Russian Composer, Dimitri Shostakivoch is generally regarded as the greatest Symphonist of the mid-20th Centry. He began studying music with piano lessons from his mother at home, then at Ignaty Glyasser’s private music school. It was not long before he became dissatisfied and sought an education that would better challenge him with his prodigious talent and absolute pitch. In 1919 he entered the Petrograd Conservatory where he studied mostly under Maximilian Steinberg. Strict and traditional music education allowed him to combine his own experimental nature, with formality and discipline, and eventually acquire the ability to compose music that pleases others while retaining originality and artistic dignity. This particular skill of his was quite useful later in his career. As a musician within the Soviet Union, Dimitri was subject to limitations, restrictions, and criticisms that shaped the evolution of his music in a way that presented a strictly Soviet point of view. Despite the harsh demands of his government he was able to combine his own unique musical language with traditionally imposed compositional techniques to create music that is nationalistic, but also has depth, emotional power, and is worthy of study. An investigation of factors such as form, harmony, theme, texture and orchestration in his first 5 symphonies reveal the evolving essence of his style and how it was impacted by and politics overtime.
He began the composition of his First Symphony in his graduating year at the Conservatory. It is a standard four-movement work with fairly tradition form and conventional use of themes. The beginning movement features light, chamber- like orchestration, and avoids thick textures in favour of an over all undramatic sound. The influence of his traditionalist instructors is evident. In sonata form, the movement is introduced with a duet between bassoon and trumpet, leading into the first subject. The second subject, a waltz, is played by the flute. This movement tends to showcases individual instruments on subtle yet direct melodies, with delicate accompaniment. It is reminiscent of vaudeville style music that Shostakovich would have been familiar with throughout his youth. The second movement, a scherzo begins with a false-start, a subtle taste of mystery present throughout the movement. A trio of percussion instruments adds a feeling of cheerfulness and animation. Some say that this movement exposes Shostakovich’s personality and sense of humour. Next, The Lento begins with a haunting oboe solo, hinting at a theme heard earlier in the first movement. The melody continues lyrically, still avoiding textures and orchestration that may be considered to thick or heavy. The final movement is the most intricate of them all. The drawing on of previous themes and ideas helps to unify all parts, giving listeners a satisfying sense of closure, and contrasting bits and pieces of many moods that have appeared throughout the symphony. The foiling of these themes and ideas brings drama and emotional complexity to the finale. Shostakovich also employs changes in tempo, a range of dynamics, and finally, a taste of disparity in orchestration and texture. His first symphony was very well received. Premieres were given in Multiple cities, with enthusiastic applause and encores. This First Symphony made Shostakovich a well known name and placed him in the eye of Soviet leaders.
Dimitri’s style changed suddenly and dramatically after his graduation. His Octet for Strings composed in the very same year as his First symphony, and his Aphorisms composed two years after that, exhibit techniques that his former teachers would likely not have allowed. A defiance of traditional forms, significant dissonance, and linear/melodic textures that govern the music are prominent features of the composition. Maxamilian Stravinsky criticizes Shostakovich for his straying away from what he was taught and invoking new ideas:
On leaving the Conservatoire, Shostakovich came under the influence of people who professed the musical principles of the 'extremist' West. This was in 1925 … One of Shostakovich's first compositions was his sonata, written in contemporary idiom and called by him October Symphony. Already in this there was an unhealthy tendency to 'adapt' formalistic language for the expression of revolutionary ideas. The most extreme statement of Shostakovich's ‘new' tendency was the Aphorisms. Then [sic] he brought them to me, I told him that I understood nothing in them that they were quite foreign – after which he ceased coming to me.
The compositions that took place post-graduation are arguably the most genuine because he was no longer responsible to his teachers, and not yet submissive to his government. In 1927, Shostakovich was commissioned by the State Publishing House to honour the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution. For this event, he wrote his Second Symphony and called it “Symphonic Dedication – To October.” This symphony was drastically different than his first. To October is a single-movement work, for orchestra and chorus, with a noticeable lack of tonality and conventional sonata form principles. Some argue that the piece has five distinct sections. Even so, each sections shares little in common with the others. The texture and orchestration are much heavier, even the solos are weighty by use of large brass instruments. The chaotic nature of this symphony was meant to say something about the calamity and struggle of the October uprising. After all, Shostakovich believed that music should reflect the era, the thoughts and the feelings of the Soviet person. Perhaps this symphony is a taste of the course Shostakovich’s music would have taken had he not been obligated to the demands of others. However, despite being free from the directive of his former teachers, Shostakovich still had authorities to answer to. The Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM) founded in 1922, was an organization which dominated Soviet music for nearly 2 decades. It’s aim was to “satisfy the demands of mass, amateur musical activities and were conducive not only to political agitation, but to the general activation of [.. .] human energy with the aim of utilizing it for the needs of Soviet Construction.” Even in this symphony, it was made mandatory by commissioners that Shostakovich conclude the symphony with a propaganda text by poet Aleksander Bezymensk that describes the “hopeless conditions faced by workers before the Revolution and the heroism of Lenin who solved all problems.” Shostakovich himself did not approve of the text, even referring to it as “disgusting, and “abominable.”
His symphony No. 3, “The First of May” is avant-garde and experimental like the Second. It was written in one month in 1930 as a single-movement work for orchestra and chorus. Unlike his Second Symphony, it was not a commissioned piece — it was freely chosen that he write for the First of May Holiday, and he was given no rules for the composition. Though the structure is the same, the overall sound and mood of his Third Symphony is vastly different than his Second. The Third features a deceptively light opening which melds into a darker sounding development section with long, haunting melodies. There are many themes introduced, but oddly, none of them repeated. The fourth and final section, with a chorus is set to a text by Semyon Kirsanov’s which reads:
“On the very first May Day
a torch was thrown into the past
a spark, growing into a fire,
and a flame enveloped the forest.
With the drooping fir tree's ears
the forest listened to the voices and noises
of the new May Day parade”
This text by a Proletarian author may have been included to keep the authorities and the RAPM happy. At the same time as his Second and Third Symphonies, Shostakovich was also working on compositions for other genres. Between 1927 and 1932, he wrote two operas opera. The First is called “The Nose,” and the second “The Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District.” The criticisms of these compositions in Shostakovich’s most experimental period would influence the evolution of his style indefinitely.
The Nose was an opera with a strange and unsettling plot, filled with shocking realism. The production generated a negative response from authorities that believed the opera was too dark, comical and dystopian to represent Russia. It seems that Shstocovich took the criticism to heart when he vowed his next opera would centre on a “Soviet” topic. Resultantly, he wrote Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk which brought fourth the most significant reaction of his career.
Shostakovich spoke of his role in this initiative saying "..my role as a Soviet composer consists in approaching the story critically and in treating the subject from the soviet point of view, while keeping the strength of Leskov's tale.” Clearly his intention was to justly represent his lived experience as a Soviet person. Initally, the opera was a huge success. It’s premiere at Leningrad was well received and had 200 subsequent performances. On January 26, 1936, Joseph Stalin attended a performance of the opera in Moscow. He was so appalled by the production that he stormed out of the hall even before the final act had begun. Days later, an article was published in the Pravda titled “Muddle, not Music.” This article critiqued Shostakovich’s work saying things like:
“The listener is shocked by deliberate dissonance, by a confused stream of sound. Snatches of melody, the beginnings of a musical phrase, are drowned, emerge again, and disappear in a grinding squealing roar”
“The power or good music to infect the masses has been sacrificed to a petty-bourgeois, ‘formalist’ attempt to create originality through cheap clowning”
A criticism like this, from Stalin himself immediately turned Shostakovich from brilliant young Soviet composer, to enemy of the State. The safest response in his situation would have been to apologize, and move forward composing a more proletarian way, or to never compose again at all. Yet, at first, Shostakovich’s response was opposition. He even stated in a letter to a friend “even if they cut off both my hands, I’d still go on writing music just the same, holding the pen between my teeth.” During this time, Shostakovich was working on writing his Fourth Symphony which he completed in May of 1936. When asked by close friends what he thought the official reaction to it would be, he was undaunted: “I don’t write for Pravda, I write for myself.” Unfortunately, rather than having it premiered as scheduled, Shostakovich was forced his union leader to cancel his performance “on the grounds that it in no way corresponds to (Shostakovich’s) current creative convictions and represents for him an outdated phase.” This decision was made to avoid upsetting the state more than the composer had already. After this incident, Shostakovich had no new works performed for the next two years, and he ceased working on his current projects. This stand-off between him and the state ended nearly 2 years later with his Fifth Symphony, known to many as “A Soviet Artist’s Creative Reply to Just Criticism”
This Famous Symphony is a topic of debate in the musicological world. Some believe that in the composition of this Symphony, Shostakovich gracefully submitted to the demands of his government, others believe that the Fifth, and many of his compositions that follow, are a silent protest against the authorities. Richard Taurskin analysis the the fifth saying:
“With its ample, yet conventional four movement form, even down to an improbable minuet (as many have characterized the Scherzo), it’s unextravagent yet sonorous scoring, and it’s notable harmonic restraint, the Fifth Symphony amounted to a paradigm of Stalinist neoclassicism, testifying, so far as the powers were concerned, to the composer’s obedient submission to discipline"
Wether or not, his compliance was sincere, Shostakovich’s style had been changed to meet the demands of Stalin and his representatives. The opening movement beginnings with tragic sounding strings and march rhythms. It features moody violin solos and no hint of overly modern techniques. Mark Wigglesworth says:
“Considering the circumstances, the work’s opening sense of protest is an extraordinarily brave gesture. […] Shostakovich catches you by the scruff of the neck and demands you listen to what he has to say. The first melody is one of great sadness, personal without being sentimental; soft and slightly restricted. He dares not plead too loudly at first. We are brought into a world of such extreme isolation that only music like this makes us realize something of what it must have been like.”
The second and third movements also exhibit emotional qualities, juxtaposing brass, string and woodwind with one another to highlight each instruments most notable features. The finale ceases the moodiness and tragedy and resolves to a joyous and victorious sounding ending, something the authorities would have expected from him. Many argue that the finale has a forced optimism. Perhaps Shostakovich intended it to be heard in that way to make a point about his conditions as a composer. On the other hand, it could be that, despite his efforts to be sincere, he simply struggled to produce a genuine sound because he wrote for a cause that he didn't truly believe in. The premier of the Fifth was dramatic to say the least. After all, if the authorities were offended by his work, his life was in danger. Nonetheless, he bravely premiered, and the outcome was triumphant. Kennith Woods recounts “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.” Not only was the audience pleased, but the State was also adequately satisfied. This symphony allowed Shostakovich to return to the position of a beloved and celebrated Soviet composers, after being named a musical enemy. Despite being unable to utilize many of his characteristic techniques, Shostakovich still managed to create art that was imaginative, emotional, and honourable.
Some scholars lament Shostakovich saying that his conditions made for a waste of talent. Though it is true that he sacrificed some artistic freedom, is it not true that many other celebrated composers have done the same? No one questions the works of Bach or Haydn even though their music was prompted by the demands of the church or a patron, so why is Shostakovich treated any differently? Shostakovich was recognized for his innovations and creativity in his earliest works, but doesn't it take even more creativity and bravery to be able to gracefully adapt to harsh restrictions and criticisms, and still create music that is loved and studied decades later? After being silenced for nearly two years, he responded to his critics with a work that displayed traditional techniques, but also artistic liberty, satisfied the masses, but is honoured by professionals. Furthermore, Shostakovich’s musical output after Stalins death is filled with freedom of choice, meaningful statements, and his own innovative styles. In his first Symphony he reflects his traditional and conservative training, yet also illustrates his talent and mastery of thematic development, even at a young age. In his Second and Third Symphonies, he showcases experimental techniques and unapologetic emotional musical density. After suffering brutal criticisms and even imminent danger, Shostakovich was silenced, but only temporarily. He bravely gave a “Response to his Critics” in his Fifth Symphony which proves that Shostakovich is not a victim, but a champion of his circumstance, and a true musical and historical hero.