Shostakovich

The Man and His Work

Ivan Martynov

• Publisher: Philosophical Library/Open Road
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781504060240
• Topic: Medios de comunicación y artes escénicas
• Subtopic: Música clásica

A comprehensive biography of the twentieth-century Russian composer, exploring his life, music, and legacy—by a noted musicologist who knew him personally. Russian composer and pianist Dmitri Shostakovich is universally renowned as one of the most important figures of twentieth-century classical music. In Shostakovich: The Man and His Work, Ivan Martynov presents a rich and compelling biography of this pioneering legend. Martynov draws on extensive research, including interviews and conversations with Shostakovich himself, as well as his own expertise in the field of musicology, to shed light on the man behind the music.

CHAPTER I

THE ROAD BEGINS

DMITRI DMITRIEVICH SHOSTAKOVICH was born on September 25, 1906 into the family of an engineer in St. Petersburg. As a child he displayed no special musical talent and no one could have guessed that he was destined to become a famous composer. His parents, however, were ardent lovers of music, which they regarded as essential in the upbringing of their children. Dmitri received his first piano lesson at the age of nine.

His mother was his first teacher. Just as patiently and lovingly some years previously she had taught the future composer’s two elder sisters to play the piano. The boy made rapid progress and soon began to study at the Glasser School of Music. Not content to play the compositions of others only, he tried his hand at music making. Noteworthy is the fact that even in those youthful first attempts he sought to respond musically to the events of the times. The spirit of 1914 emanated from his poem “Soldier.” The revolution was mirrored in his “Revolutionary Symphony” and “Funeral March in Memoriam to the Fallen Heroes of the Revolution.” Needless to say these were the timid probings of a beginner, but the boy persevered with such an earnestness and an eagerness for creation that finally his talents could no longer escape the attention of his family. They went into council and decided that he should become a professional musician.

This was in the Autumn of 1919. Times were hard in Russia and particularly so in Petrograd, where Shostakovich continued to reside. Winter was approaching. Fuel and food were scarce…. But in the great cold houses there dwelt a staunch and valiant people. Undismayed, they labored for the welfare of their country. Life went on within the walls of the Petrograd Conservatory where famous teachers of music continued to impart their experience and knowledge to young musicians. Adolescent Shostakovich too came here to study.

Dmitri played before the venerable director of the conservatory, Alexander Konstantinovich Glazounov, famous Russian composer and favorite pupil and friend of Rimsky-Korsakov. He was prompt to recognize the gifts of the youngster and on his advice Shostakovich from the outset applied himself to two subjects: pianoforte and the theory of composition. Glazounov watched over the development of the young composer, encouraged and supported him, secured him a monthly stipend which he continued to receive throughout his studies at the conservatory. It was thus that a representative of Russia’s old school of music, a descendant of the “Mighty Handful” (Balakirev, Cesar Cui, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin and Mussorgsky) welcomed and encouraged the first steps of this remarkable musician of our time.

Shostakovich made light of difficulties where others toiled uphill for years. But he had a tremendous zest for hard work which bore fruit in his growing mastery of piano technique. Professor Leonid Nikolayev, his teacher, was quick to appreciate his artistic individuality. In the short space of four years Shostakovich went through the full course of the conservatory and in 1923 brilliantly completed his training as a pianist. At the graduation concert he rendered one of Beethoven’s most difficult sonatas, the formidable Opus 106.

Shostakovich’s laurels as a pianist were plentiful and instantly attained. He attributed more importance, however, to composition which he had studied under Maximilian Steinberg, an outstanding representative of the Rimsky-Korsakov school. The principles of the latter undoubtedly strongly influenced the young composer in his formative period. It is true that he subsequently departed far from the traditions of this school, but one must not forget that many a daring innovator was bred on Rimsky-Korsakov theories. If we recall that Igor Stravinsky and Serge Prokofieff came from the Petersburg school, there is nothing really incongruous in the evolution of a Shostakovich from the traditions of Korsakov and Glazounov. From Maximilian Steinberg he derived high professional skill (in the spirit of Rimsky-Korsakov who despised dilettantism in any guise) and the best that one of Russia’s finest schools of music could give.

A good deal of the student composer’s time was taken up by his assignments in harmony, counterpoint, fugue construction and instrumentation. The practice of so-called free composition was begun only in the final years of the conservatory course. Shostakovich was not privileged to disregard the rules. Conscientiously he labored over every task and invariably earned the praise of his exacting tutor. This alone failed to satisfy him. His creative urge required an outlet. Between classes he more and more often devoted himself to various compositions.

During his period of study at the conservatory, he wrote: 8 preludes for the pianoforte, a theme and variations for orchestra, 2 pieces based on the fables of Krylov, 3 fantastic dances, a suite for two pianofortes, an F-minor orchestra scherzo, a trio for pianoforte, violin and violoncello, 3 pieces for violoncello and, finally, his First Symphony. Ever critical of his work, he subsequently published only the “Fantastic Dances” and the symphony, regarding all else as mere trial. We shall not quarrel with the author’s severity. Suffice it to say that even externally these early compositions bore many features characteristic of his later works: predilection for instrumental music and sense of humor (two scherzos for orchestra and the “Krylov Fables”).

An idea of Shostakovich’s early work may be gained from his “Fantastic Dances,” small pieces for the pianoforte which have lost none of their charm to the present day. Characteristic of him here are the lightness of touch and graceful humour as well as the imagery: the drollery of the first dance, the lyrical capriciousness of the second and particularly the grotesque “zig-zags” of the third. The “galloping” miniature rhythms, the unexpected harmonic changes and turns of melody anticipated many a later page of Shostakovich.

In the life of every great artist there comes a period of crisis. The pupil of yesterday reaches the threshold of independence. Eagerly he regards his surroundings in a new light, searches for his own theme, his own world of artistic images. At last he evolves a work which captures the attention of its listeners; they sense here something that is new, something that is original. Though later and more mature works may dim these creations, the latter nonetheless preserve their inspiring freshness and youthful charm for all time.

Such a composition was Shostakovich’s First Symphony. Completed in his senior year at the conservatory, it may be said to sum up the period of his studies. Shostakovich’s development as a composer is remarkable for its intensity. At the age of 13 he wrote his first large work—an F-minor Scherzo for orchestra. Six years later he brought forth the score of his First Symphony which earned him world tame. What a vast distance he had traveled in the few years of his studies! How earnest must have been the efforts and strenuous the application of this modest student of Maximilian Steinberg! His studies, moreover, proceeded under harrowing conditions. His father died leaving the entire family on his hands. He was compelled to interrupt his creative work to play in the cinemas for a living. But his talent and youth gained the upper hand. His First Symphony was given its initial performance in the Great Hall of the Leningrad Philharmonic on May 12, 1926 under the baton of Nikolai Malko. Soon afterwards it was broadcast from Moscow. In the following year it was performed for the first time abroad. Since then it has been presented to music lovers again and again under the baton of such world-famous conductors as Toscanini, Koussevitzky, Stokowski, Bruno Walter and others.

Fame came to Shostakovich on the day after the premiere of his First Symphony. His debut was indeed a remarkable one. Unlike most budding composers, he had come out with a grand symphonic score. Brilliantly orchestrated, it captivated the audience by its temperament and bold flight of artistic fancy. It was not the dogma of the academy, but his inner urge for expression, his penetrating intuition and desire for rational means of attaining the essence of polyphony which prompted those forms chosen by Shostakovich at the first milestone of his career. It was this which rendered the work enduring. The First Symphony has stood the test of time. How many symphonic scores have faded into oblivion in the years that have passed since the appearance of Shostakovich’s First!

The importance of this work, on the other hand, has grown immeasurably. Fingering the pages of the score again and again we find our interest rekindled every time by the familiar passages, and we discover ever fresh and remarkable things about them, currents and undercurrents that escaped first notice. Shostakovich’s First Symphony has become a classic work of the modern symphonic repertory.

The very first strains compel the listener’s attention. An imperious flourish from muted trumpet, the sombre, strangely dove-like utterance of a bassoon—an extraordinary, even bizarre, opening for a symphony! But then the movement is interrupted by wary chords of the woodwinds. The flourish is sounded again (the theme now carried by the clarinet). It is seconded by the bassoon theme which has now lost its rhythmic distinctiveness and is carried by a solo violoncello. Contrasting elements of sound are intensified and engender growing uncertainty. The melodic images seem to disintegrate and the impression is created that the composer is vainly seeking to emerge from an enchanted circle, to grasp upon a single and major idea beyond its confines. Sharp fragments of melody are handed from instrument to instrument. Short chromatic passages give way to images energetic and yet vague.

All is graphically emphasized in this remarkable introduction. There is the irony of various turns of melody. More emphatic is the spasmodic, automatic movement of marionette images which recall certain pages of Tchaikovsky—the score of his Nutcracker Suite and particularly the nocturnal sortie against the forces of the Mouse King. This spasmodic mood emerges gradually, almost covertly, in Shostakovich’s First Symphony. In a number of his later works it is more boldly and definitely introduced and assumes fresh aspects mechanically grotesque.

The introductory Allegretto is the seed from which sprouts the music of the entire symphony. Here one can sense the guiding force of creative thought which drives determinedly towards its goal. The pattern of the symphony’s development strives to envelop and overcome the sombre and troubled hues of the introductory melodic images.

The main theme of the first movement sounds an answer to the troubled and questioning introduction. There is a crisp march, a seedling of an earlier melodic grain in the first measures. Slender though it is, this little reed is lively and bright in colour. Swift and light, it is marked by delicate instrumentation and subtle shading.

The march is suddenly interrupted by the familiar flourish of the trumpet. Its challenge calls forth a second theme, a measured, though lilting waltz luxuriant in counterpoint. Here again impulsiveness merges with fragility, again the orchestral colors are clear and fresh.

In the laconic exposition of the First Symphony there is no sharp dramatic conflict of two themes. One may rather say that its two themes are related, differing in genre but similar in mood. The middle section is built up on a contrapuntal union of both subjects of the exposition (the second subject is severely deformed in the process, loses its fluency, grows angular and distended).

It is in the elaboration of his musical ideas that the polyphonic skill of Shostakovich is best shown. This, however, does not necessarily imply mere adeptness in combining melodies, as some critics are inclined to believe.

The alternation of the themes occurs at very short intervals and their roles are frequently reversed. In the final episode the motion wanders and we gradually return to where we began—a state of uncertainty. Once again there is the fanfare, the whisper of a flute, the mutter of violoncellos and a dry brusque pizzicato…. The musical action runs to a standstill, the circle closes.

The dramatic development of the first movement of the symphony is a striving to overcome the initial mood of sombre uncertainty, a struggle with inertia to release the forces of action and movement. But all was in vain. It was not impulse and will that triumphed, but the spasmodic movement of marionettes. A world of masquerades shutting out the wider vistas from human thought…. The idea was daringly conceived and required great effort of will for its consummation. To achieve his end, the composer counterposed the contrasting movements of his symphony which were to evolve something that was new, something that would carry the listener away from the emotional enclave of the opening movement.

Such was the Scherzo of the second movement—continuously in motion, its rhythm impetuous and swift. The main theme of the Scherzo, one of Shostakovich’s finest melodic inventions, is bold, sharp, full of humor, temperamental and unconstrained in its development.

The second theme of the Scherzo is a tranquil melody close to the element of song (in this case lyrical). The composer displays true virtuosity in the development of his themes. Juggling with his first theme from one instrument to the other, from the low register of the bassoons to the high-ringing register of the pianoforte, he brings to mind the scene of cheerful crowds, glimpses of multitudes of laughing faces. Entirely different associations are evoked by the second theme (carried by two flutes accompanied by the rustling tremolo of violins). We visualize the spacious valley of a river in the steppes with suggestions of the infinite variety of life. The breath-taking pace of the round dance, the lyrical calm of contemplation are both echoed here. Particularly significant is the union of the two themes in the final passage of the Scherzo. This is the culminating point in the development, a synthesis of life in two different aspects.

In this palpitating Scherzo, however, the composer again failed to overcome completely the temptation of the marionettes. There is something reminiscent of the introduction in the peculiar canon of violoncellos and double-basses which begins the Scherzo. The same intonations slip through lizard-like into the melodic current of the second theme. At the terminating velocities of the themes there is a sudden interruption in the shape of three pianoforte chords and the ensuing silence is palpably charged with spasmodic and perplexing uncertainty. These features, however, disclose a direct relation between the separate inove-ments of the symphony; though varied and contrary in nature they are stages in the development of a single idea.

The Scherzo is brilliantly orchestrated. The composer’s wit for novel orchestral combinations is inexhaustible. A unique color is contributed by the frequent use of the pianoforte. The very first entrance of this instrument sounding the main theme in bright unison brings something fresh and unusual to the score. Equally unexpected and original are the rolling chromatic scales (at the beginning of the reprise). Superb are the three A-minor chords relieving the full-blown tutti of the orchestra. Its remarkable orchestration, vividness and temperament render the Scherzo almost the best part of the symphony.

The third part—Lento—begins with a lyrical flow of melody. Vast and calm, its main theme, carried by an oboe, is set off against the even rustling of violins. The character of this melody links it with the main theme of the first part. It is reiterated in the orchestra’s tutti, though here graced with expressive counterpoint.

The motifs of the three preceding movements attain fresh significance in the brilliant Finale of the symphony. Here the initial mood of the first movement is at length overcome. Dynamic and swift, the Scherzo is enriched by the lyricism of the Lento. The Finale harbors that energy and decisiveness which can barely be recognized in the fragmentary introduction. Here all doubts are dispelled, all contradictions resolved. Such is the final and determinant conclusion of the symphony.

The Finale is preceded by a small pathetic passage linking it with the slow movement. A clarinet suddenly sounds the main theme which in character somewhat resembles that of the introduction. It is more dynamic, however, continuous and flavored with the character of the Scherzo. The beginning of the Finale is pervaded by the rapid flow of this theme, handed from instrument to instrument in constantly varying timbre.

The second theme is a broad and sonorous melody appearing at once in the mighty tutti of the orchestra. It attains even more grandeur in the final episodes of the symphony. The movement gains momentum, grows in volume and finally dissolves in a flood of stirring sounds bringing the entire work to a solemn and festive conclusion.

Shostakovich’s First Symphony is closely linked with world, and particularly with Russian, symphonic music. There is much in it that has evolved from the traditions of the Rimsky-Korsakov school. Here too it is not difficult to discern the traces of Prokofieff and some Scriabin influences. All these, however, have been colored in the prism of a strong individuality. This explains the unusual emotional content and style. The symphony owes its originality also to the melody pattern and unique orchestration. Its natural sagacity, its swift rhythms, impetuousness and sharp humor easily identify the author.

Shostakovich’s gift for symphonic thought, indicated by the unity and masterful development of his musical ideas, were shown in his First Symphony. The melodic roots were planted in the very first measures of the introductory Allegretto, from which sprouted the first (and consequently—the second) theme of the Allegro, the Lento theme and the main theme of the Finale. This affinity is less easily discerned in the Scherzo, but here too one can perceive certain tonal relations. In a great variety of passages he has thus achieved continuity and monolithic unity, a primary condition of musical logic.

This musical logic influences the conception of the entire symphony. We have already discussed the content of the first movement. Its principal features, however, grow more evident in the succeeding movements. The marching stride of the main theme is relieved by the vigorous Scherzo. The lyric second theme predominates in the expansive melody of the Lento. It is only in these two movements that the vital motifs come into their own. They had been evident before, but veiled by the spasmodic marionette images. Guided by logic, the composer launches his Finale from here.

There is nothing that is particularly profound in this symphony, and that is fortunate. A young man of seventeen is rarely profound. Few at that age command the experience of the philosopher, and what can be worse than the affectation of some young composer who would don the toga of the philosopher!

The symphony owes its character to the construction of the melodies, to the polyphonic web of ideas and the brilliance of the orchestration. Characteristic too is the composer’s rejection of all that is redundant, of all that might dim the expression of his principal ideas. The polish of the mature Shostakovich, of course, is still lacking, but the prerequisites for his further development are clearly to be discerned in the fine orchestration, the subtle fabric of his polyphonic patterns, their clear-cut condensation.

The latter is particularly important. Shostakovich is a gifted composer, one who is guided by an iron chain of logic. At a certain phase in the development of his constructive principles Shostakovich proved himself akin to the western European linearists.¹ He accepted their principles with reservations, however. The symphony of the young composer is well-knit and austerely balanced, but far from the studied combination of conventional elements for the sake of effect alone.

Its imagery too is original. The grotesque is introduced at the beginning. More vital is his Scherzo, which subsequently prompted many of his best pages. His lyricism unfolds from the meditative to poignant pathos. The grotesque and the lyric, irony and perturbation—all these are felt in the later works of the composer as well.

Aside from the positive qualities of the First Symphony there were certain things here which eventually led the composer astray. The construction of initial passages in later works acquired purely abstract and conventional significance. Somewhat overdone, the grotesque attained the proportions of mockery and his means of expression grew highly exaggerated. The very flight of his fantasy tended to lead him to thoughtlessness, to the superficial, and this was indeed the case in certain of his compositions. Years later, however, his flight of fancy attained truly Mozartian clarity in his Sixth Symphony.

His First Symphony may be said to have brought Shostakovich to a cross-roads. From here he could have departed in two directions. It is certain, however, that the symphony was of particular importance in his artistic development, concluding as it did his period of study and launching him upon the road of further development.

The Soviet symphony in those years had not yet come into its own. Of new symphonic works there were few and mostly written by composers of the older generation, masters who had launched their careers before the revolution. Fi...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Contents
• Chapter I: The Road Begins
• Chapter II: Breeze from the West
• Chapter III: Crisis
• Chapter IV: Winning Free!
• Chapter V: Lyric Intermezzo
• Chapter VI: To the Heights of Philosophical Lyricism
• Chapter VII: Born of the Storm
• Chapter VIII: Concentrated Thought and Feeling
• Chapter IX: Style
• Works of Dmitri Shostakovich
• Notes
• Copyright Page