IMSLP Forums

Having listened to this symphony many times, interepreted by many conductors, I always question some analyses given by musicologists, a topic discussed briefly on another post. Almost all my questions turn up in the first movement, about the time the snare drums tap out the distinctive ostinato. The next theme has almost always been described as an 'invasion theme'. I am convinced this is not Shostakovich representing an invasion, specifically the seige of Leningrad. Shostakovich lived through it, so he of all people would know the German attack was sudden and unexpected, not a slow, stately invasion. Shostakovich himself further confuses the issue, writing that he began the symphony before the attack on Leningrad even began. He even first called it the Stalin theme, then the German theme. Also, if it describes Stalin's rise to power, wouldn't it then be sudden as well? Such a short, simple, almost humorous melody, yet so many explanations! What does it mean?

I would really appreciate any comments or insights about this question.

. Shostakovich himself further confuses the issue, writing that he began the symphony before the attack on Leningrad even began. He even first called it the Stalin theme, then the German theme. Also

The only 'evidence' of that comes from Volkov's Testimony, which is ridiculously flawed rendering it useless as evidence (how are we supposed to know what is true or not?). Also, while claiming that Shostakovich did indeed mention he started writing it before the the invasion, on the same (or next) page, it states that he started it after.

The theme is, after all, a march, so it could be explained as the Germans marching towards the Soviet Union, not just the commencement of fighting.

Many musicologists push certain political agendas and do does Maxim Shostakovich.
If you were the son of a communist in the US, you would not be able to live off your father's works, portray him as a silent dissodent and the US will jump right on board. Especially with Shostakovich, few would need that much convincing to listen to his music.

It's true that Shostakovich disliked Stalin, that doesn't really mean anything however.

I agree; the theme and ostinato, and even the dum-dada-dum-dum piano accompaniment are all very clearly derived from the first theme. I normally don't recomend books like this, but the analysis in "Shostakovich symphonies and concerti: A user's manual" is particularly good in this case.

I don't really think it 'means' anything in particular- they wanted heroic-sounding crap and that's what he gave them (at least, for the outer movements). Who was it who said back in the 1790s that that which an artist could put into a work was finite, but that which everyone else could derive from it was infinite? Was that Schiller with the definition of the aesthetic or something?
And also, isn't a real encounter with Shostakovich recorded where someone commented on the first movement's similarity to Bolero, and the audience would surely react unfavorably to something of such huge length and heaviness, and he said, "Let them complain. That is how I hear the war," or something like that?

Programmatic music is some of the most limited music. There are very few circumstances where music would sound like what the composer is intending to the ignorant (not a a d). Obviously Marches = something to do with war...ish. Pastoral music sounds similar to pastoral. etc. etc. I personally think that Beethoven had the right idea (and Mahler) but R.Strauss was wrong. Beethoven meant to inspire themes and emotions, not tell a story which I believe is impossible in music. I mention Mahler, because he appears to have use programs more as inspiration and a compositional technique rather than something he wanted to express to the audience.

I agree with what Yagan says.

The programme can help us interpret the music when we play it, but if we don't know what that is, we can sometimes get it horribly wrong. I premiered a piece once by a composer who used the Tarot cards as a starting point for his programme. There was one movement that seemed to me to be like a calm moonlit night, very peaceful. The composer's programme notes were only ready on the day of the concert, and it turned out that movement was about the most sinister card in the pack (oops . . . . .).

Didn't someone once say that if Wagner's leitmotifs worked subconsciously they way Wagner claimed they did, we wouldn't need such big guides to them? There was also a comment about the programmes being likened to standing on top of the Empire State Building with a street map of New York (I seem to remember that one was Stravinsky?)?

Having said all that, once you know what the programme is, it can be very effective (though it should be effective without the programme as well). I lecture a class that sometimes uses Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. During the March to the Scaffold I explain that there is a part at the end where the head bounces. When the students hear that part they get really grossed out.

Hi B. Steltz, different strokes...

I totally dig the head rolling into the basket, though the double bass pizzicato on the fourth beat could equally well be the body of the deceased (sine caput) hitting the deck. However you envisage it, it's an absolutely electric moment in the concert hall.

Perhaps your students should be reminded that before the modern day and the advent of metal and synthetic strings, stringed instruments employed catgut to make that particular sound?

Regards, Philip

Yes, although it doesn't really come from a cat (which was apparently a corruption of 'kit', a word for a fiddle), but rather from cow, sheep or goat intestines.

On top of that, the traditional covering for woodwind pads, leather, has been replaced in many brands by a double layer of fish skin -- I guess it's pretty waterproof!

And then there's the horse hair . . . .

Musicians aren't very animal-friendly, are we?

Forget the fauna, flora have suffered even more from the predations of music. Substantial amounts of wood are used in:
All acoustic keyboard instruments, including a great number of pipe organ stops, not to mention massive organ cases
All the main woodwinds except flutes and saxophones (and even the former used to be wooden in the "good old days"). Piccolos are still wood.
String instruments
Plucked instruments (lutes, guitars etc.)

Spruce is probably the most-used wood, as it forms the soundboards in many instruments, including the top plates of the strings. Various hardwoods used for woodwinds come next. And lets' not forget the bows for the strings, the best of which have until recently have all used pernambuco wood, which is now threatened with extinction. And the ingredients, including the carbon, in the up-and-coming carbon-fiber bows comes ultimately from petroleum, which itself comes from (long-dead) living things. Yikes!

And that's just the Western tradition.

--Sixtus