Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 11

[Walda Caesar]

Itseems I have run across a very interesting page on my smart phone. Conductors and talented players talking about the importance of pacing a great piece of music. To thyself be true. I love and admire classical orchestras. You bring to us who listen a great joy to our lives. I bought a ticket to hear my first shostakovich in person. One of my favorites the #5. The conductor gustavo dudamel and the los angeles symphony. Located in los angeles at the fantastic looking walt disney concert hall. I love the upper mid balcony for its great sound and detail. I know it will sound just great. MY first visit there. from what I have heard about dudamel l know he can.handle this great piece of work with all the right pace and strength of emotion needed for such a beautiful symphony. at home I love my CD #5 version by the Cleveland orchestra on telarc maazel conducting. love reading your page. music listener.

The Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op. 47, by Dmitri Shostakovich is a work for orchestra composed between April and July 1937. Its first performance was on November 21, 1937, in Leningrad by the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra under Yevgeny Mravinsky. The premiere was a "triumphal success"[1] that appealed to both the public and official critics, receiving an ovation that lasted well over half an hour.[2]

The opening's dotted rhythm persists as a lyrical first theme is played by the first violins.[3] This theme presents itself as a descending five-tone motif in bars 6-7, but Shostakovich had already used it in the second movement of his fourth symphony (bars 318-321), which was recognized there as a quotation from Gustav Mahler's song "Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt", from Des Knaben Wunderhorn; specifically, the line "He goes to the rivers and preaches to the fishes". In its original appearance, this Mahler quotation is juxtaposed with musical notation in the shape of a nose (on page 122 of the Sikorski score), the notes in the "nose" being a quotation from "The Internationale", which was also previously hidden in bars 25-30 of the first movement of the 4th symphony, with the effect of depicting the futility of the socialist "sermon".

For the appearance of this quotation in the fifth symphony, the five-tone Mahler motif occurs in a total of 15 variants in the first and third movements, and bears witness to the Shostakovich's secret triumph in being able to describe the party doctrine that had silenced his earlier work as a completely useless sermon. This provocative insight is therefore part of Shostakovich's "creative response of a Soviet artist to justified criticism". However, since the fourth symphony had been withdrawn before the premiere in 1936 and could only be presented to the public 25 years later, the extramusical context was lost when the 5th symphony was premiered in Leningrad. Only later has this connection between the fourth and fifth symphonies, which undermines the demands of "socialist realism", been uncovered.[5]

The first theme is repeated several times in combination with the opening motif, and greatly varied with new demarcations and penetrations. There is a great deal of variation and linking of all elements, giving the impression of a single continuous process.

An accompanying figure takes the lead at the beginning of the powerful development. Only now does the tempo of this movement reach Allegro. Themes from the exposition appear in augmentation and diminution in contrapuntal conflicts with themselves. The thematic material is transformed into a grotesquely distorted quick march in a wide development with military drums and trumpets. After several false starts, from m. 157 the second theme intervenes in the action.

In the recapitulation, which is heavily reduced compared to the exposition, themes heard earlier on are brought back again either identically or somewhat varied. Near the end of the movement, the second subject is heard again in the form of a canon played by flute and horn, then the same material is played by the violin and piccolo. The movement ends with the celesta playing a rising figure, and slowly fading away.[6]

In general, the inner drama of the first movement can be described as an interplay between lamentation and mourning, contrasting with a "departure for battle" which reaches its climax with the entry of the recapitulation. In the end, the outcome of this conflict proves to be ambiguous, and the looming threats have not yet been resolved.

The trio has a peculiar harmony. Degrees I and VII alternate in the basic position, so that parallel fifths constantly arise. The effect does not sound like folk music, but rather like "run-down" music.[according to whom?]

The movement closes in A minor with four canonically enriched fortissimo bars. Overall, the scherzo lacks innocence and humor; closer listening assures that the peace is not to be trusted, considering the numerous unusual modulations and occasional discords.[8]

This movement is a culmination of resignation, mourning and lamentation, which in the center of the movement increases to a passionate accusation with clarinet, xylophone and piano. Otherwise the movement is more chamber music-like and carried by the string orchestra. The tonality is floating and often not definable, free-floating and independent linearity of the individual voices prevails.

The D minor finale, also in sonata form, differs greatly from its predecessors, mostly with regard to melodic structure and motives. Various themes from earlier in the work are expanded until we get to a new theme played on the trumpet. This new theme is passed on to the strings and eventually the piece becomes quieter. The development section is much quieter and more tranquil, and is ultimately replaced by a march, where the melodies from earlier are played like a funeral dirge, accompanied by timpani. The music builds as the new accompaniment passes from timpani to woodwinds and then to strings, finally reaching a point where the piece changes from a minor key into a major key.

Among the reviews, which often analyzed the work in thorough detail, one that particularly delighted me stated that the Fifth Symphony was a Soviet artist's no-nonsense response to fair criticism.[15]

Official critics treated the symphony as a turnaround in its composer's career.[16] Like the Pravda attack at that time on the opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, the political basis for extolling the Fifth Symphony was to show how the Party could make artists bow to its demands.[16]

During the first performance of the symphony, people were reported to have wept during the Largo movement.[19] The music, steeped in an atmosphere of mourning, contained echoes of the panikhida, the Russian Orthodox requiem. It also recalled a genre of Russian symphonic works written in memory of the dead, including pieces by Glazunov, Steinberg, Rimsky-Korsakov and Stravinsky.

Shostakovich returned to the traditional four-movement form and a normal-sized orchestra. More tellingly, he organized each movement along clear lines, having concluded that a symphony cannot be a viable work without firm architecture. The harmonic idiom in the Fifth is less astringent, more tonal than previously, and the thematic material is more accessible. It has been said that, in the Fifth Symphony, the best qualities of Shostakovich's music, such as meditation, humor and grandeur, blend in perfect balance and self-fulfillment.[1]

The final movement is declared in Testimony to be a parody of shrillness, representing "forced rejoicing". In the words attributed to the composer in Testimony (a work which has had its authenticity questioned[21][22]):

The rejoicing is forced, created under threat, as in Boris Godunov. It's as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, "Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing", and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, "Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing."[23]

This website brings together all aspects of my musical work, whether that be tutoring, performing, composing or blogging. I offer lessons and tutoring in a variety of musical subjects as well as reading and English Literature as well as being available as a performer and session musician on cello, music writer and composer.

Yesterday, Dmitri Shostakovich would have been 111. And to celebrate this, it's finally time to write a blog post about my favourite piece. I'm going to try and restrain myself. I know it's a bit cliche to love the piece you studied at A level, but it just goes to show how there's so much to be gained in terms of appreciation from musical study. At least in my opinion.

Shostakovich lived in Soviet Russia, where people's lives were in danger if they were thought, to any extent, to be against Stalin's regime. At night, people would just disappear. People were suffering in many ways, and for a composer, it was hard for this not to come across. Shostakovich's opera 'Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District' was written before this symphony, and after is premier a scathing report of its music, calling it 'a muddle instead of music' appeared in the national paper. Some argue that the article was written by Stalin himself. Needless to say, Shostakovich feared for his life. People would cross the street to avoid him, so he had to do something.

Enter the fifth symphony, premiered before his even more challenging fourth to save himself further trouble. The composer dubbed this as his response to 'just criticism', and this itself paved the way to what was a very equivocal musical work. Was the criticism 'just' as in fair, or 'just criticism' and no praise? The music offers to helpful solution. Thematically, parts of the music could be seen as military in nature, something to perhaps reinforce the might of Russia. Nationalism, if you like. The piece is full of these grand musical statements of might and power. However, there are also twisted moments, such as very strained high notes, unusual harmonies and harmonic progressions and bending the rules of structure. Perhaps, then, this is a work of apology that serves another purpose - to quietly rebel. Perhaps the moments of might and triumph are about the triumph of Shostakovich himself, the individual, rather than the state. And then, of course, there's the third movement, which is clearly full of emotional turmoil. How did he get away with that? And is it that movement, rather than the triumphant ending, which earned the piece a 30 minute standing ovation at its premier?

But this piece represents more than just a musical rebellion in that sense. Its musical language displays a trend towards a new wave of musical rule breaking. 'Neoclassicism' takes classical structures, harmonies and ideas and begins to (for Shostakovich - cheekily) break them down and almost mock them. To mock, yet be seriously inspired by the past of the art form was something which in my opinion none did better than Shostakovich. And that's barely even scratching the surface of why he is my favourite composer....

3a8082e126