Symphony No.5 in D minor - Dmitri Shostakovich
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Vasily Petrenko.
I - Moderato - Allegro non troppo - Poco sostenuto - Largamente - Più mosso - Moderato: 0:00
II - Scherzo. Allegretto: 17:53
III - Largo - Largamente - Poco più mosso: 23:03
IV - Allegro non troppo - Allegro - Più mosso: 38:35
Shostakovich's Symphony No.5 was composed between April and October 1937. It was premiered on November 21 of 1937, performed by the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Yevgeni Mravinsky. It was met with a triumphal success that appealed to both the public and official critics, receiving an ovation that lasted well over half an hour. It was one of the greatest triumphs of the composer's career, and it would prove to be his salvation through one of the darkest periods of Russian history.
In January 1936, an editorial titled "Muddle Instead of Music" was published in the Pravda newspaper, which denounced the composer and his opera "Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk". On February, the articles "Ballet Falsehood" assailed his ballet "The Limpid Stream", and "Clear and Simple Language in Art" again further attacked Shostakovich for "formalism". The composer had been previously denounced, but in 1936 his life and his family were in real danger. Shostakovich saw friends and collaborators disappear, family members being arrested and his music vanished from concert halls. 1936 was the year of the beginning of the "Great Purge", in which over a million people would die by the repression of the soviet state. The composer himself was interrogated by an NKVD officer, and he apparently got away because said officer was arrested and executed shortly after.
Shostakovich was immensely pressured to write a piece in the socialist realist style the state demanded, as officials suggested the composer to collect Folk themes and write in a simple and bright way. After several months of shock, the composer presented his fifth symphony as a response to this crisis ("A Soviet Artist’s Reply to Just Criticism"), which was hailed as his redemption by soviet authorities after a favourable review by Alexey Tolstoy. While the work seems superficially more conservative and classical in its form, it is a masterpiece of cyclic unity and thematic transformation. The debate about the meaning of the work still continues almost a century after it was written, as it is full of motives and elements that, depending on the interpretation, convey very different narratives. We will merely expose them and let the listeners decide for themselves.
The first movement is structured in sonata form. It begins with an anguished main theme in canon on low strings, which is the foundation of the whole piece. It hesitantly unfolds on the rest of strings, as a fateful three-note motive appears that seems to stop it every the following variations. The second theme is cold and contemplative (almost completely detached), presented by strings and harp, which is a transformation of the opening theme. The fateful motive lurks in the background, again stopping the flow of the music. After this extensive exposition, the development menacingly opens with the fateful motive on piano and the main theme on horns and trumpets.
The music grows more intense and militaristic in tone, exploding into a bellicose march. It turns hysterical as it then reaches an alarming climax with the two themes in counterpoint (the first on strings and the second in canon on the brass). The recapitulation then opens with a tragic interpretation of the main theme, culminating in the most powerful utterance of the fateful motive. After a diminuendo, fragments of the two themes reappear and wander aimlessly. A slow and fragile coda ends the movement in a hopeless way, with the fateful motive on trumpets and timpani, and the celesta with an enigmatic rising scale.
The second movement is a scherzo in ternary form. It opens with a lively and rhythmic main theme introduced by low strings (a variation of the opening theme), being a spoof of Mahler's ländler dances from his scherzi. It then goes through a series of variations characterized by a rich and varied orchestration, almost resembling circus music, but with some dramatic overtones. The trio seamlessly begins with a delicate duo between violin and harp, with the theme transformed as a waltz but interrupted by an orchestral outburst. A passage dominated by bassoon and strings pizzicati leads us to the recapitulation of the scherzo. When it seems the trio is going to reappear, an orchestral tutti ends the movement.
[Musical analysis continued in the comments section]
Picture: "The Defense of Petrograd" (1928) by the Russian painter Aleksandr Deyneka.
Musical analysis partially written by myself. Sources: tinyurl.com/2674zdz6 and tinyurl.com/2by9kpx6
To check the score: tinyurl.com/26r725ur - เพลง
The third movement is structured as a sonata-rondo. It begins with a tragic and expressive main theme presented by third violins, which passes to the rest of strings. It is also derived from the opening theme of the work, and the string divisions are reminiscent of Russian Orthodox Choirs. The fate motive reappears subtly here, leading us to anguished sighs. A wandering, lonely second theme is introduced by flute and harp, before the main theme is recapitulated in an even more bleak way.
After a massive and despairing climax, the oboe, supported by tremolando strings, introduces a third theme of great sadness and similar to a panikhida (an Orthodox memorial service for the dead), which then passes to clarinet and flute. The main theme reappears once again, unleashing a painful and expressive lament on the rest of strings. It is followed by an oppressive climax with the third theme on cellos. A long, slow and extenuated coda ensues, in which the main themes are recalled in a poignant, ethereal way. The main theme slowly vanishes on harp and celesta, and the movement ends with a final uplifting plagal cadence.
The fourth movement is written in sonata form. It begins with an imposing and forceful fanfare, taking form as a boisterous military march on the brass. A passionate and energetic second theme is then introduced by strings. Both the fanfare and the string's theme are derived from the opening theme of the work. Follows a development that combines, transforms and reshapes these materials. Over a massive climax, a triumphal third theme appears blasting from the trumpets, but the reappearance of the main theme suddenly stops the music in its track. The third theme is transformed into a hymn on horns, supported by a two-note ostinato on violins.
The strings tragically interpret it, with subtle references to the previous slow movement. Woodwind figurations precede the reappearance of the main theme as a slow, funereal tune on the basses. A lyrical passage gradually leads us to the recapitulation of the main theme transformed as a slow march. It gradually grows more intense and dissonant, quoting the main themes in this crescendo. After much struggle, the tonality swifts to D major for an extensive and apparently triumphal coda. However, some subtle dissonances seem jarring to our hears, and the fateful motive reappears on percussion, leading us to a powerful if ambiguous end.
Now let's proceed to the symbols and hidden meanings in the work. To begin with; the controversial book "Testimony" by Solomon Volkov has a section dedicated to the fifth symphony described with the following words: "I'll never believe that a man who understood nothing could feel the Fifth Symphony. Of course they understood, they understood what was happening around them and they understood what the Fifth was about." The book as a whole offers a bleak portrayal of the composer's life, partially confirmed through his correspondence and testimonies by close family members and friends. However, we must remain sceptical and be guided mainly by the music.
The symphony quotes several times Shostakovich's song "Vozrozhdenije" (Op. 46 No. 1), most notably in the last movement; the song is a setting of a poem by Alexander Pushkin that describes a ruthless barbarian who, with a thick paintbrush, blackens over a picture painted by a genius. Only with the passing of time does this surface paint dry and slowly fall away, eventually revealing the original masterpiece in all its glory. This song is by some considered to be a vital clue to the interpretation and understanding of the whole symphony.
The first movement is full of subtle elements; the opening references Beethoven's ninth symphony, as well as the three-note motive was inspired by the "fate theme" from his Fifth Symphony. Beethoven was hailed as a revolutionary composer and a guide to soviet composers, as his work was reinterpreted under the communist light, but he could also be understood, as did the West, as a genius that stood against tyranny and oppression. The rhythms used in the main themes is similar that of the main theme from the second movement of Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony, a piece whose premiere was stopped by pressure of the authorities. This is not the only link with the fourth. The tragic and dramatic nature of most of the movement, specially in the development, could be a depiction of hopelessness and terror in the face of tyranny.
The second movement doesn't offer us much to analyse, but it is not a respite as claimed by Tolstoy's review, as it is imbued with tension and a palpable discomfort. It's sense of vulgarity alla Mahler also clashed with the aesthetic demands of the party. The third movement's references to Russian liturgical music was also a sign of defiance from the composer, as the communist state intensely repressed the Orthodox church and their believers, but specially its tragic expression was against the aesthetic of socialist realism, which labelled this kind of music as formalistic, decadent and bourgeois-like.
The fourth movement is the most controversial in this double-faced narrative we are exploring. The opening fanfare and coda, taken by face value, were declared as triumphal by official music critics. The following is declared in Testimony: "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'". The slow recapitulation of the fanfare mirrors a scene from Mussorgsky’s "Boris Godunov" where the crowds are forced to praise the Tsar. Similarly, the final coda seems brilliant and victorious at first, but the subtle dissonances and specially the presence of the fate motive, seem to make such view too naive. In fact, it resembles more said comment on being beaten by a stick and creating a false collective rejoicing.
So, I think with all these musical elements taken into account, we can be pretty sure that Shostakovich wrote this piece as a form of protest, in one hand apparently following the dictates of socialist realism, while actually rejecting the oppression and impositions of authorities. But all of this considered, whatever Shostakovich's stance on communism or the politics of the time, does not deprive this piece of the status of being a masterpiece.
A profound and very touching masterpiece. The accompanied information explains the work very good. Shostakovich could be deliciously sarcastic, just as Gustav Mahler. Petrenko's performance of the symphonies belongs to the best. Many thanks for the whole cycle.
Each Shostakovich's symphonhy is a delight from metalic and rough sounds, an achievement from the path opened by Stravinsky. Even with so much pressure above him his genious never vacilated to compose each one as a marvelous achievement of the metalic sounds in Modernity. Clearly, my favorite composer.
Great stuff ... and thanks for using Petrenko's recordings!
Thank your for your introduction to the symphonies. In one part it says he got a standing ovation of over an half hour, this is something I do not get, I mean music can be very moving, life changing, enchanting and all, but how can people clap for so long? A doctor doing a life and death operation is not getting that kind of recognition.
I think ovation (not applause) is not an issue or indication of gratitude (e.g. for a doctor) but rather a state of trance (as in a heartfelt worship)...