As you can see from the title, I'll be analysing the music of Shostakovich, with particular reference to the 1st and final movements. I initially wanted to explore only the finale but upon some reading and listening, I have realised the depth of scope of the opening movement and for those of you who know me better, you know I love music with plots, influences and storylines behind them! So if any of you guys want a copy of the journal being reviewed do let me know!
Some Recording and Video References
Symphony 5 (1st movement) conducted by Bernard Haitink, London Philharmonic Orchestra (Part 1) Symphony 5 (1st movement) conducted by Bernard Haitink, London Philharmonic Orchestra (Part 2)
Symphony 5 (full length) conducted by Georg Solti, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra 1993 Live
Symphony 5 (finale) conducted by Gustavo Dudamel, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra (very interesting conductor, some of you girls may like ;p )
Symphony 5 (finale) conducted by Leonard Bernstein, New York Philharmonic Orchestra 1979
Symphony 5 (finale) conducted by Evgeny Mravinsky, Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra
Symphony 5 (finale) conducted by Evgeny Mravinsky, London Philharmonic Orchestra 1983 Live
Shostakovich Symphony No.5 Documantary: Keeping Score (Michael Tilson Thomas & San Francisco SO)
Various Tempo of the Finale Coda
Background Info
Date composed: Apr-July 1937
Date performed: 21st Nov 1937 by Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra, Evgeny Mravinsky conductor
Reception: Standing ovation for over half an hour
Other Works Cited in the Article
Opus 10 - Symphony No.1 in F minor (1924)
Opus 11 - Prelude and Scherzo for string octet (1924)
Opus 12 - Piano Sonata No.1 (1926)
Opus 13 - "Aphorisms", Ten pieces for piano (1927)
Opus 14 - Symphony No. 2 in B major, To October (1927)
Opus 20 - Symphony No. 3 in Eb major, First of May (1929)
Opus 29 - Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (1930)
Opus 34 - Cello Sonata in D minor (1934)
Opus 43 - Symphony No. 4 in C minor (1935)
What comes to mind at the first listen of the 5th symphony? Heroism and triumph over adversity? Oppression & anxiety? Or something darker in an ambiguous state with an eventual epiphany? Huband takes a closer look at the 5th in stylistic and historical comparison to his earlier works and political events that led to Shostakovich’s rise to fame in Soviet Russia.
Events prior to the 5th Symphony
Contrary to popular belief, Huband sways away from the notion that the 5th symphony was written largely as a response to the harsh criticisms made by Pravda (the leading newspaper of Soviet Russia then) on his 1930 opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, op.29. A public denunciation by the leading newspaper could warrant severe punishment or even a death sentence (as witnessed in the Terror). Pravda slammed the opera as “coarse and vulgar”, which directly resulted in a loss in commission and income – a serious blow for a composer.
Huband takes us through a journey from the composition of Shostakovich’s Symphonies, with prominence given to the tonal boundaries shaping his first symphony. With its “acceptable” and known forms governing the common 4-movement structure and avoided heavy orchestration, he goes on to support with historical information of the symphony being a graduation composition from his conservatory, pointing also to a lack of composing maturity.
However, Shostakovich’s style drastically changes in his next works, first heard evidently in the Scherzo of the Opus11. His subsequent symphonies undergo heavy experimentation as he explores new styles: incorporation of contemporary texts in his second and third symphonies, single-movement form, and large melodic intervals used in the 3rd symphony – a foreshadowing of the opening movement of the 5th symphony. The Cello Sonata, Opus40, is directly acompared to the 5th symphony in similarities of key, 4-movement structure, form and texture of the first two movements of both works.
It is clearly supported from an analytical perspective that the Fifth is a combination of the tonality concepts as Shostakovich has mastered in his First, the experimentations of orchestration and development of themes in the subsequent symphonies, and textures from his Cello Sonata.
The First Movement
Most importantly, Huband explains the Fifth and its idiosyncrasies. Despite its critical acclaim at the premiere, most probably due to the “triumphant” coda of the finale, there were instances suggesting contrary to the eventual “heroic” end. Similar to the first symphony, the Fifth incorporates a 4-movement structure, with harmonies totally within a tonal context. The opening movement utilises a sonata form, with the general mood of calm (1st and 2nd subject presentations), ensuing struggle (development), catastrophe (recapitulation), and ambiguity (leading into the coda), as well described by Tim Souster in his journal Shostakovich at the Crossroads.
Fig1: Opening Theme Fig2: Primary Subject Fig3: Secondary Subject
Fig1: Opening Theme Fig2: Primary Subject Fig3: Secondary Subject
The opening theme (Fig1) dissipates into the first subject (Fig2), heard within the first minute of the Bernard Haitink YouTube link part 1, and the second subject (Fig3) is first heard at 5:18. The first and second subjects are heard in later sections of the movement in a different manner. This is suggested by Souster as a “dual” theme, where a theme is presented in very contrasting styles suggesting, my opinion, a double personality being presented, most probably with reference to Shostakovich being forced to write in a particular style against his own. The contrasted first theme is presented by the seemingly parody-like trumpets in the middle of the movement (Fig4, 2:04 of Haitink Part 2 video), and once more at the ambiguous conclusion by the flute (Fig5, 7:27 of Part 2). The second subject is contrasted by one of the most melodious flute and horn passages Shostakovich has composed (Fig6, 5:10 of Part 2).
Fig4: Contrasted 1st Subject Fig5: Ambiguous Conclusion Fig6: Contrasted 2nd Subject
Fig4: Contrasted 1st Subject Fig5: Ambiguous Conclusion Fig6: Contrasted 2nd Subject
Coda of the Finale
Another area of concern is the metronome marking of the coda of the Finale. Many ponder the actual intended speed of the coda. Boosey & Hawkes printed the coda as crotchet=188, a very fast tempo which makes the coda sound triumphant (Fig7). This was also seen in the first few editions of scores back then in the 1930s. Souster makes no mention but states:
… probably due to a large extent to faulty readings by conductors who refuse to adhere to Shostakovich's detailed metronome markings. The movement can, if it starts at the right tempo, be made to build up to a completely convincing 'triumphant' coda.
And Huband:
For many years conductors have tended to perform the last movement much faster than indicated. The finale, however, does not sound 'heroic' if the metronome markings of the composer are followed.
Fig7: Coda
Fig7: Coda
Although the premiere was played at a slow speed distinctly closer to the tempo quaver=188 (I infer this from the documentary link above Keeping Score, which said that Mravinsky conducted the piece and maintained his interpretation all his life at 2:25, cross-referenced to the Mravinsky YouTube videos), the two writers make no mention of the blatant print of the Boosey & Hawkes score, but mentioned that some conductors refuse or tend to perform much faster than stated (as heard in the Bernstein and Dudamel YouTube videos), which ultimately changed the meaning of the symphony. Piecing all the information gathered, I believe that they were unaware of the misprinting in the scores but tap their knowledge based on the interpretation of the premiere. Despite this, I agree with Huband’s notion of the intended slow speed of the coda to sound excruciating rather than triumphant. Refer to the Various Tempo of the Finale Coda for the difference in some samples of tempo.A fine example to note in Shostakovich's "colossal" ending is the 3-note motif also present in the first movement. Refer to the Documentary at 51:10 onwards. This very subtle relation demonstrates a very high level of coherence in composition, supporting Huband's stance of Shostakovich's mature writing of this symphony.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I still believe that the Pravda incident played a very large role in the eventual soundscape of the Fifth, but with a smaller role of the composer’s maturity in writing as well, as well argued by Huband. He has given a good historical viewpoint which influenced the composer’s writing skills, and using that skill to write a symphony in response to his denunciation.
He attributed the work’s success to the coherent thematic development, which, as analysed, revealed an underlying message of dual personality supported by Souster, and unseen by the Russian authorities. The work’s success was also due to the “triumphant” ending, which contains no folk/nationalistic ideas (a requirement of an ideal symphony), but a seemingly heroic conclusion. Analysis of the coda with the help of Souster and Michael Tilson Thomas in the Keeping Score documentary has provided some useful insight to the true meaning within the summing up of a masterpiece.
Hope you guys enjoyed the read! If you have time do watch the whole documentary... It's very revealing if you're interested in Shostakovich's symphony!
Hope you guys enjoyed the read! If you have time do watch the whole documentary... It's very revealing if you're interested in Shostakovich's symphony!
No comments:
Post a Comment