What is the last piece of classical music you listened to?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I want to get this piece played on either ClassicFM or BBC Radio 3 in a prime timeslot, but only if I can read the emails that come in afterward 

 

 

[Bayesian 1,359]

10 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I want to get this piece played on either ClassicFM or BBC Radio 3 in a prime timeslot, but only if I can read the emails that come in afterward 

 

 

Here's my email: You care to explain to me, @Disco Stu, what the fuck it was I just listened to??

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

7 minutes ago, Bayesian said:

Here's my email: You care to explain to me, @Disco Stu, what the fuck it was I just listened to??

 

 

If I ever find out, I'll make sure to let you know.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,504]

  The Lunchtime Concert on BBC Radio 3.

This week, it's the turn of the fabulous The King's Singers. It's not half bad.

[BB-8 3,461]

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,504]

I love Bax.

"Tintagel" is fantastic.

[BB-8 3,461]

Listening to more Bax...

 

 

 

[blondheim 1,157]

I’m listening through my most recent purchase: The Black Composers Series box from Sony. It’s incredible. I highly recommend it to everyone and I am only 4 disc in. The Chevalier de Saint-Georges disc was simply stunning

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

Maybe my favourite of Bax's works:

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

Ah, Bax. Whenever he's mentioned, I remember that I should check out more of his stuff, but somehow I never do.

[Bespin 8,480]

Rainy morning here, why not return to Bach, precisely at Prince Leopold's court in Cöthen...

 

Richard Egarr, Academy of Ancient Music - J.S. Bach - Orchestral Suites

 

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Beethoven 9, Karajan 77, LIVE RECORDING. This is yet another example of why nobody should ever try to re-record or polish or simulate a live performance. This is miles better than that 77 studio recording! Yes, some flubs, but above all, enthusiasm.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

12 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Beethoven 9, Karajan 77, LIVE RECORDING.

 

Are you referring to an album release?

[bollemanneke 3,338]

No, it obviously doesn't exist on album because that would be too easy. This is a DVD released by EuroArts.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

Just now, bollemanneke said:

No, it obviously doesn't exist on album because that would be too easy. This is a DVD released by EuroArts.

 

Oh, I remember trying to find that one.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Need... help?

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

I want a physical copy. Right now I can't even find the DVD in question when googling...

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Yeah, same. 

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

No, it obviously doesn't exist on album because that would be too easy. This is a DVD released by EuroArts.

 

That's an album then though, isn't it? Or is that some bootleg release?

 

Is it actually, properly live? Because Karajan, more than anyone, is also famous for tinkering with his "live" videos, to the point where at least the video is entirely re-done, with only parts of the orchestra filmed for certain angles to get specific effects. I'm not sure now what, if anything, he did to the audio part.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Not sure, it has applause... and differs from the DG recording.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

4 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I want a physical copy. Right now I can't even find the DVD in question when googling...

I just bought one on Amazon UK. They seem to have more. But make sure you buy from them directly, so not from third parties through them, otherwise it's customs shit.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

15 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I just bought one on Amazon UK. They seem to have more. But make sure you buy from them directly, so not from third parties through them, otherwise it's customs shit.

 

That's great. Could you share the link here, or the ASIN identificator?

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Sure!

Herbert von Karajan: Beethoven - Symphony No. 9 [1977] [DVD] [2008]: Amazon.co.uk: Agnes Baltsa, René Kollo, Anna Tomowa-Sintow, Jose van Dam, Agnes Baltsa, René Kollo: DVD & Blu-ray

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

There it is!

 

3 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

That's an album then though, isn't it? Or is that some bootleg release?

 

Is it actually, properly live? Because Karajan, more than anyone, is also famous for tinkering with his "live" videos, to the point where at least the video is entirely re-done, with only parts of the orchestra filmed for certain angles to get specific effects. I'm not sure now what, if anything, he did to the audio part.

 

Here it is on blu, with No. 5 as a bonus. No. 9 is from the 1977 new year's concert, so probably not tinkered with much.

 

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/ludwig-van-beethoven-symphonien-nr-5-9/hnum/10898447

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

On 07/12/2022 at 3:50 PM, bollemanneke said:

Not sure, it has applause... and differs from the DG recording.

 

Might also be that in more than one case, Karajan's studio recording was made while he and the orchestra were still preparing for the actual live performance. Case in point: Karajan and the Berliner's Alpensinfonie from the Salzbuger Festspiele. Before that concert, they recorded it for DG (Karajan's only official recording of the work, and I believe DG's first digital recording). The studio recording is one of my favourites, but it's a bit tame in points, and there are more than a few dirty bits from the orchestra. The actual concert, broadcast on the radio and released on some ultra-rare Japanese CD, is much stronger - there's a real sense of urgency to it, and very punchy playing by the orchestra. It can be found on YouTube (audio only), and I'd buy a new, affordable CD release in a heartbeat.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,504]

Currently  more weird and wonderful shit, on BBC Radio 3.

A quick search reveals it to be Symphony no. 5 "Symphony For Strings", by William Schuman.

Wow! This is brilliant!

Anyone else into this guy?

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

I prefer his forefather, Robert.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

9 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

A quick search reveals it to be Symphony no. 5 "Symphony For Strings", by William Schuman.

Wow! This is brilliant!

Anyone else into this guy?

 

I've certainly spent a lot of time listening to him, he's a central figure in my key interest area (American music of the 1920s-1950s).  I admire a lot of his music, but have only found a few pieces that really connect with me.  His 3rd symphony is his most well-known work (it was championed by Bernstein).

 

I'm quite partial to a late work of his, composed in the 1980s for band titled "American Hymn"

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,504]

Thanks for that, Stu. I'll give it a listen.

There's plenty of his stuff, on Amazon, so I'll wait until after the Christmas rush, and invest.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

His music is very masculine

[blondheim 1,157]

@karelm You seem live the resident Shosty enthusiast/expert. If you don’t mind, what do you think about his 12th symphony? and also this article and the thoughts contained inside it:

 

http://www.musicweb-international.com/programme_notes/shost_sym12.htm

 

I’ve only listened to the symphony once and I always listen to it as pure music first without any program. After doing that, I found this article, among many others. I don’t have any notions about it one way or the other yet. I have been studying his later symphonies after spending the first part of the year on the first 10. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

 

Of course any other Shostakovich people are welcome to weigh in with their opinions also

[A24 4,326]

 

Jeroen Van Veen, a Dutch pianist and Minimalist composer, plays the music of Sakamoto. And with a 5-disc CD set, it's pretty extensive. Lots of stuff I never heard either. Warning, this is a typical classical recording of the piano containing all its powerful dynamics, so don't expect it to sound closed mic'd.

[karelm 2,903]

On 23/12/2022 at 1:50 PM, blondheim said:

@karelm You seem live the resident Shosty enthusiast/expert. If you don’t mind, what do you think about his 12th symphony? and also this article and the thoughts contained inside it:

 

http://www.musicweb-international.com/programme_notes/shost_sym12.htm

 

I’ve only listened to the symphony once and I always listen to it as pure music first without any program. After doing that, I found this article, among many others. I don’t have any notions about it one way or the other yet. I have been studying his later symphonies after spending the first part of the year on the first 10. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

 

Of course any other Shostakovich people are welcome to weigh in with their opinions also

Sorry for the slow response, it's the holidays!  I like the 12th but don't think of it as considerably deep.  It's a great example of his nationalistic programmatic works - basically Soviet poster art.  I prefer No. 11 overall as I find it more complex and having a wider expressive range but still like No. 12, especially if you have the opportunity to hear it live.  Structurally, I find it quite similar to Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, a heroic symphony from darkness to triumph with the same general structure including the last two movements played without pause with a slow transition between those last two movements.  It's very bombastic (even by this composer's standards).  The basic criticism it gets is it's too bombastic and shallow compared to the composer's other works  (especially of that period) which have either more depth, subtext, mystery, or allure.  Because of this, it is considered one of the weaker late symphonies but again, I enjoy it - if it were a film, it would be a solid popcorn flick which would be a criticism if you were talking about Kubrick but maybe not if you're talking about James Cameron.  I recall reading it was a disappointment when premiered because it lacked the substance of what the composer was then known.  I saw it performed in concert a year or two ago and it was thrilling to hear live, but I am a low brass player so have a higher tolerance for bombast.  

 

One thing I have recently done is listen to a new cycle sequentially (Michael Sanderling) which was quite an experience.  First, Michael is the son of Kurt Sanderling, a personal friend of Dmitri Shostakovich and has a very different interpretation to this music.  It made me realize that I was used to an "old school" interpretation, but contemporary interpretations are quite different.  I'll try to summarize it briefly.  Old school are the original Soviet era such as Kondrashin, Rozhdestvensky, Kurt Sanderling, Mravinsky, early Maxim Shostakovich, early Bernstein, etc.  Generally, these are extremely intense and fast interpretations.  They don't tend to wallow but are rather manic.  The emphasis is on panic and anxiety not pathos.  They are excellent and thrilling interpretations though might not have first rate orchestras or recorded sound.  Next group is middle period which is much more polished and romantic.  Here, the emphasis is on pathos.  This is basically Barshai, Bernard Haitink (I adore this cycle as a wonderful overall interpretation), late Bernstein, late Maxim Shostakovich, others - basically think 1980's and 1990's.  Here was the Soviet collapse and things slowed way down, the emphasis was on tragedy and slow tempo substantially based on Solomon Volkov's "Testimony" which claimed (falsely at worst and unsubstantiated at best) a secret anti-Soviet protest in the populist music.  This narrative beautifully falls in line with the collapse of the Soviet Unition during that time so was extremely popular but hasn't stood up to the test of time.  Then in the 2000's and 2020's there is the contemporary interpretation which is more sterile - less emphasis on the dramatic and more emphasis purely on the music.  This includes the younger group such as Vasily Petrenko, Caetani, Nelsons, and the previously mentioned Michael Sanderling.   These recordings are going to be excellent, but the interpretations are generally sterile if you are used to the middle period.   With works such as Symphony No. 12, that isn't a bad thing. 

 

So, when I recently traversed all the symphonies as conducted by Michael Sanderling, some of the symphonies that flopped with dramatic interpreters fared better with more sterile versions.  I thought No. 1, 2, and 3 were quite good (except perhaps the ending of No. 3 which is just lousy).  

 

As a great composer, Shostakovich relies much on the interpretation.  A great interpreter of Shostakovich must navigate various stages of rawness, bleakness, coldness, emotion, passionate intensity to these depressive symphonies from Russia's darkest years otherwise the piece could come across as just a popcorn film.  I don't see anything to disagree with the link you posted - that is basically correct.  Most importantly to my opinion, Shostakovich was an anxious patriot who would have been happy if he was obscure but was elevated to a national symbol, he didn't want to be or might not be prepared to be but used this position as best he could in what was a very complex socio-political situation and it took a great personal tool on him.  Others (Solomon Volkov) were in similar positions without the stamina and leveraged the deceased Shostakovich for their socio-political gain.  Through this lense future musicologists should evaluate Shostakovich.

[blondheim 1,157]

@karelmThanks so much for the response! It’s nice to discuss Shostakovich with someone.

 

So you agree with the link, that the Symphony no 12 is full of Shostakovich’s codes and is possibly even anti-Lenin, despite being dedicated to his memory?

 

I like your likening of it to Beethoven’s Fifth. I find that interesting. I will try to keep that in my mind when I listen to it next.

[karelm 2,903]

3 hours ago, blondheim said:

@karelmThanks so much for the response! It’s nice to discuss Shostakovich with someone.

 

So you agree with the link, that the Symphony no 12 is full of Shostakovich’s codes and is possibly even anti-Lenin, despite being dedicated to his memory?

 

I like your likening of it to Beethoven’s Fifth. I find that interesting. I will try to keep that in my mind when I listen to it next.

 

Sort of.  I'll try to explain further.  I believe Shostakovich was pro-Soviet and was critical of the politicians and corruption of the bourgeois and bureaucracy.  He believed they were a disgrace to the Russia he loved but was in a position where he could not criticize it or risked life.  This is different from Volkov's suggestion that he was antisoviet but in both cases he relied on complex coded music.  He clearly used "DSCH" and it is heard first muted then eventually defiantly in his 10th Symphony.  Also, throughout his 8th String Quartet, and much else.  This motif is his calling card used throughout his mid and later works so in this case, yes there are codes.   I just reject the interpretation offered by Volkov which became very influential in 1980's and 90's and isn't really accepted anymore.   The interpretation you linked to is based on 1990's book by Ian MacDonald which was heavily influenced by Volkov.  If you are interested, it is worth discussing why Volkov isn't to be trusted because it impacts the evolution of how Shostakovich was interpreted.  It's a complex topic.  I read Volkov's book in college and it blew my mind and I became 100% convinced it was true as did others, but slowly through scholarly refutation, Volkov's story became undone.  It is ultimately Volkov stating his views but using a far more famous, recently deceased figure to hind behind.  At the same time as other artists fleeing Soviet Russia (Rostropovich in the early 1970's and Mikhail Baryshnikov (the star ballet dancer of the state theater, Bolshoi defected while they were on tour in the mid 70's) - all of these defections of famous figures were music to the West's ears so when hearing that the famous Soviet darling composer Shostakovich was a secret dissident was very, very popular revisionist history and helped spread Volkov's story.  It is true that Shostakovich was very anxious, secretive, and patriotic yet also critical of establishment.  He was a very complex artist - one who loved the Soviet ideal that the leaders never lived up to but couldn't outwardly say anything negative about that.

[blondheim 1,157]

48 minutes ago, karelm said:

 

Sort of.  I'll try to explain further.  I believe Shostakovich was pro-Soviet and was critical of the politicians and corruption of the bourgeois and bureaucracy.  He believed they were a disgrace to the Russia he loved but was in a position where he could not criticize it or risked life.  This is different from Volkov's suggestion that he was antisoviet but in both cases he relied on complex coded music.  He clearly used "DSCH" and it is heard first muted then eventually defiantly in his 10th Symphony.  Also, throughout his 8th String Quartet, and much else.  This motif is his calling card used throughout his mid and later works so in this case, yes there are codes.   I just reject the interpretation offered by Volkov which became very influential in 1980's and 90's and isn't really accepted anymore.   The interpretation you linked to is based on 1990's book by Ian MacDonald which was heavily influenced by Volkov.  If you are interested, it is worth discussing why Volkov isn't to be trusted because it impacts the evolution of how Shostakovich was interpreted.  It's a complex topic.  I read Volkov's book in college and it blew my mind and I became 100% convinced it was true as did others, but slowly through scholarly refutation, Volkov's story became undone.  It is ultimately Volkov stating his views but using a far more famous, recently deceased figure to hind behind.  At the same time as other artists fleeing Soviet Russia (Rostropovich in the early 1970's and Mikhail Baryshnikov (the star ballet dancer of the state theater, Bolshoi defected while they were on tour in the mid 70's) - all of these defections of famous figures were music to the West's ears so when hearing that the famous Soviet darling composer Shostakovich was a secret dissident was very, very popular revisionist history and helped spread Volkov's story.  It is true that Shostakovich was very anxious, secretive, and patriotic yet also critical of establishment.  He was a very complex artist - one who loved the Soviet ideal that the leaders never lived up to but couldn't outwardly say anything negative about that.

 Oh yes, I would love to discuss this further. I find it fascinating.

 

So what are your thoughts on Sanderling, Rostropovich, Barshai and even his son claiming that the views expressed in Testimony are ‘all true’? I don’t believe one way or the other and have been looking for good modern scholarly works on the subject to help form a view of my own

[karelm 2,903]

23 hours ago, blondheim said:

 Oh yes, I would love to discuss this further. I find it fascinating.

 

So what are your thoughts on Sanderling, Rostropovich, Barshai and even his son claiming that the views expressed in Testimony are ‘all true’? I don’t believe one way or the other and have been looking for good modern scholarly works on the subject to help form a view of my own

That's part of the problem is most at some point believed in Testimony and later rejected it.  The early endorsements usually come from those still living in the Soviet Union trying to leave and hadn't yet read it but were told the synopsis to which they did agree with.  So, you'll find some quotes from them where they support it but read further and later and you'll see they come to reject it.  As soon as 1978, Maxim didn't endorse it as being authentic (in 1978 after he defected, he said "‘These are not my father’s memoirs. This is a book by Solomon Volkov. Mr. Volkov should reveal how the book was written.") nor does Irina, Shostakovich's widow, who said Volkov was never there at the time he claimed to be when Dmitri's health was very bad and he needed a lot of medical attention and couldn't leave her attention to have "secret interviews" with Volkov, almost constantly, Volkov claimed to have spent days and weeks each time with Shostakovich, but Irina contradicted this saying they met once where Dmitri was ailing and signed an autograph to what he thought was a fan where she later discovered that autograph was used in the book as an endorsement of extended interviews.  Stuff like that.  The Soviet composer and Dmitri's star pupil, Boris Tishchenko, spent years with Dmitri from the 60's and 70's during this same period frequently in personal reflection and contradicts Volkov and is very critical of his interpretation of Shostakovich or his understanding of the man.  Basically, people who were in a position to know, all discard Volkov after further study and review.  That includes Maxim (his son), Irina (his widow), Tishchenko (his star pupil), and other personal confidants, etc.  Evidence that Volkov claimed proved he interviewed Dmitri never surfaced despite promises to do so and in the end, the only letters that have been shown to have Dmitri's signature included copies of pre-existing articles from the 1950's and 1960's rather than any of those claimed interviews from Volkov.  He consistently failed to deliver the proof.  Tishchenko makes a compelling case against Volkov going point by point why it's a self serving fabrication.  I'll look for it later but take a look at this rundown: ShostakovichThesis.pdf;jsessionid=3D29B74A7253359237A451334F6C37FB (canterbury.ac.nz)

 

I've read many of the original books referenced over the years, but this seems to be a good distillation of various points of views like the people I've mentioned with footnotes to the original sources, so you can investigate further on your own.  This is why I suggest you revisit Shostakovich through the eyes of modern interpretations like Michael Sanderling because it focuses more on the music than the fake history as impactful as it was.  

 

Here is a good summary of the Volkov hoax:

 

This hoax, exposed as early as 1980, is a fake "autobiography" (a la "Hitler's Diaries") created by embittered defector Solomon Volkov. While Testimony, the supposed "Memoir" of Dmitri Shostakovich, has been long discredited, it continues to poison the legitimacy of Shostakovich study and remains an object of faith in certain cultish internet backwaters where neither evidence nor logic carry much weight. More regrettably, some of the less erudite limners of liner notes (or those eager to pander to western prejudices) still cite its false claims in apparent ignorance of their tainted source- a proven fraud and forgery perpetrated by Volkov. Apologists at great length publish pandering anecdotal "reconsiderations" to the effect that Volkov's hoax was, er, a very clever one.

Huge discrepancies were seen immediately upon the book's rather suspicious and secretive publication:

 

Irina Shostakovich, the late composer's wife, points out that Shostakovich only met Volkov briefly 3 or 4 times, certainly not, as she says, enough to have obtained information for a book. (Volkov claims not only to have obtained all the material in the book through long talks with Shostakovich, but to have also gone over the entire thing, section by section, twice with Shostakovich for approval.) Also of note is how Volkov carefully never creates a situation that includes a living (as of 1979) person that might come forward and say, "This didn't happen." Volkov refuses to submit any of the authenticating materials he has claimed to have to independent examination.

The book was declared a fraud, invented by Solomon Volkov, that "has nothing in common with the true reminiscences of D. D. Shostakovich" by a panel of six prominent former Soviet composers- students and friends of Shostakovich- Basner, Karnev, Karen Khachaturian, Levitin, Tishchenko, and Vainberg.

Final devastation of Volkov's claims came with the proof a forgery. As documented by Shostakovich scholar Dr. Laurel E. Fay, the signatures at the beginning of the seven chapters that Volkov claimed as "proof" of authenticity were all simply taken from articles previously published by the Soviets. Volkov forged Shostakovich's signature onto the beginning of seven of the chapters of "Testimony" by attaching a page from one of these old articles to the beginning of one of his chapters. Volkov would use the first page only (which often only comes to a few paragraphs in the published book) from a copy of one of these already published, non-controversial Soviet documents which Shostakovich had signed as "read". Then, discarding the rest of the article written by Shostakovich, Volkov would attach his own continuation. The rest of the book is pure Volkov.

 

This is all documented beautifully by Fay. It can even be seen where Volkov deleted a few phrases from the documents to obscure the dates or other information that too obviously conflicted with the invented material. But you can still see a few of these discrepancies for yourself. For example:

Look at the chapter that begins on page 154. Read the entire paragraph (actual Shostakovich, cribbed direct by Volkov from an article by DS published in the "Literaturnaia Gazeta,", 12/21/65) that begins, "I wrote my Seventh Symphony...". Then on the next page (pure Volkov) read the whole paragraph that begins, "The Seventh Symphony had been planned...".

The only seven bits of actual DS material in the book can be found on pages 32, 77, 106, 154, 178, 226, and 245. All are from previously published Soviet articles. The oldest is p.106, from the 10/16/32 Sovetskoe iskusstvo. The most recent is p. 77, from 1974 Sovetskaia muzyka 1974 no.3.

There is no evidence whatever that Shostakovich gave Volkov any other material, or that he ever had any idea that Volkov planned to write a biography, much less a fake autobiography to be published "after his death" (with no apparent concern for his wife and child still living in the U.S.S.R.- a strange surprise to leave them considering the fear Testimony claims they all lived under).

The Western scholar that first completely documented all this was Laurel Fay in a paper delivered to the American Musicological Society at Columbus, Ohio, April 12, 1980. This was later expanded and published as:

 

Laurel Fay: "Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose Testimony?", The Russian Review, vol.39, no.4, October 1980, pp.484-493

 

For further testimony re the misbegetting of Testimony see Richard Taruskin's article, "The Opera and the Dictator" in The New Republic, 3/20/89.

 

A lot of people had a lot of egg on their faces. Indeed, collections of embarassing Testimonials are still maintained on the web by the childlike faith of Old Believers, who consider the exposure of Volkov as some huge conspiracy by western musicologists who are all secret Stalinists.

Volkov has consistently refused to discuss the cribbed articles, the signatures or other discrepancies. If his claims were even partially true he could easily have proved them by simply producing this manuscript he's supposed to have mysteriously smuggled out of the Soviet Union. It could be determined when (and probably where) it was typed. But as it was no doubt typed between 1976 and 1979 in the United States, Volkov won't do that. Nor can he produce any of the notes and letters from Shostakovich that (in Testimony) he claims to have.

 

Which calls to mind another question that Fay noted. In 1976 Volkov, as he says, "came to New York, determined to have this book published." Instead, he quietly gets a day job as research associate at the Columbia U. Russian Institute. Why sit on the manuscript for three years? The obvious answer is that it took him that much time to write it!

The proof is in Volkov's hands, unless he's burned or shredded it. That he fails to produce it is the most damning thing of all.

 

A few who had gone too far out on this limb to retreat, or were simply still too devoted to their fantasies of Shostakovich as a secret dissident, take the position that, while Volkov undoubtedly lied, the book still has "true feeling" and is an "accurate reflection".

Of course, the purpose of a fraud is to be believed, and Volkov is no fool. He wrote exactly what the West wanted (and unreconstructed cold warriors still want) to hear. But the problem is that nothing in Testimony can be believed unless it is proven elsewhere. So as history it is useless, except as another example of a famous fraud in the tradition of the "Zinoviev Letter", The Hand That Signed the Paper, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Report from Iron Mountain.

 

I read Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose Testimony? and found it very convincing but can't find it free online.  The above is a decent synopsis.  If you are better able to track down the chapter by Boris Tishchenko, that was very convincing.  he took this very personally.  I didn't know him but a friend of mine did and spoke to him frequently of Shostakovich until Boris died a few years ago.  Shostakovich was a very important person to him and even arranged Boris's Cello Concerto, one of the very few times he arranged a work by another composer.

[karelm 2,903]

On 28/12/2022 at 8:36 AM, blondheim said:

 Oh yes, I would love to discuss this further. I find it fascinating.

 

So what are your thoughts on Sanderling, Rostropovich, Barshai and even his son claiming that the views expressed in Testimony are ‘all true’? I don’t believe one way or the other and have been looking for good modern scholarly works on the subject to help form a view of my own

This is an open letter published in the New York Times in 2000 by the widow, Irina, worth reading.  Similar letters from Tishchenko and Maxim has said the same after 1980.

 

An Answer to Those Who Still Abuse Shostakovich
Irina Shostakovich
NYT 20 August 2000

---

Home Back to contents

MOSCOW -- Irina Shostakovich is the widow of Dmitri Shostakovich. They married in 1962, and she was his third wife. The following are her reflections, translated by Irina Roberts, on her husband's life and posthumous reputation.

Dmitri Shostakovich was born in 1906. He enjoyed early success as a composer, but his relations with the Soviet regime deteriorated. In 1936, his opera "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District" was condemned in Pravda as "muddle instead of music," and he was denounced by friends and colleagues. His Fifth Symphony restored his standing in 1937. In 1948 he was denounced again, with others, for "formalist" tendencies and forced to recant. Though the climate of repression relaxed somewhat after the death of Stalin in 1953, recriminations persisted, and Shostakovich bore the marks of trauma to the end of his life.

In 1973, he was named as a signatory to a letter denouncing the dissident Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov. Earlier, he had been named as a signatory to a statement demanding the release of the Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, who was imprisoned by Greece's right-wing regime from 1967 to 1970.

Mrs. Shostakovich refers to Leo Arnshtam, a film director, and Isaak Glikman, a drama critic and historian. Both were friends of Shostakovich's throughout his lifetime. Lev Lebedinsky, a musicologist, befriended Shostakovich in the 50's.

The book to which she refers, "Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich," as related to and edited by Solomon Volkov, was published in 1979 by Harper & Row and has since been the subject of a lively controversy over its authenticity.

Dmitri Shostakovich died 25 years ago this month. Since then, his music has been alive and has gained in popularity; the number of his fans has risen in leaps and bounds, and his music has found its way into the hearts of people in many different countries. At present, young performers are taking the place of Shostakovich's deceased contemporaries and lending their skills and talent to the art of performing his music.

Shostakovich was loved and recognized in the music world ever since his youth; that music world tried to protect and shelter him from the wrath of his persecutors during the most difficult times, even when it was dangerous, and the forces were unequal. By defending him, people who were themselves oppressed and scared were defending their own human dignity and their right to create. Only very few of them had the courage to protest openly, but most musicians persistently rebuffed all the attacks, mockery and incitement mounted against him. Of course, there were also rabid persecutors who were eager to please and expected to benefit from such persecution, as well as born informers and those who were simply easily persuaded and not very bright.

Dmitri Shostakovich was as defenseless as the rest of us, but he had much more to lose. He had to worry about the future of his work, which was treated shamelessly. Consequently, he considered it more important than anything else to be worthy of his talent and to develop it, evading his enemies and misleading them whenever possible. In the process, he managed to help many other people, protecting and supporting them, and for this he is remembered with gratitude.

But not by everyone. Even now there are some people who nurse grievances and feel offended that he did not help promote them, even though it seemed to them he could have.

Then there are those who believe they are as talented as he was but think that he was far too cunning and smart, and that they were innocent and defenseless; that he prevented them from making it to the top by the mere fact of his existence.

There was yet another category: young people with progressive views, who have aged by now, who tried to push Shostakovich forward and force him to present their ideas in a way they themselves were too cowardly to do. Furthermore, they were prepared to follow him, hide behind him, while striving to achieve their most ambitious goals.

Everyone who knew the Soviet way of life has his or her own ideas about it, but it needs a lot of courage to defend your ideas personally and not use someone else as a shield.

But now Dmitri Shostakovich is gone, and anything goes. The time has come to exploit his name, even to the point of abusing and humiliating his memory. Things are easier now, and people have found their voices. The dead are defenseless.

They are now recalling what happened and what didn't and, by attributing various scandalous remarks to the great composer, are finding it easy to settle old scores, to appropriate his ideas and pass them off as their own.

Then, too, by collecting true and false testimonies from his aging contemporaries and putting them through the grinder, people can create any picture they wish and documentarily "prove" that Shostakovich had no talent, that he was cunning and knew how to cheat, that he was weak and dishonest. But it is also possible to prove the opposite.

The story of his life has been turned into a battlefield. Of course, everything and everyone is pulled into the line of fire. They shout obscenities on the Internet, publish articles and write books and plays about Shostakovich; someone even went to the trouble of composing an opera about him.

These people were and are still trying, but failing, to establish their right to possess him. And it does not matter whether they shout from the reactionary positions of party ideology or act under the avant-garde flag; the right and the left meet in the end.

Among them are some of his talented pupils who were professionally unsuccessful, envious colleagues, and music critics who are interested in scandal above all else. Although they do not know or understand the historical evidence involved, they are not ashamed to repeat any lies and pass them off as established facts.

I take the liberty of claiming that people who have no morals, which are vital in all human relations, will never understand Shostakovich and his music. Ask yourself before you accuse someone else: how would you have behaved at such a difficult time and in such difficult circumstances?

The only consolation is that no one can ever hurt or upset Dmitri Shostakovich again, and time will eventually set everything right.

Volkov and 'Testimony'

During interviews, I am often asked about the veracity of the book "Testimony" by Solomon Volkov, published as Shostakovich's memoirs. Here is what I think.

Mr. Volkov worked for Sovetskaya Muzyka magazine, where Shostakovich was a member of the editorial board. As a favor to Boris Tishchenko, his pupil and colleague, Shostakovich agreed to be interviewed by Mr. Volkov, whom he knew little about, for an article to be published in Sovetskaya Muzyka. There were three interviews; each lasted two to two and a half hours, no longer, since Shostakovich grew tired of extensive chat and lost interest in the conversation. Two of the interviews were held in the presence of Mr. Tishchenko. The interviews were not taped.

Mr. Volkov arrived at the second interview with a camera (Mr. Volkov's wife, a professional photographer, always took pictures of Mr. Volkov with anyone who might become useful in the future) and asked Mr. Tishchenko and me to take pictures "as a keepsake." He brought a photograph to the third interview and asked Shostakovich to sign it. Shostakovich wrote his usual words: "To dear Solomon Maseyevich Volkov, in fond remembrance. D. Shostakovich 13.XI.1974." Then, as if sensing something amiss, he asked for the photograph back and, according to Mr. Volkov himself, added: "In memory of our talks on Glazunov, Zoshchenko and Meyerhold. D. Sh."

That was a list of the topics covered during the interviews. It shows that the conversation was about musical and literary life in prewar Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and nothing more. Some time later, Mr. Volkov brought Shostakovich a typed version of their conversations and asked him to sign every page at the bottom. It was a thin sheaf of papers, and Shostakovich, presuming he was going to see the proof sheets, did not read them. I came into Shostakovich's study as he was standing at his desk signing those pages without reading them. Mr. Volkov took the pages and left.

I asked Shostakovich why he had been signing every page, as it seemed unusual. He replied that Mr. Volkov had told him about some new censorship rules according to which his material would not be accepted by the publishers without a signature. I later learned that Mr. Volkov had already applied for an exit visa to leave the country and was planning to use that material as soon as he was abroad.

Soon after that, Shostakovich died, and Mr. Volkov put his plans into further action.

Mr. Volkov had told a lot of people about those pages, boasting his journalist's luck. This threatened to complicate his exit. It seems that he managed to contrive an audience with Enrico Berlinguer, secretary of the Italian Communist Party, who happened to be visiting Moscow, showed him the photograph signed by Shostakovich and complained that he, Mr. Volkov, a friend of Shostakovich's, was not allowed to leave the country for political reasons. In any case, an article about Mr. Volkov and the same photograph appeared in the Italian Communist newspaper La Stampa. Apparently, it did the trick.

I met Mr. Volkov at a concert and asked him to come and see me (but without his wife, as he had wanted) and leave me a copy of the material he had, which was unauthorized (since it had never been read by Shostakovich). Mr. Volkov replied that the material had already been sent abroad, and if Mr. Volkov was not allowed to leave, the material would be published with additions. He soon left the country, and I never saw him again.

Later on, I read in a booklet that came with the phonograph record of the opera "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District" conducted by Mstislav Rostropovich, which was released abroad, that Mr. Volkov was Shostakovich's assistant with whom he had written his memoirs. Elsewhere I read that when Shostakovich was at home alone, he would phone Mr. Volkov and they would see each other in secret.

Only someone with rich fantasy could invent something like that; it was not true, if only because at that time Shostakovich was very ill and was never left on his own. And we lived outside Moscow at the dacha. There was no opportunity for secret meetings. Mr. Volkov's name is nowhere to be found in Shostakovich's correspondence of the time, in his letters to Isaak Glikman, for example.

Mr. Volkov found a publisher in the United States, and the advertising campaign began. Extracts from the book appeared in a German magazine and reached Russia, where at that time there was state monopoly on intellectual property. VAAP, the Soviet copyright agency, asked for verification of Shostakovich's signature. American experts confirmed its authenticity. The book was published. Each chapter of the book was preceded by words written in Shostakovich's hand: "Have read. Shostakovich."

I can vouch that this was how Shostakovich signed articles by different authors planned for publication. Such material was regularly delivered to him from Sovetskaya Muzyka magazine for review, then the material was returned to the editorial department, where Mr. Volkov was employed. Unfortunately, the American experts, who did not speak Russian, were unable and certainly had no need to correlate Shostakovich's words with the contents of the text.

As for the additions, Mr. Volkov himself told me that he had spoken to a lot of different people about Shostakovich, in particular to Lev Lebedinsky, who later became an inaccurate memoirist and with whom Shostakovich had ended all relations a long time before. A friend of Shostakovich's, Leo Arnshtam, a cinema director, saw Mr. Volkov on his request, and Arnshtam later regretted it. A story about a telephone conversation with Stalin was written from his words. All this was included in the book as though it were coming from Shostakovich himself.

The book was translated into many languages and published in a number of countries, except Russia. Mr. Volkov at first claimed that the American publishers were against the Russian edition, then that the royalties in Russia were not high enough, then that those offering to publish it in Russia were crooks and, finally, that he had sold his manuscript to a private archive and it was not available anymore. Retranslation into Russian relieves the author of responsibility and permits new liberties.

Other 'Signatures'

Dmitri Shostakovich was accused of signing a letter from the intelligentsia against the academician Andrei Sakharov published in 1973 in Pravda. Yes, Shostakovich's name is among those signatories, but he never signed the letter. On the morning of the day in question, I answered a multitude of phone calls from Pravda, first saying that Shostakovich was out, then saying he was at the dacha. When they said they were going to send a car to the dacha, we simply went out and did not come back until the evening when the issue of the paper was already in print. Nevertheless, Shostakovich's name appeared among the signatories.

Some time ago we tried to obtain the original letter, but Pravda refused us, while admitting that "there was such a practice at that time." But I know it without being told. The same thing had happened earlier with a letter in support of Mikis Theodorakis. At that time Shostakovich was in the hospital. There was no use questioning the signature after it had already happened.

 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Marriner's recording of the final Haydn symphony (104).  Just beautiful, a perfect recording of a transcendent work.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

Get the new, beautiful box of his collected Haydn symphony recordings!

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

It will never not be a major loss that Marriner didn't record the full set of London symphonies.

 

At least he recorded my favorite Haydn (92 Oxford).

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

Unfortunately he didn't record no. 41, which would have been great interpreted by him.

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Mozart 41, Norrington/Stuttgart. Come on man, you KNOW this isn't the way to play it. (Knock on wood for owning Karajan/BPO version.)

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Symphony 39. God, this guy has no taste at all. And it's so idiotic because he's quite good in the early symphonies. And why, WHY not ignore these repeats?

[Mr. Who 919]

I finally found this recording/arrangement that is used in Curb Your Enthusiasm  Just hearing it you imagine Larry getting up to stuff lol

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Handel's concerti grossi, conducted by Max Pommer. Very nice, especially all the harpsichord and violin improvisations. God knows why they put every concerto in one track though.

[filmmusic 1,823]

 

[Schilkeman 955]

The only recording I've heard that makes Haydn dance--most are too fast. Also gets the dynamic contrast right.

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

 

 

Just back from Mendelssohn's far too rarely performed Paulus at the Musikverein, performed by the Concentus Musicus, Wiener Singverein, and an excellent set of soloists.

 

Also, all those comments about Herrmann's and Goldsmith's use of the serpent always had me thinking it was several hundred years older than it actually is - I was surprised when it showed up today:

[bollemanneke 3,338]

Currently Beethoven 9, Karajan, VPO, 1946. Sounds horrible. Flubs and timing issues too. And they split the adagio in two tracks when the andante starts??? Huh. Wonder what the original source was or who wanted to listen to this sound.