Talk:Symphony No. 4 (Shostakovich)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Symphony No. 4 (Shostakovich) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

I would respectfully disagree with at least one point in this article. The first movement, it seems to me, actually has just the usual two main themes of a sonata structure; what the writer calls "second theme" is really just part of the whole first-theme area. Both the first theme and the solo bassoon melody (what I view as the second theme) have various subsidiary, "satellite" themes that turn up here and there, so that the British sonata-form usage of "first group" and "second group" really suits this movement. Seeing it this way also allows the movement's proportions to make somewhat better sense.

The third movement also makes better sense if one sees it as an immense A-B-A' with some large-scale mirror-image structuring present, as in the first movement. The first A (in two parts)lasts up to the first galop material; B (a suite of dances) from that point to the gentle waltz-style reappearance on the flute of the descending two-note motive from the first allegro music of the movement; and A from that point to the conclusion. The mirroring happens at the "edges" of the movement: slow C-minor-to-C-Major, then a fast semi-waltz at the beginning (the A section); a semi-fast waltz leading to a slow C-Major-to-C-minor conclusion (the A' section). Sorry I do not have the score at hand to provide measure numbers or rehearsal figures to clarify the points I refer to.

I wrote a lengthy master's thesis analysis of this symphony some twenty years ago and looked into the structural issues present in this symphony (among many other things) at great length. I will not bore you with a further re-hash of that material here; anyone who cares can look it up through the Boston University libraries. Wspencer11 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very interesting comments. I always felt that "second theme" to be just that because it assumes too great an importance in the first movement's structure to be heard as a mere off-shoot of the first theme. The composer himself makes this theme's importance clear when he surprises us by recapitulating it before the first theme (albeit with the first theme's stamping accompaniment). I don't have the score handy right now, as I lent it out to a friend, but as soon as they return it, I will cite instances in the score where this second theme assumes great importance.
This article is very unfortunate. Obviously someone's put a lot of work into the descriptive section, but it's really not encyclopedic. It would be a good thing if someone gave it at least a major trimming. HenryFlower 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I wrote a lengthy master's thesis analysis of this symphony....":

And did you also add the reference Spencer, William (1985). The Fourth Symphony of Dmitri Shostakovich: an analysis (M.M. thesis). Boston: Boston University to this article? I don't suppose wikipedia categorically disallows this sort of thing, but in this case I find it particularly striking because it's currently the only reference cited here (not counting the score itself, which I consider a redundant citation). Presumably your thesis includes a bibliography. Rather than cite your thesis, I think it may be more helpful for you to cite works your thesis cites. TheScotch (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The music section

In response to Henry Flower's suggestion, I decided to tighten up the music section. I felt that the music's description, while very detailed and done by somebody who obviously loves the music very much, tended to ramble and lose focus. Let me know if you guys like what I've done! El Chileno Chido 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. HenryFlower 08:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recordings

I know Rostropovich recorded it with the National Symphony on Teldec; did he do a second recording with the LSO? Or is the one listed supposed to be with the NSO? Also, I believe Rozhdestvensky made three different recordings but there are only two listed. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a second Rostropovich recording. This live perfromance (from 1998) was issued in a three disc box set from the Andante label. The third Rozhdestvensky recording you're mentioning is either one of two. It's either the "live" performance issued on Praga which was later revealed to be the studio Melodiya recording with applause added. The other one is another "live" performance this time with Rozhdestvensky conducting the Vienna Philharmonic. If I remember correctly, the CD stated that the recording was from 1978. I've seen this CD around every now and then but I've never actually listened to it. I know Rozhdestvensky was principal or guest conductor of the Vienna Symphony Orchestra around this time. Is there anybody who can confirm that Rozhdestvensky perfromed with the VPO around this time? -El Chileno Chido 21:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would post the following for the curious. As you know, BMG/Melodiya released Kondrashin's cycle of the Shostakovich symphonies back in the late 90's. It was a fine set that was unfortunately hampered by BMG's "NoNoise" remastering and a MONO transfer of the Fourth Symphony. The latter was particularly unfortunate as the Fourth Symphony is a work that cries out for stereo sound. I am pleased to announce then that the recent remasterings by Aulos Classics and Melodiya of the same set is a substantial improvement. Best of all, Kondrashin's recording of the Fourth is finally presented in stereo. Of the two sets, I slightly prefer the sound on the Aulos release but the Melodiya set includes valuable recordings of The Sun Shines Over the Motherland, October, and a white hot Execution of Stepan Razin in addition to the symphonies. To be honest, both sets sound quite good and either one would be an essential investment. -El Chileno Chido 07:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Western performance

I have always heard that Rozhdestvensky gave the Western premiere at the 1962 Edinburgh Festival, and it might have been with the Philharmonia? Can anyone confirm? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Rozhdestvensky did not give the first western performance of this symphony. It was Kondrashin and the MPO that gave the western premiere at the 1962 Edinburgh Festival. See Wilson, Shostakovich: A Life, pg. 231. However, Rozhdestvensky was the one who suggested to Goskonsert that the Fourth should be included in the festival's program. Rozhdestvensky did perform the Fourth later during the same 1962 tour of England and I do believe the orchestra he first played the work with was the Philharmonia. I wonder if Klemperer heard the work then or had heard about it all and if so, what were his thoughts? Hmmmm... El Chileno Chido 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rozhdestvensky gave the Western premiere at the Edinburgh Festival 1962. The recording of that concert was just issued by the BBC. The Sporty Jew 22:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External reference?

I have clarified the instrumentation list, but am not certain of how to repair the external reference. I used the published score, which I would think is the definitive source for this information; the earlier list referred to CD liner notes and referred to them very well. Anyone who wants to should clean up my mangled reference... --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the instrumentation list using a much more verifiable source than my most encyclopedic CD booklet notes! I assume that the published score you refer is this one? (If not, there is also the pocket score, I believe.) If the aforementioned score is indeed the one referenced, I (or someone else) could most certainly compile a citation for it. --Obfuscator 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
My score is the Kalmus reprint of the first Soviet edition from 1962. I know there was a later Soviet edition from the 1970s sometime, and the collected edition score from about 1984, but I do not know the Boosey score. They have had a relationship with something called the Anglo-Soviet Music Press but I know nothing about what that is. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Edited! A bit of digging outside of Wikipedia yielded that most citation methods indicate that musical scores should be cited like books. I also found another mention of the Kalmus edition, with the publication date of 1973, but didn't cite the year as I wasn't sure of the verifiability of this date. Hope this helps! --Obfuscator 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I know there's supposed to be an edition of the Fourth edited by Kondrashin where the dynamics, phrasing, metronome markings, and such have been slightly tweaked. Is this the 1984 Collected Works edition? My own refenrence scores of this symphony are the Kalmus reprint of the 1962 Muzyka edition and the new Collected Works edition edited by Manushir Yabukov. El Chileno Chido 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean the Rozhdestvensky edition, which is part of the early 1980s collected edition? I have never heard of a Kondrashin edition. I have also not heard of any collected edition aside from the one from the early 80s...can you provide any details on this other one? I admit to not having kept up that closely with the recent publishing history of the work but I would be somewhat surprised if there were another collected edition so soon after the first one. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No, there's a new edition of Shostakovich's collected works being published by DSCH Publishing. Overseeing the project is Maxim Shostakovich, Irina Shostakovich, and Manushir Yakubov, president of the Russian Shostakovich Society. They've published quite a bit so far including all 15 symphonies (both in full score and two piano reductions), 15 string quartets, Lady Macbeth, the complete score to Kozintsev's New Babylon, and much more. They've even published the first drafts for the Fourth Symphony and the Ninth Quartet. They're planning to publish 150 volumes in all. See http://www.devinci.fr/chostakovitch/BILINGUE/150.htm for more info. El Chileno Chido 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in article?

What a difference a few months make! I haven't checked this article in awhile and boy did somebody gut it. I changed the article back to how Wspencer11 left it back in January as I believe a lot of dreck was inserted afterwards and a lot of pieces of insight were sadly left out. For example:

1.) Shostakovich was not nearly finished with the symphony as the most recent version of thi article had stated. In fact, Shostakovich mentioned to his friends that he was dragging his heels with this symphony. If I recall correctly, Shostakovich had either not started the finale yet or was just getting around to composing it when the Pravda article showed up.

2.) The Mahler quote regarding his Third Symphony was, I believe, quite relevant to this symphony as it does shed light on this work's architecture. Let's remember too that Shostakovich was absorbed in Mahler' Third during the gestation period for his Fourth and had even gone so far as to copy down parts of that symphony for study. Compare the structures of the first movement of Mahler' Third with that of the Shotakovich Fourth to hear what I mean.

There's more I'd rant about but I'm too tired right now to go on further. Anyway, I believe the old version of the article was just fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! El Chileno Chido 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Something" instead of music?

As I noted in the talk for the main DSCH article, I have always understood that "Chaos" was a better translation than "Muddle." Can anyone who actually knows Russian (not me!) help here? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahler

Re: "The symphony is strongly influenced by those of Gustav Mahler, whose Third Symphony served as a model for Shostakovich in the first movement.":

Unless Shostakovich said this himself, it's POV. If Shostakovich did say this himself, we need a citation. If the citation is from Testimony, bear in mind that the authenticity of Testimony is greatly controversial, and rather than footnote it, it would be better to say in the article itself something like "according to Testimony...". TheScotch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing POV here - it's fact. During the time of the symphony's gestation, Shostakovich was immersed in Mahler's Third Symphony. He went so far as to copy out parts of the score. I can't recall exactly where it has been mentioned but I know it is cited in Laurel Fay's Shostakovich: A Life, Elizabeth Wilson's Shostakovich: A Life Remembered, Pauline Fairclough's Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony: A Soviet Credo, and in David Fanning's liner notes for Simon Rattle's EMI recording of the Fourth. The Sporty Jew (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If these sources make the claim (that Shostakovich was influenced by Mahler here), the article needs to say so unequivocally. Their saying it doesn't make it true, it makes it their point of view. TheScotch (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "In fact, these words written by Mahler about his own Third Symphony may just as well apply to the first movement of Shostakovich's Fourth....":
These "words written by Mahler about his own Third Symphony" may belong in a wikipedia article about Mahler's third symphony, but they clearly don't belong here. TheScotch (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I restored the Mahler quotes. While I see why you would think this quote is more relevant to an article for Mahler' Third, it is also relevant here as it served as a model for Shostakovich's Fourth. Yes, Mahler was referring to HIS symphony but it also describes the first movement of Shostakovich's Fourth so aptly and, considering how the symphony is deeply influenced by the Mahler Third, deserves to be mentioned.
Again, the influence of the Mahler Third on the Shostakovich Fourth is not speculation on the part of musicologists. It is fact - the composer himself admitted it and this has been referenced in the aformentioned writings. When I have time, I will place the citations in the article myself.
Finally, as for where the Mahler quote can be found, I refer you to Johnathan Carr's Mahler: A Biography. The Sporty Jew (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your point on Mahler one bit. There really need to be footnotes, however, so that readers not as knowledgable on this point know from where your point initiated. It may not be POV to you or in general, but, again, for someone not as knowledgeable, it can appear to be POV. Jonyungk (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)