Genesis<\/strong><\/p>\n Leningrad as seen by photographer Alexey Titarenko<\/p><\/div>\n Shostakovich\u2019s Fifth Symphony would, at first glance, seem, on purely musical grounds, to be a most unlikely work to have become possibly the most hotly debated and discussed piece of classical music written in the 20th<\/sup> c.. Nonetheless, in the three quarters of a century since it was composed, it has never failed to divide opinion or inspire debate. It remains one of the few pieces of music that can still incite angry exchanges among performers or musicologists who have come to sharply divided conclusions about its importance, its originality and whether it ends in \u201ctriumph\u201d or \u201cforced rejoicing,\u201d or, to put it simply, whether it has a happy or sad ending.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The piece was conceived under the most intense spotlight imaginable. Josef Stalin\u2019s public denunciation of Shostakovich\u2019s opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk in the essay \u201cMuddle instead of Music\u201d published in Pravda on the 28th<\/sup> of January,1936 had effectively turned Shostakovich into a strange combination of a non-person and \u201cmusical public enemy number one.\u201d Shostakovich\u2019s denunciation could not have come at a worse time- it was the very peak of the Stalinist Terror, and Shostakovich knew as soon as he saw the editorial that the lives of both he and his family were in grave danger. Artistically, this blow came at a terrible moment for the coposer. A former wunderkind who had become instantly world-famous when he published his First Symphony at the age of 19, by 1936, when \u201cMuddle\u201d was published, Shostakovich was a composer at the peak of his powers and early maturity, possessed of a breadth of experience to match his talent, and with his confidence in full flower. Lady Macbeth is a work of staggering inspiration and consummate skill, and he had already completed most of his next major work, his Fourth Symphony.<\/p>\n Shostakovich before the publication of “Muddle instead of Music” by Joseph Stalin<\/p><\/div>\n A starkly tragic masterpiece, Shostakovich\u2019s Fourth Symphony was one of his most ambitious and innovative works. It shows him breaking radical new ground as a post-Mahlerian symphonist, and so it is no surprise that friends and colleagues implored Shostakovich to withdraw the work before its scheduled premiere after Stalin’s rejection of Lady MacBeth. Its dark message and comparatively modern language would have, in all likelihood, sealed Shostakovich\u2019s fate with the authorities. Canceling its premiere was one of the most painful decisions of Shostakovich\u2019s professional life.<\/p>\n Shostakovich after the publication of “Muddle instead of Music” by Joseph Stalin<\/p><\/div>\n Shortly after the Pravda article was published, Shostakovich was summoned to a meeting with Stalin\u2019s emissary, Platon Kerzhentsev. Shostakovich was asked whether he \u201cfully accepted the criticism of his work\u201d in the Pravda articles. Shostakovich\u2019s answer, according to Kerzhentsev was that \u201che accepts most of it, but he has not fully comprehended it all.\u201d Shostakovich\u2019s vague answer had been carefully calculated, but was a huge risk- had he fully accepted all the criticisms, his future music would have been judged strictly by the terms of Stalin\u2019s previous criticisms. By feigning ignorance, he was giving himself vital space to \u00a0continue to create and experiment, but had Stalin sensed his reticence to comply fully, the price would surely have meant death for Shostakovich and his family.<\/p>\n Under the circumstances, Shostakovich could have been forgiven for avoiding the most public of instrumental genres, the symphony, until the climate had improved. In fact, he would later do exactly that- in the late 1940\u2019s when the premiere of his Ninth Symphony led to another public shaming by the authorities, he chose to wait until after the death of Joseph Stalin four years later to complete his Tenth Symphony, even though parts of it were sketched many years earlier.<\/p>\n Stalin after Shostakovich finished with him<\/p><\/div>\n Reception<\/strong><\/p>\n However, in spite of the danger of further provoking the Party, Shostakovich quickly began work on the Fifth, completing the score in July 1937. The work\u2019s premiere by the St Petersburg (then the Leningrad) Philharmonic under its music director, Yevgeny Mravinsky, was an occasion of incredible expectation and almost unimaginable anxiety. The impact of the work on its first audience is hard to overstate- many listeners wept openly during the elegiac slow movement. At the end of the performance, the audience burst into an ovation so passionate and stormy that it nearly eclipsed the 45 minute symphony in duration.<\/p>\n Shostakovich\u2019s public statements were a vital tool in his life-long cat and mouse game with the authorities. As a result, one should always read anything he wrote or said about his music with great scepticism- his audience was the Party, not posterity. Shortly after the premiere, Shostakovich published a short, highly opaque essay called \u201cMy Creative Response,” from which comes the Fifth\u2019s epigraph \u2018A Soviet artist\u2019s practical, creative reply to just criticism.\u2019 This title and the work\u2019s traditional formal structure and direct musical language served to placate Stalin and the Party. Shostakovich was partially rehabilitated and the piece went on to become one of the most frequently played works in the twentieth century. Shostakovich\u2019s contrite essay, and the official verdict of party-approved critics, especially Alexei Tolstoy, helped set in place an official programme for the work as \u201can optimistic tragedy\u201d that would allow it to be exploited by the state, as well as performed, but this official reading, which was never accepted by a majority of Russian musicians or listeners, came to be uncritically accepted by many Western commentators, leading to decades of confusion, misunderstanding, and even misrepresentation.<\/p>\n Early critical reaction unanimously recognized the deeply tragic mood of the first three movements. One writer noted that \u201cthe emotional tension is at the limit: another step\u2014and everything will burst into a physiological howl.\u201d Another said, \u201cThe passion of suffering in several places is brought to a naturalistic screaming and howling. In some episodes, the music can elicit an almost physical sense of pain.\u201d Given the later-day controversy about the meaning of the Symphony\u2019s Finale, it is worth noting that the writer Alexander Fadeyev wrote after the premiere that \u201cThe end does not sound like an exit (and certainly not like a triumph or victory) but like a punishment or a revenge on someone.\u201d Another listener \u00a0compared the work with Tchaikovsky\u2019s Pathetique, the most tragic of all Russian symphonies.<\/p>\n First movement- Moderato<\/strong><\/p>\n It seems there is a tradition in the best fifth symphonies from Beethoven to Mahler to begin with a shocking, dramatic gesture<\/a>. The almost physical impact of the beginning of Shostakovich\u2019s Fifth slightly belies how restrained he is in using the orchestra in the Symphony\u2019s opening paragraphs. As in his Eighth and Tenth symphonies, he begins using only the strings<\/a>, gradually introducing the bassoons<\/a>, \u00a0flutes,<\/a>\u00a0oboes and clarinets<\/a>, and finally, the brass <\/a>and percussion.<\/p>\n In the late 1970\u2019s, the publication of Solomon Volkov\u2019s \u201cTestimony- The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich\u201d brought on heated debate in the West over the official programme of the Fifth. A mirror-image programme, no doubt closer to the truth but still far too one-dimensional, was suggested: that the work was a protest against the Stalinist Terror. In the ensuing decades of often maddeningly reductionist debate, it has been easy to overlook evidence that the work has several programmes. The first of these is suggested by the first movement\u2019s second theme. Soaring and tender in its first incarnation in the violins<\/a>, and more pained when repeated by the violas, playing in an intentionally cruel register<\/a>, it is a variation of the work\u2019s opening theme, but also a quote from the Habanera (\u201cL\u2019amour, l\u2019amour\u201d) of Bizet\u2019s Carmen<\/a>.<\/p>\n Why Carmen? In 1934-5 Shostakovich had fallen in love with Elena Konstantinovskya. She had ultimately rejected him, and married a man named Roman Carmen<\/strong><\/em>. As with his symphonic idol, Mahler, Shostakovich understood that a symphony could carry a variety of messages and express a range of programmes, from the most public to the most private. This first movement of the Fifth marks an important turning point in his development, wherein he defines and perfects his own, very personal reworking of traditional Sonata form. By reversing the order of themes in the recapitulation, he creates a vast arch form, building in intensity to a climax of apocalyptic intensity<\/a>, finally disintegrating into tragic resignation<\/a>. The restraint with which the movement begins and ends is matched by the near hysterical abandon of the movement\u2019s climax. Shostakovich uses tempo to intensify this arch shape, beginning the symphony very slowly, gradually speeding up through the development and then winding down to end at very nearly the same speed as the opening.\u00a0 This design was based to a large extent on the first movement of Tchaikovsky\u2019s Pathetique Symphony, and Shostakovich would use it again in the 7th<\/sup>, 8th<\/sup> and 10th<\/sup> symphonies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Second Movement- Allegretto<\/strong><\/p>\n The second movement, a rather gruff L\u00e4ndler<\/a> shows Shostakovich at his most Mahlerian- mixing charm and venom, elegance and irony in equal measure. The Trio begins as a study in obsequious grace, with the\u00a0solo violin playing flirtatiously over delicate harp and pizzicato accompaniment<\/a>, but the music repeatedly loses its cool, descending into noisy violence. The sinister return of the L\u00e4ndler<\/a> is surely a nod to the Scherzo of Beethoven\u2019s Fifth<\/a>, with its skeletal instrumentation of staccato bassoons and pizzicato strings. One last flirtatious nod to the violin solo, this time on solo oboe, disingenuously promises a gentle resolution of the movement\u2019s tensions, before a final angry outburst brings the movement to an abrupt close in A minor.<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Third Movement- Largo<\/strong><\/p>\n The extraordinary Largo, written in just three days, is one of Shostakovich\u2019s most moving creations. As in the opening of the first movement, Shostakovich uses the orchestra with tremendous restraint. Again, he opens with a long paragraph for strings<\/a>, only gradually and sparingly introducing woodwinds and percussion. The brass remain silent throughout. In the second paragraph solo oboe<\/a>, clarinet<\/a> and flute<\/a> each state a theme pregnant with loneliness over nearly static string tremolo accompaniment. Then, Shostakovich begins the inexorable build up to the anguished emotional climax of the entire symphony, a passage the great American musicologist Michael Steinberg calls \u201cthe most Tchaikovskian page in all Shostakovich.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n Finale- Allegro non troppo<\/strong><\/p>\n A dispassionate glance at the score of the Finale, a movement described by Volkov as \u201cperhaps the most disturbing and ambivalent music of the 20th<\/sup> c.\u201d immediately reveals an important structural tie to the first movement. Once again, Shostakovich\u2019s metronome markings express a carefully calculated arch form, beginning at crotchet= 88, then speeding up through 104, 108, 120, 126, 132 to 184, then winding down from 160 to 108, 116 and finally 92, exactly (as in the first movement) one notch above the opening tempo on the metronome, but for one important quirk. Where as in the first movement Shostakovich marks the opening tempo as quaver=76 (the equivalent of crotchet=38) and the end as crotchet=42 (or the equivalent of quaver=84). In the finale, this is reversed, and instead of ending with a marking of crotchet= 92, the final tempo is quaver=188, a marking that on first glance seems eccentric enough to merit suspicion. In spite of this clear structural tempo relationship, Michael Steinberg points out that \u201cMost of the big-name conductors seem to proceed entirely at random.\u201d<\/p>\n The Finale shatters the rapt stillness of the Largo with a violent and brutish march, the theme of which integrates material from no less than three sources. The first is, again, Carmen, using the music from the Habanera setting the words \u201cPrends garde a tois!\u201d<\/em><\/a> or \u201cBeware! Beware!\u201d Secondly, material from the theme was used again in Shostakovich\u2019s later setting of Robert Burns poem \u201cMacPherson\u2019s Farewell,<\/a>\u2019 to the words \u201cSae rantingly, sae wantonly, sae dauntingly gaed he\u201d as the hero is led to \u201cthe gallers-tree.\u201d Finally, as Gerald McBurney observed, the first four notes (A D E F) are the same as the first four notes of Shostakovich\u2019s 1936 setting of the Pushkin poem \u201cRebirth,\u201d<\/a> wherein the poet describes \u201cA Barbarian artist with sleepy brush\u201d, who \u201cBlackens over a picture of genius.\u201d The parallels with Stalin\u2019s obliteration of Shostakovich\u2019s Fourth Symphony and Lady Macbeth are obvious.<\/p>\n In the course of the ensuing build up, there are more quotations to be found, notably from the fourth movement of Berlioz\u2019s Symphonie Fantastique and Strauss\u2019s Till Eulenspiegel (*), both of which, like Shostakovich\u2019s Burns setting, contain vivid musical descriptions of public executions. In the quiet middle section<\/a>, Shostakovich returns to his setting of Pushkin\u2019s \u201cRebirth\u201d quoting his own music from the final stanzas<\/a>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But with the year, the alien paints Thus do delusions fall away Confusion over the metaphysical and political \u201cmeaning\u201d of the Fifth has been greatly increased by the purely musical confusion over the final tempo, largely propagated by Leonard Bernstein\u2019s iconic 1959 recording and his performance with the New York Philharmonic in Shostakovich\u2019s presence that year, in which he famously more than doubled the speed from what Shostakovich had written<\/a>. Although Shostakovich later repeatedly confirmed his intention that it be played at quaver=188, confusion continues to this day among conductors and critics more inclined to learn a piece through recordings than through the score. (In his defence, Bernstein, throughout his career, was generally \u00a0more scrupulous in his observance of many of the other metronome markings in the symphony than Mravinsky, who tends to speed through the symphony\u2019s slow music).<\/p>\n But what are we to make of that idiosyncratic metronome marking? By giving the tempo in quavers, Shostakovich is implying that each quaver has its own impulse, its own emphasis, and, in fact the entire coda has an absolutely unremitting string of continuous quavers, all on the pitch A, 252 in all. The brass, in note values double their original length, bring back the opening<\/a> \u201cBarbarian\u201d or Carmen theme, now in triumphant D major- \u201cPrends garde!<\/em> Beware!\u201d <\/a>it seems to bellow over and over. \u00a0Through it all, the strings, woodwinds and piano continue to repeat those A\u2019s over and over. When asked by his son what all those A\u2019s where meant to signify, Shostakovich reportedly said \u201cLa! La! La! La!\u201d La is the Russian nickname for Elena, the woman who had broken his heart by marrying Mr Carmen; Shostakovich\u2019s archivist Manashir Yakubov calls it \u201ca cry of despair and farewell.\u201d Yet, asked by another friend, Shostakovich replied \u201cYa! Ya! Ya!\u201d or \u201cMe! Me! Me!\u201d This tension between the barbarian and the genius, and between \u201cme\u201d and \u201cher\u201d continues to the final note of the piece. Ambivalent, angry, triumphant, tortured, heartbroken, defiant, world-embracing and self-regarding, the final page of this greatest of 20th<\/sup> c. symphonies is so powerful for much the same reason it has always been so controversial.\u00a0 When one is able to recognize the depth and intensity of its countless tensions and contradictions, what listener could ever settle for something as simplistic and straightforward as a happy, or sad, ending again?<\/p>\n * Volkov, Solomon\u00a0 – Shostakovich and Stalin, <\/em>\u00a0p. 178. 2004\u00a0 Little Brown Publications, a division of Time Warner Group<\/p>\n A note on the references here to Berlioz and Strauss, which I’ve been asked about many times here. These come from Volkov’s book (not Testimony) cited above. “Scholars are finding hiddent quotations now in the finale from passages in Berlioz’s Symphonie fantastique<\/em> and Richard Strauss’s Till Eulenpiegel<\/em>.” Volkov does not cite which scholars, or say exactly which places he or they are referring to, but the passage in his book is exceptionally spot on, carefully referencing the song quotations to MacPherson’s Farewell, Renaissance, etc.<\/p>\n I think it is likely that the Till reference refers to the brass chords at the end of the symphony, which are similar to the brass chords at Till’s execution scene in the Strauss<\/p>\n Till’s execution<\/p><\/div>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/kennethwoods.net\/blog1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/03\/alexey-titarenko-artwork02.jpg\" "\\"alexey-titarenko-artwork02\\"")
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>
\nFlake off like old scales;
\nThe creation of genius appears before us
\nIn its former beauty.<\/p>\n
\nFrom my worn-out soul
\nAnd there spring up within it
\nVisions of original, pure days.<\/p>\n
\n<\/a>