Shostakovich Soundtrack

[Custodio Groves]

Making his Seattle Symphony debut (April 20 and 22), Strobel led the orchestra in a live performance of the music as the film, which reimagines a historical revolt in Odessa against the Russian Imperial Navy, was being projected on a large screen overhead. (The program included the note that the Seattle Symphony stands with the brave people of Ukraine in their fight for self-determination.)

Frank Strobel is chief conductor of the WDR Funkhausorchester and artistic director of the European FilmPhilharmonic. As a guest conductor, he works in film-music projects and with symphonic repertoire at orchestras such as the Filarmonica della Scala, London Symphony Orchestra, Orchestre de Paris, Rundfunk-Sinfonieorchester Berlin (RSB), and the Wiener Symphoniker.

A range of contemporary artists has since outfitted the film with new music, from the Pet Shop Boys and Michael Nyman to Edison Studio. For his part, Eisenstein maintained that his film could be kept freshly relevant for later generations by providing it with a new soundtrack every 20 years.

Eisenstein himself notoriously manipulated the historical facts of the 1905 mutiny in Odessa Harbor caused by the abusive treatment of the crew of a flagship of the Imperial Russian Navy. (There was, for example, no massacre on the Odessa Steps.) Yet his cinematic re-interpretation is so persuasive that it became an essential primer on the sinister potential of propaganda.

January 17, 2005 at 08:00 AM I noticed that one of my most favorite violin concertos, the first shostakovich, is very unknown. What is the problem? It's so exciting and beautiful! The other day, i was listening to midori's version on my stereo when my mom comes and says "TURN OFF THAT BAD MUSIC"...and I was listening to the cadenza/4th movement but I couldn't believe it. My mom is not very educated on the violin, she likes music such as Meditation, Salut d'amore, Paganini Sonata, Tchaivkosky vio. conc. but I was wondering, to "normal" people, would the Shostakovich sound perhaps...ugly? I love this concerto and find it to be extremely exciting. I know a lot of violinist who didn't even know that Shostakovich made a violin concerto....PLEASE TELL ME I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO LOVES THIS CONCERTO!!!

January 17, 2005 at 08:27 AM Well, I like it. I saw Gidon Kremer play it at the Proms last year, and the announcer described it as 'Easy to admire, difficult to love.' I suppose that is how a lot of people view Shostakovich (I probably view his music the other way around actually).

I guess there are two major reasons why the concerto is not 'popular'. The music of Shostakovich is not always considered 'audience-friendly' and the concerto could really feel 'a bit too much' to the average listener.

January 17, 2005 at 03:32 PM I really can't stand this piece at all and I would never want to learn it. The first movement goes on forever, it is really much too long I think. The cadenza in the 3rd movement is just plain flat out ugly to me and a whole bunch of noise. I don't think this piece is technically challenging either. You could miss 20% of the notes in the second and last movements and no one could tell the difference unlike in Mozart or Beethoven where it is very evident if one is not accurate. I think Shostakovich was a very uneven composer, he wrote some beautiful orchestral works that I like and some others that really aren't at the same level IMO such as some of the quartets and the violin concerto. Even then, I can't say the works I like by him are the most original compositions, they are mainly derived from other composers. Even David Soyer was quoted as saying in regards to one of Shostakovich's quartets something along the lines of "this piece is crap". I could never see how this violin concerto could ever be compared to Walton and Korngold in significance or quality.

Disregarding our past animosity, you must understand that Shostakovich's music (and this is especially true of the 1st Violin Concerto) decodes a society which most people have had no exposure to. It is often fiercely bitter and ironic, which is probably why you think it's ugly. But it is not because Shostakovich was a poor composer - it was because he wasn't an aesthete, and in fact had little respect for aesthetes. The first violin concerto is an expression of fear and bitterness.

By the way, it is technically difficult, and even if you wouldn't hear if the notes were wrong in the second or last movements (the second is quite deliberately grotesque, so you know) I certainly would.

May I note that the two works you cite as more important were dedicated to/written for Heifetz, whereas Shostakovich's concerti were written for Oistrakh. Would this have anything to do with your preference for Korngold and Walton? :)

January 17, 2005 at 05:49 PM I do love the piece, but at times I find it difficult to listen to, for the reasons Carl mentions. In fact most of Shostakovich's music is like that for me. However, every time I've heard a piece of his in concert it has always been an exhilarating (if not happy) experience.

January 17, 2005 at 05:49 PM Hey Kiril, I was there to see Oliveira play and I have to agree with you. it was awesome! To watch him play the cadenza in the third movement was.....well I haven't seen too many players play like that.

January 17, 2005 at 06:30 PM Patrick, your mom might appreciate the Shostakovich more if you explain to her what was going on in the time the composer wrote it. People were being rounded up every night and taken off to the concentration camps in the Gulag. Shostakovich was being telephoned regularly about his music, sometimes even by Stalin himself. Shostakovich had to stop composing certain pieces because they were too "individualist" and "anti-social." He used his name translated into notes (like Bach did) to create the theme of the individual. The cadenza in the 1st v. cto to my mind describes all the hideousness of arrests and executions with the heroic voice of the artist struggling to survive. It's not meant to be "easy" listening. It tells a gut-wrenching story.

Schostakovich's works are not easy for not prepared listeners, so they usually complain that they don't like Schostakovich with his "noisy" music. It will come to them later, after learning specific modes, Schostakovich used, like diminished mode (not regular major, or minor). Also those symbols (Nick mentioned about), like intonation

We can translate it: D is for Dmitry; E-flat: for this note there is european symbol 'ES', or letter 'S' (the first letter of his last name); C-is second letter; and H is european letter for B-note-stands for the third letter of Schostakovich's last name. So if we write this formula, using european notation, we get this picture:

January 17, 2005 at 08:15 PM What a moody concerto! So dark and brooding, makes me think of what he must have gone through they way he and prokofiev were discouraged and shunned, I can only imagine living under stalin

This is one of the monumental works in the repetoire. It is very cerebral music that asks the listener to go beyond sheer showiness and actually understand the violence and heartbreak that was the Soviet Union during Shostakovich's lifetime. It is my contention that 95% of the classical music "lovers" don't want to think, they want to be entertained, thus the preponderance of certain "cross-over" projects maintaining a high level of sales of classical music.

Bartok's String Quartets have the same bad reputation. It is common cocktail party fare to have someone pontificate on the worth of them, but when they are pressed for a favorite recording, they can't produce one nor can they speak of the intricacies of the works themselves.

What most people do not understand is the background behind the music. It tells a story. It is not at all, bad to listen to. Just like all the music that Shostakovich writes, you have to understand what is going on.

January 18, 2005 at 05:45 AM But...what about the other "lesser" concertos like dvorak, britten, walton, goldmark, glazunov, and more! I mean...why don't people think of them as great as Brahms or Tchaikovsky?

January 18, 2005 at 04:08 PM Carl I'm glad that you brought up the background and suffering Shostakovich had. It is good for everyone to know. I truly sympathize with the people that lived in the former Soviet Union at the time. I had a violin teacher from there who lived during that era of hardship and used to describe to me the tragedies he faced. I might add he is greatly effected to this very day emotionally.

However conveying these feelings into musical tones does not always transcend into necessarily great music IMO. In the case of this work I do not think it is very good. That is my opinion and I am entitled to think so. I think the cadenza in the 3rd movement is ugly noise not music. I do have trained ears and can hear if someone is faking through this work I was being ironic saying that you could miss 20% of the notes in both the 2nd and 4th movements however I did make the comparison to Mozart and Bach (which I certainly hope we all can agree this piece is certainly not) and how it is more evident and transparent in those works of Mozart and Bach if a note is played slightly out or something is flubbed.

Of course I show slight favoritism to the works of Korngold and Walton since they were dedicated to my teacher's teacher. Putting that aside I still do think those are superior pieces of music than the Shostakovich concerto in addition I think they are more audience friendly and enjoyable to listen to.

The Cadenza is not 'ugly noise', and you are not entitled to such an opinion unless you justify it. Music is not completely a matter of taste, and it would be the same if I said 'women are of inferior intelligence.' I am simply not entitled to such an unjustified opinion. To say that it sounds ugly demonstrates nothing about its musical quality, only your lack of sympathy for its harmonic language.

I'm glad you admit that you show favouritism for Walton and Korngold for non-musical reasons. However, it shows a lack of maturity and rationale in your formation of musical opinions. May I also venture to assume that this is the reason you prefer Heifetz to Oistrakh?

c80f0f1006