Dmitrij Šostakovič.

Thallo hit the nail on the head; on these topics, opinions can be expressed from various points of view, which I summarize as follows:

- performer

- composer

- musicologist

- listener

Among the 4, I believe that the listener moves more according to taste; I am certain that Frank the listener prefers listening to Shostakovich over Stockhausen and certainly over Webern (except for the Passacaglia), so showing interest in a composer's work is one thing, and the pleasure of listening to their work is another.

Perhaps I am starting from the assumption that my own listening tastes are not interesting, so I am expressing more of a technical opinion as a composer, enriched by some musicological knowledge.

What I want to say is that if a composer, not by choice (see Webern), becomes a starting point and even creates a mainstreaming or is always chosen by performers (for a thousand reasons), their greatness is undeniable. This does not mean that the listener does not matter—on the contrary—but it is easier to fall into matters of taste and lose a certain objectivity. In short, reading the writings, I often cannot discern whether opinions are from a listener or technical in a broad sense. When the two things are mixed, it almost seems as if musicology is at the service of taste. But we all know that is not the case.

In fact, the premise of the topic was modified along the way (I acknowledge this to Daniele); I have truly appreciated and approve of the comments that have been posted so far. In fact, I would like to reassure Daniele or others interested in the discussion... I like to think that it is possible to distinguish the value of Chopin's music compared to that of the last of the composers (I could be the first on this list). Therefore, it is not true that in the end taste guides evaluations of this type; it is difficult to treat a vast and articulated subject objectively through a few posts and a few lines, and so it may seem that taste wins. Or rather, returning to the discussion: someone chooses the points of reference and the starting points; it is, in a broad sense, the taste of many professionals... certainly not just one.

I am realizing that I am getting bogged down in a very large discussion; one can try to put ideas on the table... but the substance is that Bach did not become Bach by chance... the same goes for the others.

I think I was wrong here; unfortunately, it comes naturally to me to relate composers to their contemporaries to express an opinion... rereading the topic, Mahler immediately came to mind.

Unfortunately, only personalities come to mind who would overshadow anyone... for instance, even Schubert was overshadowed by Beethoven. This does nothing to diminish his work, but do we really want to go there?

I won't persist in the OT [off-topic]; in fact, among the Russians, Daniele (this is my mistake... not having contextualized the subject. Sorry), is probably one of the greatest. Stravinsky did what he wanted outside his homeland, even if in effect one of his masterpieces is full of Russia, even though he denied it.

Kappa wrote:

even if, in effect, one of his masterpieces is full of Russia, even if he denied it.

To tell you the truth, Roman Vlad (rest his soul) in his masterpiece shows exactly how Stravinsky's music is "Russian inside", location aside

Frank wrote:

Aside from the fact that there is no controversy, it simply seemed strange to me not to read names when it was obvious they existed (having read the premises). In reality, I am not citing Rachmaninov; one would have to ask Kappa; I only asked a question while reading one of your responses (specifically to Kappa).

In general, we are talking about topics that have already been thoroughly analyzed by musicology; the fact that there are composers who changed the way music is written, thought about, and listened to is not a big secret. Speaking personally, in reference to this, even if I am not crazy about him, one cannot fail to mention Webern; a neglected giant is Messiaen; certainly the two aforementioned Schoenberg and Stravinsky; I take the liberty of reminding you of the already mentioned Stockhausen for the avant-garde, Berio, and Grisey.

It is not a matter of taste, but those are the rocks where the great flow of music history diverted. One could certainly be even more precise, but I don't have much time at the moment.

As for the other great composers (just for completeness, I am also a composer. Granted, I express myself in the 21st century), I can evaluate them on the level of musicality and the greatness of their works.

For Rachmaninov, I am dusting off this topic:

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2244-rachmaninov-140

Claudio has well summarized what my intention was. In opening this topic, my sole aim was and is to highlight the figure of a composer who even today, from my point of view, is not yet properly valued.

I limited myself to saying that I consider him the greatest Soviet composer - and I did not want to write Russian - precisely out of the awareness of avoiding the usual long list of composers who, with their illustrious titles, made the 20th century great. At most, I could have found some recrimination regarding Prokofiev's name, but not the rest. And instead, no! As usual, here is the punctual list of the top of the class: real or presumed. Well, what can you do?

In 2006, on the occasion of the centenary of Shostakovich's birth, the centenaries of Mozart and Schumann were also being celebrated – at least these were certainly the most important ones – and it was well known that Mozart could monopolize everything to the detriment of others. And instead, no! Surprisingly, he managed to reserve a significant opening, something that did not happen, very unfairly moreover, to poor Schumann. It was the first sign that something was changing in the attitude towards the Soviet composer.

Today, finally, his symphonies – at least parts of them – are in the repertoires of the symphonic seasons of our main theaters – a rarity before the centenary – and his "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District" has entered the repertoire of opera houses: at the end of the year, the municipal theater of Bologna will close its season with it.

The 15 quartets are missing - on the other hand, Bartók's are also missing – and this is truly serious.

What I believe and hope for is that in the years to come, true justice can be done to this composer who certainly did not have a legacy, but if he didn't have one, it is because the history of music went in another direction and he was forced onto other paths.

The fact is that, at least according to me, who am nobody, Shostakovich's tonality, liberated from any late and post-romantic residue, is a very high demonstration of how tonality could have evolved in the 20th century and beyond: far from neo-romantics or things like that.

Šostakovič

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Šostakovič

danielescarpetti wrote:

It is a fact that, at least according to me who am nobody, Shostakovich's tonality, freed from any late and post-romantic residue, is a very high demonstration of how tonality could have evolved in the twentieth century and beyond: far from neo-romantics or similar things.

In my opinion instead, once tonic and dominant are removed, one cannot speak of tonality... this is why he competes with others on different levels. In fact, who are the others?

Aside from Stravinsky and Prokofiev, I wonder who the other Russians are that are comparable on a territorial level—in short, those who were in the same conditions.

danielescarpetti wrote:

As usual, here is the punctual list of the top students: real or alleged.

I think you haven't read my last post, Evvabé, how's it going?

First of all, I apologize to Frank, but I hadn't read his last intervention which already clarifies many things and which, as such, I appreciate much more.

Well done also to Kappa who, having technical knowledge, can explain to me how Shostakovich's tonality-non-tonality differs.

Yes, Frank, I actually hadn't read it. Forgive me. However, I am happy anyway to have made my thought clearer - at least I hope so.

No problem Daniele, broad and complex discussions, it's difficult to understand each other through 4 staves. One day we will meet and in person we will realize that we are essentially saying the same thing but with different words. Anyway, I understood well what you mean

I leave the honor to Kappa to explain the discourse regarding tonality, but technicalities aside, I find your statement (Daniele) quoted by Kappa unclear. You say that Shostakovich's music "is a very high demonstration of how tonality could have evolved in the twentieth century and beyond". I reflect on this, and I think that Shostakovich himself (1906-1975) lived for almost three quarters of a century; he practically had all the time to demonstrate how it should have been in the twentieth century and not how it "could have been" (or rather... this last part would eventually refer to the period after the 1900s, i.e., this century).

Consider that I evaluate a strength of his music as showing and not failing to show; however, I haven't grasped what you mean.

Terenzio wrote:

I stole Daniele's post.

http://www.flaminioonline.it/Guide/Shostakovich-Machbet.html

Thanks Terenzio!

In two words, it is not easy. 2 poles, tonic key and dominant. One moves from related keys (in the circle of fifths) to gravitate toward strategic points relative to the tonic key and particularly to the tonic.

If you remove the tonic key, dominant, and cadences.... there is no tonality. Wagner and the Wagnerians (see César Franck & Co.) "decreed" the end of tonality a few decades earlier... the rest followed naturally. Therefore, for me, Shostakovich sought, like others, his own way to respond to the needs of his time and, for a million valid reasons, his results—to put it in Franck's terms—did not become a basis of study for other composers who did not follow in his footsteps. Right or wrong, this is history, and if it is true that for today's composers one sometimes hears: time will tell... it may be that for the composers of the past, history has already told its tale. This does not detract from the beauty of his music, but it is certainly not tonal and was not in some way "continued." One might think that Bach, after a couple of centuries, was "rediscovered," but in my opinion, those were different times; today, as it stands, there are means and freedom to do whatever we want. So let's enjoy his music without too many questions

Frank wrote:

I am reflecting on this, and I think that Shostakovich himself (1906-1975) lived for almost three quarters of a century; he practically had all the time to demonstrate how the twentieth century should be and not how it "could be"

Yes, in effect, a similar doubt had occurred to me as well, but I got caught up in the concept of tonality

Frank wrote:

You say that Shostakovich's music "is a very high demonstration of how tonality could have evolved in the twentieth century and beyond". I am reflecting on this, and I think that Shostakovich himself (1906-1975) lived for almost three quarters of a century; he practically had all the time to demonstrate how it should be in the twentieth century and not how it "could have been" (or rather... this latter part would eventually apply to the post-1900 era, i.e., this century).

Consider that I consider showing rather than demonstrating to be a strength of his music; however, I haven't quite grasped what you mean.

Yes, yes, you are right, it is I who used the wrong verb. Shostakovich demonstrated how tonal music in the twentieth century should have been, and not how it could have been. In reality, the "could have been" was linked to the fact that, for the reasons we have already discussed, that path remained sterile.

History is not made with "ifs" and "buts" naturally, but I am absolutely convinced that if the Soviet power had been different, Shostakovich's music would also have been different. We could define the man and the composer as a perfect tightrope walker, whose life was perpetually forced to walk a wire over an abyss. Shostakovich managed to combine all demands—whether they were political, existential, or compositional—in a truly precarious situation full of traps, even deadly ones. On this point, at least, one must acknowledge that he was truly a great master. A small slip here or there would have been enough, and we would have to say other things about him. He succeeded miraculously in this, but the price for all of it fell entirely upon him, both from a physical and a psychological standpoint.

Thanks to Kappa for the explanation.