Dmitry SHOSTAKOVICH (1906-1975)
Symphony No.1 in F minor, Op.10 (1924-25) [33:23]
Symphony No.3 in E flat major The First of May, Op.20 (1929) [31:10]
Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Choir and Orchestra/Vasily Petrenko
rec. July 2009 (No.1) and June 2010 (No.3), Philharmonic Hall, Liverpool,
England. DDD
With text and English translation
NAXOS 8.572396 [64:33]
Vasily Petrenko and the RLPO continue their acclaimed Shostakovich series
on Naxos. The current installment puts the First and the Third symphonies
together. They are two very different experiments of the young composer before
he found his mature voice in the Fourth symphony.
Although a graduation work written by an 18-year old, the First is one of
the most striking symphonies of the 20th century. It already shows
the flourishing inspiration, the sure hand in composition and orchestration,
the unmistakable style of the composer. The music is diverse, audacious, full
of surprises and contrast. The mere idea of opposing a march and waltz as
the first movement’s main subjects is brave and novel. The entire movement
is a firework display of symphonic writing, concise and effective. Petrenko
starts in half-voice, and does not bring the rampage on the listener’s head
all at once. His waltz is relaxed and airy. All this makes the two climaxes
the more overwhelming. The conductor changes the tempo between the subjects
to emphasize the changes of character.
The second movement is a study in sharp contrast. The outer scherzo parts
are brisk and grotesque. Petrenko noticeably slows down in the viscous Trio,
so it becomes something like a hypnotic Russian folk-dance done by blank-eyed
zombies. The coda returns to the Trio theme. This unexpectedly leaps at us
completely wild and aggressive, even scary, a frantic phantasmagoria, then
stops abruptly and dissolves into brooding bleakness.
The slow movement is a Mahlerian Adagio, wide and amorous, a warm sea
of shimmering strings, persistently interrupted by brass motifs, like military
signals. Petrenko paints the music big-scale on a large canvas, with a good
sense of the overarching structure and development. His performance is measured
but has good momentum.
The last movement seems to combine the previous three. If the joy of the finale
of the Fifth Symphony may justly seem insincere, here all is candid. Young
Shostakovich was on the rise, he believed in the bright future, and his music
sings of youth, power, and delight, without any tongue in cheek. There are
serious pages, loaded with reflection. There is unbuttoned jubilation here,
somewhat rude, somewhat proletarian, but still speaking more to the heart
than the artificial glee of the finales of the Second and Third symphonies.
Petrenko brings out the coda in all its brazen glory. The orchestra plays
with sharp precision.
The entire performance of the First symphony conveys the feeling of freshness,
delight, and inspiration. I compared it to the 1971 NYPO/Bernstein on Sony.
Petrenko’s approach is more aristocratic, while Bernstein is more “in your
face” and down to earth. This could be partially caused by a closer recording
in Bernstein’s case, which lets the soloing instruments stand out. Petrenko’s
recording is more distant, so the orchestra sounds more uniformly, “from the
side”, as in a concert. The recorded level is low in quiet parts – I often
caught myself trying to increase the volume, only to find out that it was
already at the maximum. But then when it is loud, it really is loud. All that
said, the performance is tame if compared to Bernstein, who generates more
tension, indulges more emotional excess, and is more heated. His approach
suits this music better than the cooler Petrenko. I find this First too pure
– and personally I prefer Bernstein’s healthy rudeness!
Shostakovich once declared that he would compose a symphony where no theme
would be repeated twice. He succeeded in this it with his Symphony No.3. It
is possible to warm to this work but I have yet to manage that. Still, it
is a symphony by Shostakovich, so it can’t really be That Bad. It has his
unmistakable voice, with many familiar traits. It shares the Ode-to-Joy-ish
ending of the Second symphony, which was dedicated to the October Revolution.
Whereas the Second symphony is more dramatic, the Third is more celebratory.
In the Second, the minor key could symbolize the oppression of the working
class before the Revolution, the struggle and the losses. What could be the
meaning of the minor key in the story of happy socialist labor? As a result,
there is almost no drama, and the mood is uniformly positive, glorifying the
First of May: International Workers’ Day. For the ending, Soviet poet Semyon
Kirsanov provided some standard “poster poetry”, and for those who lived a
little under a communist regime these lyrics can provoke nauseating reflexes.
One verse as an illustration: “Our First of May, / Burning in the hail
of bullets, / Grasping the gun and bayonet, / Stormed the Tsar’s palace.”
Don’t ask me how the First of May could grasp the bayonet, why it burned in
bullets, and what in the world did it do in the end of October, when the Tsar’s
palace was stormed – beats me! But logic was never a goal in propaganda.
The sections of the symphony flow seamlessly one into another, without separation
between the movements. The slow introduction with soloing woodwinds is actually
quite pleasant. The pace quickens into a frenetic run. This music is muscular
and has a strong drive, although its enthusiasm borders on hysteria. A short
humorous march leads into an Andante, cautious and unsure, but with
general optimism. It provides a well-needed rest between the busy activities.
We are not permitted to rest for long. Happy socialist labor summons us to
move forward and higher. This is a very Shostakovich-style Allegro, busy
and noisy, with heroic rhetoric. A calmer stretch, pregnant with pompous importance,
leads finally into the choral ending. The music is march-like, solemn and
square. The good thing is that this part is short and not tiring at all. If
you are prepared for it, it is not a surprise: it comes and is gone, and provides
a triumphant ending to the symphony.
Vasily Petrenko and the Royal Liverpudlians give us as fine a performance
of the Third as we are likely to hear, and if they can’t make something more
loveable from this symphony, it’s not their fault. The conducting is thoughtful,
but with the salt of spontaneity. The chorus is excellent, with good body
and diction. The orchestra sparkles. In these symphonies – as always in Shostakovich
– the solo instruments are very important. All the instrumental soloists here
do an excellent job.
The booklet, in the best Naxos traditions, is very helpful, providing a musical
and historical analysis. All in all, this is another excellent disc in Petrenko’s
impressive undertaking.
Oleg Ledeniov
see also review by John
Quinn
Another excellent disc in Petrenko’s impressive undertaking.