don't think the work (the Symphony No. 13) is that bad (at least for Shostakovitch!). I don't think I'd have ordered the download otherwise, even at the attractive price!
You know, it's very interesting that, just by chance, the woman I married shares so many of the same points of view about music that I do: skepticism, even denigration, of HIP, certain composers (Shostakovitch!), or certain performers (Barenboim, Schwartzkopf, et al). And I guess the only three areas where we disagree (musically!) are (1) German mainstream composers vs. Russians and Eastern Europeans (she's more likely to be dismissive of, say, Glazunov's music, while I don't share her love of the standard German repertoire, at least at the level she rates it), (2) what she calls "fluff" music (technically difficult music which most listeners would claim lacks "substance" - e.g., Godowsky transcriptions of Strauss Waltzes - I love these types of pieces and she doesn't), and (3) babe musicians (even though she admits that Yuja and Lisa - and a couple others - are pretty darned good)! ;-)
BTW, just a heads up: Madeline is about to "publish or publish" again (about her favorite anathema - too much undocumented editing on present-day recordings). I'll provide the details later.
I'm definitely not getting involved in your debate with jdaniel over the merits of Shostakovich, except to say jdaniel's comment about the banality of parts of his work is telling. I see that banality as intentional, and very much part of the dour, cynical, and bleak aspects of his personality that are often at the fore in his music. Even his taste for humor, and he does very much have one, is most often for ironic, black humor.
It takes immense skill to convey all of that downbeat stuff as effectively as he does, and he does it with music alone. You don't need the context of the holocaust or the siege of Leningrad, or any text, even when he sets his music to one, to get his message.
Still, it's an acquired taste, like Angostura bitters or uni (sea urchin sushi), or midwinter "polar bear" ocean swimming. I'm not going to try to sell you on it.
BTW -- Your wife doesn't share your interest in babe musicians?? What a surprise. ;-)
And I seem to be having trouble making my point, which is that many Shostakovitch fans attempt to excuse his musical banality by bringing in all sorts of non-musical justifications for it. (Ooh! What courage he had, thumbing his nose at Stalin!) Of course, I'm not saying that ALL of Shostakovitch's music is worthless and banal, but the proportion is just too high IMHO. Stalin should have sent him to Siberia - maybe the sojourn would have improved his style when he got out. ;-)
Re Madeline and my interest in babe musicians: she'll often cut the discussion short by asking, "Do you REALLY think I'd be interested in this at all?". Yup, she's a Debbie Downer about babe musicians alright.
I'm not going to try to convince you to jump in. And no two of us have the same opinion as to what is worthy and what is worthless. Anyone who has been to an auction knows that.
We've already been through the "de gustibus" part of the discussion. But I do take some solace in the fact that you and jdaniel at least recognize that there IS banality in Shostakovitch's music. And to make my point for the last time in this discussion (I hope - LOL!), no amount of non-musical justification can really excuse it, or make it into something great - at least IMHO.
for me, when it comes to pure intellectual brilliance, perceptiveness and a keen musical ear, Shostakovich is second only to Stravinsky among all Russian composers, and orders of magnitude ahead of the others. Whether those attributes add up to "greatness" or whether you look for something more, or something else, is entirely up to you.
His music puts the banality, the oppression and the cruelty he saw in his society into sharp focus. He offers no escape or respite, even in his comedy. Look at the story of Lieutenant Kije and the inept and craven military administrators he ridicules so sharply and effectively. Nobody else could or would do quite the same thing so well.
And indeed, that's a piece that shows the difference between a real master (Prokofiev) and an also-ran (Shostakovitch), who, for reasons I can't fathom, does have his followers. ;-)
Both brilliant satires. I'm a big Prokofiev fan as well, of course.
Although the sub-titles seem to be in Japanese in the uTube performance linked below, the sung text is full of praise to Stalin, "the father of nations" and "the great agronomer" - sometimes the work is performed with an expurgated text, with the Stalin references removed! Of course, Prokofiev wrote "Zdravitsa" or "[Birthday] Toast [to Stalin]" which Richter claimed was one Prokofiev's very best works. (I don't know if I agree with that!)
Here's Temirkanov leading a joint Japanese-Russian performance in 2006, by which time Leiferkus had a pretty bad wobble:
EVERYONE, (except the authorities) and none more than DDS, considered SOTF to be complete crud. Now, this thread is likely done for me, but I'd like to make one more comment. I just finished listening to the Eighth Symphony. The "relevee' " last movement, after the slow passacaglia, is one of the most marvelous and joyful pieces of music I've ever heard. It wouldn't know banality if banality bit it on the butt. Thanks all, great thread!
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
The really funny thing is, Prokofiev had the same flair for Russian-style anti-authoritarian satire that Shostakovich had. The difference being, Shostakovich had that trademark serious, dark, gloomy personality. Prokofiev, though every bit as much of a musical genius, was reportedly an immature, childlike, boorish brat, not unlike Mozart. His music on the whole is much less harsh and easier to stomach. Ed. I find the 2nd and 3rd symphonies of Shostakovich hard to stomach, especially the 2nd. But those are youthful works.
The politics or textual setting of these composers means little to me. Sure, Lieutenant Kije and Alexander Nevsky are great, classic movies. Peter and the Wolf is a great children's story written by Prokofiev himself when he was dissatisfied with the story originally proposed to him. The Nose is also a great classic. But that alone doesn't make the music great or meaningful.
I should know all about Lieutenant Kije, since I played the solo flute part in my college orchestra. Oh well, advancing age, you know.
Edits: 03/29/17
nt.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
. . . then what was Temirkanov doing performing it in 2006 - and in Japan no less? Inquiring minds want to know.
(BTW, Temirkanov's CD of the work has been one of the cornerstones of my Shostakovitch collection for years - no joke!)
And what can't there ever be an album for Shostakovich only, without Prokofiev? That just adds to my middle-aged confusion.
Fortunately, there is no law that says you have to listen to every last piece by a composer, even one of the greats. I certainly keep that in mind for Beethoven.
OK, I admit I bought that CD for the Prokofiev "On Guard for Peace" cantata, not the Shostakovitch. However, this CD was in fact my SECOND purchase of "Song of the Forests", which I also had on LP, back in the days when I had an LP of another great, important work by Shostakovitch, "The Sun Shines Over Our Motherland".
I say again: if any music by Shostakovitch achieves true greatness, these cantatas are the ones!
(BTW, I'm actually surprised by how many recordings of "Song of the Forests" are available these days!)
I'm glad SOMEONE likes Stalinist music. DDS held his nose composing these.
Had to post ONE last time to thread. Promise.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
nt.
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
N
But the fact is, Mahler does it far, far less than Shostakovitch - at least as I hear it.
Yeah, I like Mahler just fine (over 80 recordings of the Fifth!), but, right now, I'd say he's rated a bit higher then his music deserves. I think that a factor in Mahler's popularity lies in the fact that his music has now become a vehicle to show off orchestral virtuosity. (And no doubt, the same is true with Shostakovitch.)
There was a time when Mahler's music was not universally respected, to say the least. I saw an interview of Leonard Bernstein in which he relates that when he began working on it with the Vienna Philharmonic, not all of the orchestra's players were happy, to put it mildly.
Yet nowadays nobody questions Mahler's place among the major composers. Musical taste is a funny thing.
"There was a time when Mahler's music was not universally respected, to say the least."
I was late to appreciat Mahler, REALLY late, but I knew the problem was ME and not that of Mahler. As a dyed in the wool 'rhomantic', it's taken me a while to learn to appreciate music within its own context. As I posted here earlier, I don't think it would make any sense to set Yevtushenko's writing to music from The Nutcracker, even though it's Russian, but WTFDIK I'm not a musicologist.
That said I'm putting the boys pictured above in my VERY late group of composers for appreciation.
As in the years after my passing. =:-0
N
I'm sommat of a Mahler fan.
Jeremy
I think there are simply very different thought processes/mindsets going on here, and that's just the way it is. Nobody's going to "make" anyone like something they don't already, not at our ages (though certainly tastes can change- mine do continually as my knowledge of music increases). But nothing wrong with trying to be open-minded. (Am I being too "banal" here? :-) ) Musical styles are just different kinds of tools composers use to accomplish their goals, and not everyone likes all those tools.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
is doing. It's all about trust.
MANY great and moving words out there well-supported by music. But of course, di gustibus non disputatum. (although there seems to be quite a bit of that here- sine qua non?)
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
nt.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
I am more economical than you: I have very few at all. Not that I didn't try.
Jeremy
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: