"Art for Art's sale first of all", as SCGrew first offered, has a certain ring about it, don't you think?

We enjoyed reading Mr. Sudden's masterly description of the first movement of the Eighth Symphony, and look forward to reading what he might say about the rest of the work. He has given us an invaluable guide to things to listen out for at subsequent hearings.

It is really the "satirical" passages and wrong notes to which we take exception. Once one has heard something like that once it is enough for a lifetime. This is why all this man's works still sound much the same to this listener's ear.

We would hope that other Members might see their way clear to come forward and follow the so useful lead of Messrs. Dough and Sudden in helping us Shoutacowitch agnostics to gain insight and enlightenment.

There is a proverb about those slow to be converted becoming in the end the most enthusiastic devotees is there not, but we cannot remember it at the moment. So how about this one from Egypt: "If you see a town worshipping a calf, mow grass and feed him."

It is not really correct Sydney to accuse a composer of writing "wrong notes" - the notes they write are the ones they want and need for their music.

I assume - as far as "satire" goes - that you were never a fan of 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' (or in more recent times 'Bremner, Bird and Fortune')? The thing about satire is that in being slightly (though not always) comical, the points made are really very serious ones. The same applies to Shostakovich!


I had hoped that the three links this Member placed last night might have 'counted' in this regard. If I myself were to post an analysis, it would be extremely detailed; and my fear is that you would be put off this music even more than you are at the moment (which is not what I should want!).


That is a nice one Sydney - I like it. I really would like you (at some time) to be able to see some real grass in (what is understandably to you currently) the rather barren landscape of Shostakovich. I have to thank you, however, for having raised the whole matter of his 8th Symphony: I have listened to it (believe me!) no fewer than 5 times over the past two days, and although I am really what might be termed an "early music" devotee, few pieces have come as close as this work emotionally to move me. It's difficult, and requires concentration over a long time span; but I have felt all the time that each hearing has moved me nearer towards a deeper insight into a person of much greater depth and experience than myself.

Baz

I used to think that gloominess is a Russian feature of character. Since that time I found out that many other nationalities have it. Gloominess is reflection of personal character and time I suppose. Mahler and Shostakovich life span overlap somewhat. This was times of revolutions and dictatorships and strong personalities as dictators. This is why their music is brooding, sometimes obvious floominess and sometimes it is just covered a little. Also sarcasm is their because this people were intellecturals and could understand what is happening around them.
I agree with marbleflugel in his analysis and comparison of two, though I myself always tried to compare Shostakovich with Tchaikovsky.

Bloomin' 'Eck! I've returned to find myself all but redundant...

I like mf's point about Mahler and Shostakovich. In Mahler, there's still a way of connecting with the natural, the idyllic, the naive. In Shostakovich's world such pure simplicity is hardly relevant or even possible any longer; the world has moved on, and a composer with a conscience must needs move with it.

I'm a wee bit surprised that Mr Grew passed no comment on the rather unusual shape of the Eighth Symphony; five movements, after all, are not exactly commonplace, especially when the first is much longer than the others (not far off half the total duration on its own) and is then followed by two Scherzo movements: the first standing alone, the second linked to the following Largo and its succeeding Allegretto without a break.

I'd like to suggest that this is influenced by, even possibly a hidden allusion to, the Fourth, where there are three movements with a scherzo in the middle, though each of the lengthy outer movements falls into sections which are like linked smaller movements founded on the same material. If viewed in the same way, the last three movements of the Eighth could have been designated as a similar unity, in which case its structure starts to resemble the Fourth's quite closely.

A thought, too, on the speed at which the Eighth was conceived. I think it has left tell-tale signs of haste, but they're signs of method rather than quality; indeed there are moments where I feel the inspiration has spilled straight onto the page without being worried over and diluted. If we consider the difference between the Fourth, which occupied the composer intermittently for several years, and the Fifth, completed in three months, it's quite plain that the later symphony is often conceived in paragraphs for homogenous orchestral groups, blocks of colour, whereas the earlier tends to go for more complicated and experimental mixtures with added details. This pattern of orchestral group blocks seems to be a marked feature of the Eighth too, and I'd like to ask our contributing composers if they would agree that from a purely practical point of view it is likely to have made things simpler and faster for scoring purposes.

Indeed so. But I'd say, in being so heterogeneous and unorthodox in orchestration, the Fourth is in a different world from the works before it as well as most of those after it.

As for a "sense of balance" between movements, I don't see what this has to do with whether "art" is or isn't present.

This is a problem of "reception" rather than reality - and would have been explained to Member Grew immediately had the work been viewed in score. He mentioned in a previous posting that he was unable to hear any break at all between the 4th and 5th movements: this is because there is none.

In reality, the format is as follows:

Part 1: First Movement (approx. 30 mins)
Part 2: Second Movement (approx. 6 mins)
Part 3: Joined Movements 3, 4 and 5 (approx. 30 mins)

It can be seen (and heard) therefore, that the work consists of two large outer movements (the last one falling into 3 linked sections), and that these frame a central March movement. In that sense, the work is perfectly well proportioned.

It is interesting to see that Shostakovich, while being highly individual, has nonetheless paid due respect to "symphonic form" by indicating each "movement" in the score.

Baz