mf@cornell.UUCP (mf) (04/24/85)
In article <2429@randvax.UUCP> Ed Hall says of the coda of
Shostakovitch's 5th: ``as part of the work as a whole, the coda seems
strangly out of place, although it satisfied the Soviet officialdom as
demonstrating "Socialist Realism" (where all struggles have happy
endings).''
Doesn't the same strike you about that of Mozart's 20th piano concerto
K 466? Most of the piece is dark and ``cosmic'' (the key of D minor
being very suggestive) -- while the end so light, almost ...
inconsequential in comparison.
Though he probably was not writing for Soviet officialdom, one theory
is that he wrote a ``happy ending'' to cater for the public taste.francois@yale.ARPA (Charles B. Francois) (04/25/85)
Anyone who feels Shostakovich's 5th symphony has an inappropriate
"happy ending" owes it to themselves to listen to Haitink's recent
London recording of the piece, easily one of my three or four most
treasured CD's. Haitink's contention, supported by the memoirs of DS
himself, is that the blazing D major coda is precisely an inversion of
the authorities' expectations of what Good Socialist Music should be
like. Yes, it's big and bombastic. It's supposed to be; but there is
an underlying hollowness and despair in the music that few conductors
ever bother to bring out. The whole finale is bitterly sarcastic. The
composer's conception of it goes something like this, and I paraphrase:
"It's as though someone were beating you with a stick demanding that
you rejoice, and in a thoughtless slumber, you take up the cry:
'I'm rejoicing, I'm rejoicing....'".
Haitink, by avoiding the romanticisms that Bernstein and Ormandy heap
on this work in their recordings, and by keeping a steady rhythmic
pulse, allows the symphony to develop as if in a trance, building up
powerfully to the climaxes, as in the insistent march beat of the first
movement's blistering culmination. But Haitink only lets go at the
coda, when, for about one mind-blowing second the entire orchestra
suddenly comes to a halt, long enough to allow the bass drum two
anguished gasps, before everything comes crashing down with the final
tutti chord. Simply overwhelming...
As for the Mozart D min. Piano Concerto... Well, *that*, words can't
describe.
--Charles B. Francois {...,decvax}!yale!francoisry@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (04/29/85)
In article <1219@cornell.UUCP> (Uucp) cornell!mf (ARPA) mf@cornell-gvax (Bitnet) MF AT CRNLCS writes: >In article <2429@randvax.UUCP> Ed Hall says of the coda of >Shostakovitch's 5th: ``as part of the work as a whole, the coda seems >strangly out of place, although it satisfied the Soviet officialdom as >demonstrating "Socialist Realism" (where all struggles have happy >endings).'' > >Doesn't the same strike you about that of Mozart's 20th piano concerto >K 466? Most of the piece is dark and ``cosmic'' (the key of D minor >being very suggestive) -- while the end so light, almost ... >inconsequential in comparison. > >Though he probably was not writing for Soviet officialdom, one theory >is that he wrote a ``happy ending'' to cater for the public taste. Another piece that has "happy ending" after a dark piece is Brahm' first piano concerto. I once, in paper for a music class, wrote that I felt that the ending didn't fit (I still don't); the professor defended the ending, likening it to the Baroque practice of ending a minor mode piece on a cadence to the tonic major. Take it for what its worth...
sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks) (04/29/85)
>In article <2429@randvax.UUCP> Ed Hall says of the coda of >Shostakovitch's 5th: ``as part of the work as a whole, the coda seems >strangly out of place, although it satisfied the Soviet officialdom as >demonstrating "Socialist Realism" (where all struggles have happy >endings).'' > I really don't agree with this: to argue that the coda is out-of-place is to miss an essential point of this piece. All struggles don't have happy endings, and Shostakovich is quoted in the liner notes of the recording I have as saying something along the lines of "I'm not fooling anyone with this coda"--meaning that yes, he bowed to the official Soviet music czar and wrote in a happy ending, but it is an ending that--simply because it "shouldn't" be there--makes his point all the more poignant. What I really hate about this is that many (most?) conductors think that since the coda is written this way, they must interpret the piece as "happy"--which they thus interpret to mean fast--and lose everything that the piece contains. I even heard one conductor (whose name escapes me at the moment) argue that the marking of the first movement (which is quarter-note = something) must have been a mistake and that Shostakovich "must have meant" to make it eighth-note = something; ie twice as fast. This is despite the fact that he had asked Maxim Shostakovich about it and was told that the original marking was probably correct and that Shostakovich would have had some 50 years to rectify the error if it in fact had been an error. Scott Oaks {decvax, allegra, ihnp4}!brunix!sdo
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (04/29/85)
> Yes, it's big and bombastic. It's supposed to be; but there is > an underlying hollowness and despair in the music that few conductors > ever bother to bring out. > ... > Haitink, by avoiding the romanticisms that Bernstein and Ormandy heap > on this work in their recordings, and by keeping a steady rhythmic > pulse, allows the symphony to develop as if in a trance, building up > powerfully to the climaxes, as in the insistent march beat of the first > movement's blistering culmination. But Haitink only lets go at the > coda, when, for about one mind-blowing second the entire orchestra > suddenly comes to a halt, long enough to allow the bass drum two > anguished gasps, before everything comes crashing down with the final > tutti chord. Simply overwhelming... > > --Charles B. Francois {...,decvax}!yale!francois Charles, when I read the first section I'm quoting from your article, I was about to question how a conductor could bring out (or fail to bring out) qualities of hollowness and despair if they were apparent from the music itself. You answered it later by referring to the steady rhythmic pulse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm taking this to mean that by "merely" being as faithful as possible to the musical directions in the score, he is managing to achieve the expressive effect that others miss when, by ignoring or distorting the composer's directions, they deliberately aim to be "expressive". I haven't heard this recording, and have to admit to having a major blind spot as far as Shostakovich's music is concerned. However, your description is plausible to me and ties in with what I've heard in other Haitink performances. He tends to be underrated, because of a lack of "star quality" - he doesn't do the Bernstein dance act on the podium, he doesn't attempt to beautify or round off the rough edges of music as Karajan does (although he and his orchestras manage it spectacularly), and he doesn't create excitement by exaggerating tempo and dynamics as I've heard Muti do. He just has his orchestras (I've heard him with Concertgebouw, London Philharmonic, and Vienna Philharmonic) do what the score tells them. Not that he's a mere time beater - his performances are always enlivened by subtlety of tempo and inflection. These are, however, always those suggested by the score itself rather than his imposition of his own personality onto that of the composer. In this sense he "lets" the music happen rather than "making" it happen. The only thing I'd argue with in your posting is the fact that I feel you are crediting Haitink with certain things that really are the achievement of the orchestral players themselves. No matter what qualities the conductor might see in a score and wish to bring out, the burden of actually "doing it" rests on the players. In fact, last week I witnessed a performance of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" of tremendous intensity, but where the conductor himself seemed NOT to be supplying it. The conductor was Charles Dutoit (who's been credited with making the Montreal orchestra a major musical force) and the orchestra was the San Francisco Symphony. I had a bit of insight to the preparations because of the fact that several of the orchestral players are close friends. Also, Davies Symphony Hall has seats in what they call the "Terrace" that are to the side of, and behind the orchestra. Sitting in one of these (parallel to the tuba and percussion) I was able to watch the conductor from the perspective of an orchestra player. His direction was very clean, very precise, and had no visible power or intensity. The players themselves, however, were putting forth tremendous commitment and intensity, so that having someone as "cool and aloof" to keep things together so that nobody got lost, the result was a marvelous balance of expressiveness and musical accuracy. - Greg Paley
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne Perry) (05/01/85)
<> Greg, I am interested in the information your friends provided about the preparation for the Dutoit performance. It seems to me that the actual performance could provide misleading information about the contribution of the conductor: all of the work could easily have been in the rehearsal and the performance one where he sits back and lets it happen. I have sung under several conductors where that is precisely the case; I have also sat under conductors where all the work was done by someone else in the rehearsals and the conductor just followed along in the performance. A case in point, John Finlay Williamson conducted in such a way that it looked like he was doing nothing at all except just standing there. His movements were minute, but the choir was absolutely on their toes because of the intense work in rehearsals and the aclimitization to his conducting style. Lead on - Dewayne
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (05/08/85)
> >In article <2429@randvax.UUCP> Ed Hall says of the coda of > >Shostakovitch's 5th: ``as part of the work as a whole, the coda seems > >strangly out of place, although it satisfied the Soviet officialdom as > >demonstrating "Socialist Realism" (where all struggles have happy > >endings).'' > > > > I really don't agree with this: to argue that the coda is out-of-place is > to miss an essential point of this piece. All struggles don't have happy > endings, and Shostakovich is quoted in the liner notes of the recording I > have as saying something along the lines of "I'm not fooling anyone with > this coda"--meaning that yes, he bowed to the official Soviet music czar and > wrote in a happy ending, but it is an ending that--simply because it > "shouldn't" be there--makes his point all the more poignant. > > Scott Oaks {decvax, allegra, ihnp4}!brunix!sdo This forms an object lesson in how partial quotes can be used to twist ones words to mean anything! The next sentence of my article (after the one quoted) was: > I suspect that this was all intentional on Shostakovich's part, but not as > a concession. Instead, he was mocking the simple-mindedness of those > who condemned him. As a matter of fact, my article made the very same point Scott Oaks does. Please, folks, be careful when you quote; make sure you are preserving the authors intentions! -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall