Shostakovich Fifth Symphony


    Musically, this is one of the finest works of the twentieth century.  It is perhaps the most controversial work due to its extra musical issues. 

  It was written in the mid 1930s.  The Bolshevik Revolution was then in the process of "eating its children."  Stalin was consolidating his hold on power by having millions of Russians being dragged away in the middle of the night by the Organs of State Security, to be tortured into confessing to imaginary crimes, executed or given long prison sentences.  No one was exempt-Prominent Bolsheviks, Artists, Composers, leading Military Figures.  Russians were encouraged to spy and rat on each other, so it was dangerous to even have a private conversation about your feelings.

   Shostakovich was in a particular hot seat.  He wrote an Opera that was initially a hit until Stalin himself saw it, disapproved, and is thought to have personally written an editorial in Pravda attacking him and concluding with a veiled threat to his safety.  He shelved his wildly experimental Fourth Symphony, then in rehearsals (not to be performed until the sixties).  He slept at night on a couch with his suitcase nearby, because if the NKVD came for him in the middle of the night he didn't want to have his family see him being dragged away.

   In this atmosphere he started work on the Fifth Symphony.  He needed a success that would also be approved by the authorities.  He simplified his language and tightened up his structures (they were to sprawl  again in later symphonies, when he was relatively safe).

   Despite this the Symphony is still fairly progressive, particularly in in Mahlerian Second movement.  Mahler's music was virtually unknown in Russia (and not especially well in the West).  This movement perfectly emulates Mahler's irony, the '"laughing through tears" style that the Composer so loved.

  The First movement starts with a sense of foreboding that is quickly dissipated by a rush of activity.  This interaction between dread and the joy of life permeates the movement, and it ends on an uncertain , uneasy phrase.

  The second movement has been discussed above.  It alternates a mock military march with dancing, the lumbering dance of a captive bear at a Russian Fair.

  The third movement is the emotional core of the work.  Titled Largo, it is a soulful lament.  Towards the end of the movement the music dies away to reveal a solo harp singing the lament, very reminiscent of the Fourth movement of Mahler's Ninth.  Reportedly audiences in at the premiere were in tears, many hearing a coded elegy for their lost countrymen and for the relative security of a life not completely under the thumb of the State.

  The last movement has been the most controversial.  It starts of with a brutal slavic march.  It attempts to be triumphal  while evoking images of people being squashed under a giant heel.  It ends with a loud, dissonant court that has alternately been thought to represent the victory of The Party, or the desperate cries of the vanquished mixing in with fake triumphalism.

  Even if one knows nothing of the politics of the time, the piece is still a strong, moving work.  My first recording was Karel Uncurl and the Czech PO, dating from before the Prague Spring, when Czechoslovakia was appearing to be wriggling free of the Warsaw Pact.  It still holds up well today, as the Orchestra was superb and it was well recorded.  There have been dozens of recordings since, of course.  It would be hard to top Haitink from Amsterdam, or Barshai (who worked with the Composer) from Cologne.  My personal favorite is Bychkov/Berlin PO from the late 1980s.

  I heard Kurt Masur conduct the NY Phil when they were on tour in Chicago, and although I have also heard MTT and Solti conduct the CSO the piece they couldn't touch Masur.  It was perhaps a mite teutonic sounding, but the Largo had the auditorium on the edge of our seats, and the guy whacking the gong at then reminded me of the old Apple commercial where they are smiting the evil IBM.

  

   

 

mahler123

@mahler123,

Very interesting post on Shostakovich 5.  Brings to mind a question that always enters my mind when I hear classical music described like you did.

The question is, do the images you receive from the music depend upon knowing the history of the piece, or are the emotional images / feelings independent of what you know about the history surrounding the piece.

Suppose you had never heard of Shostakovich, and you found a disc of the 5th without any markings at all to indicate the musical content, just blank, then after listening, you were asked to write a review.  What would you write?

 

I have a lot of his string stuff and the 8th by Concertgebouw-Haitink.   I purchsed these before I knew his story.  After learning about him, it seems as if his music was written to please Stalin.   Changed the way I felt about it and him. 

Thanks

Cheers

 

It’s a masterpiece. Thanks for this post @mahler123 

One of my favorite versions of the 5th is Rostropovich with London Symphony on LSO. 

For those who are getting into Shostakovich, his string quartets are absolutely amazing! I was lucky enough to buy a vinyl box set by Fitzwillam String Quartet on DECCA in mint condition. Outstanding!

@ghdprentice 

 

  I agree that the Masur recording is no great shakes.  It was very disappointing to hear it after the concert experience.  All I can say is it was a cold January night in Chicago, and I remember the snot freezing in my nose as I walked from the parking lot to Orchestra Hall, but Masur and the NY Phil were incandescent.  They got a 15 minute standing ovation after the Shostakovich.

  Is Carlos Kalmar the Oregon Music Director?  He conducts the Grant Park Symphony here in the summer

@rok2id 

 

Excellent Post.  I first learned the symphony from the Ancerl recording when I was about 16.  I think DSCH had just died.  Testimony hadn't been released yet, and at any rate I didn't get around to reading it, and learning about the "Shostakovich Wars". until the late nineties.  I was unfamiliar with Mahler and therefore didn't appreciate the debt that Shostakovich owed to him.  Yet I loved the 5th on first listen.  I do think that without knowing the back story there was something about the piece, particularly the unsettled ending, that that said this is not a piece of Socialist Realism, but something that appeals to recognizable emotions common to everyone.  However, knowing the back story has made it that much more interesting