I’ve always had an ambivalent attitude towards the two chamber
symphonies on this disc; some might call it one coloured by shades of
purism. My initial reaction when I first came across them was annoyance that
anyone should tamper with the two string quartets. I am such a fan of
Shostakovich that I felt that if the composer had thought it a good idea to
arrange them for string orchestra he would have done it himself; this
despite the fact that he readily approved conductor friend Rudolf
Barshai’s arrangements giving them each the ‘a’ suffix to
the opus numbers.
On the other hand I recently reviewed a disc which included some
arrangements for flute and vibraphone of a number of his piano preludes from
op. 34 and some more from the op. 87 set of preludes and fugues for piano -
a couple of those with an added clarinet. I found them absolutely
delightful. I suppose it is rather similar to those people who are always
disappointed with films of books they’ve enjoyed where they feel the
film strays too far from the book, sometimes even adding characters and
events. My counsel to such people is always to put the book out of their
mind and regard the film on its own merit. If I follow my own counsel with
these two works then it becomes easier to be objective.
Shostakovich always used chamber music to express his most private
thoughts with cleverly concealed references he knew the population who
shared his experience would pick up on while the cultural watchdogs would
inevitably miss them. Therefore in the cause of objectivity in relation to
the
Chamber Symphony in C minor Op.110a should I also discount the
controversial nature of its creation? In 1960 while near Dresden to complete
the music for the war film
Five days - five nights Shostakovich saw
with his own eyes the devastation caused by the Allied bombing of Dresden on
13-15 February 1945 and this affected him deeply. He wrote the
8
th string quartet quickly and when interviewed said he wished to
dedicate it to “the memory of the victims of fascism and war”.
It has since emerged that it is probable that the Soviet authorities coerced
him into saying that and though the printed scores bear that quotation the
autograph doesn’t; the true inspiration was different. Today it is
widely accepted that he wrote it as a self-memorial as he also saw himself
as a victim. His daughter Galina confirmed the point saying that he had
declared this the day he completed the quartet. In addition, in a letter to
his friend Isaak Glikman, he went into considerable detail about the quartet
saying “I started thinking that if some day I die, nobody is likely to
write a work in memory of me, so I had better write one myself”. He
went on to list the self quotations contained within the quartet as well as
quotations from the funeral march from Wagner’s
Götterdämmerung and Tchaikovsky’s sixth symphony.
Finally the quartet begins with his oft-used musical signature, DSCH: (in
German transliteration D, Es, German for E flat, C and H, German for B). It
recurs throughout. The quotation of the old Russian funeral anthem
Tormented by the weight of bondage you glorify death with honour and
his suggestion to Glikman that the title page could bear the inscription
To the memory of the composer of this quartet removes any remaining
doubt about its
raison d’être. The implication
that both fascism and communism, as practised in the Soviet Union, were two
sides of the same coin is clear; there are also Jewish musical references to
tie them to him - all victims. Around the same time as he wrote the quartet
he had finally been forced, after years of resistance, to join the CPSU
(Communist Party of the Soviet Union), making him feel particularly
depressed. He even contemplated suicide.
There is no doubt that the chamber symphony is a powerful work of great
poignancy. If you come to it without knowing the quartet or are able to
discount it while listening then it is certainly hugely impressive. However,
if you do know the quartet then you cannot fail to agree that the stark
nature the four instruments create gives the music a far greater atmosphere
of desolation, horror, anguish and torment than an orchestra of twenty-one
can achieve … and with the addition of double bass. It’s a
perfect example of ‘less is more’. Others feel differently:
music critic James Leonard said of the
chamber symphonies some years before Barshai’s death “There is
no reason why Rudolf Barshai shouldn't continue
making arrangements of Shostakovich's string quartets for chamber
orchestra and calling them chamber symphonies. He's good at it
...”.
By the time Leonard wrote that, Rudolf Barshai had also arranged
four more of Shostakovich’s string quartets as ‘chamber
symphonies’: the youthful first, the third, the fourth and the tenth
which is the other one on this disc. There is a neat link here with the
remaining work, Weinberg’s
Concertino for violin and string
orchestra, since it was to Weinberg that Shostakovich dedicated his
tenth string quartet. The booklet says that Weinberg met ‘the
thirteen-year older Dmitri Shostakovich in 1943’, when in fact
Weinberg was only ten years younger. What is not in dispute is their close
friendship and the mentoring that Shostakovich gave to Weinberg as well as
championing his music. Also it should be remembered that Shostakovich
supported the younger man when he spent some time in prison on the
ridiculous and meaningless charge of ‘Jewish bourgeois
nationalism’. Add to this the ‘cross pollination’ that
existed between the two composers.
There was friendly rivalry between them and in a letter dated 21
July 1964 Shostakovich wrote to Glikman “I have kept my word - another
quartet, the tenth, was finished yesterday. It is dedicated to Moysey
Vainberg (these days spelt Weinberg). He wrote nine quartets and with the
last of them overtook me, since at the time I had only eight. I therefore
set myself the challenge of catching up and overtaking Vainberg, which I
have now done.” Eventually Weinberg, who outlived Shostakovich by 21
years, overtook him again, writing a total of 17 string quartets to his
friend’s 15. Shostakovich’s tenth is a wonderful quartet but
then I’m biased since I consider them all masterpieces. Nevertheless
among them some are particularly outstanding and the eighth and tenth are
two examples. The long ominous opening theme played on the lowest registers
of the bank of cellos is magnificently rich before the more relaxed tune for
all the strings calms the mood down. The second movement is immediately one
of agitation and dissonance but its tight construction and thick sounds make
it irresistible. The
adagio is sober, even stately, but
extraordinarily beautiful and as the closing notes come from violin and
cello a lone viola whispers above them and segues into the final movement.
Summing up all the material that went before this movement is quite wondrous
with a dance-like tune that gives way in the middle to nightmarish
dissonance. Elements from the sacral
adagio cut through with the
dancing tune re-emerging before it is deconstructed so that the quartet ends
with elements of it morphing into a quiet gentle A flat major chord. This is
where my ambivalence about Barshai’s arrangements affects me since it
seems to me that this one works much better than op.110a and I don’t
get that feeling of irritation at its existence. It may be the profoundly
personal nature of the eighth quartet that makes me feel it should be
allowed to exist on its own; that it is too private to have anyone else
manipulate it. I recognise the argument that says that as
‘symphonies’ they are more likely to be heard and appreciated
than as quartets; if this really is the case then I very much hope that
people eventually discover their origin and learn to love them as such.
Mieczysław Weinberg’s
Concertino for violin and string
orchestra only received its world première recording in 2010 with
Sergey Ostrovsky the soloist and Thomas Sanderling and the Bournemouth
Symphony Orchestra (
Naxos 8.572631). In my review of that disc in 2011 I wrote
the following: ‘This concertino from 1948 is fascinating in that the
opening movement sounds very English and reminds me of Walton, Vaughan
Williams and Bax in style, with that pastoral sweep that always brings the
English rolling countryside to mind. The second movement with its cadenza is
full of lovely melodies while the last is also extremely melodious. The
whole is about as far removed musically from what we have come to expect
from Soviet composers as it is possible to be. This work, the earliest of
his nine written for solo instrument and orchestra, may never have received
a public performance, and was published only as recently as 2007. This
recording certainly shows its merit and perhaps it will now find a permanent
place in the violin repertoire’.
Listening to both recordings today I can say I haven’t changed
my mind about the work which is a wonderful addition to the violin concerto
repertoire. It has everything one could possibly wish for in a violin
concerto. The music extends from lyrical, deeply moving and bittersweet to
wistful and dancing. It is interesting that there was a lot of what I
described above as ‘cross-pollination’ between the two
composers. Weinberg once commented about Shostakovich “although I
never had a lesson from him, I consider myself his pupil, his flesh and
blood” there is no hint of any influence from that quarter in this
work. Both recordings are very good and I was not aware of any difference in
orchestral texture despite the Naxos recording involving a considerably
larger numbers of players.
The accompanying DVD, issued as part of the Sinfonietta’s
25
th anniversary, is a nice addition that shows it rehearsing the
op.110a chamber symphony with comments from various members, including its
artistic director and leader Candida Thompson whose lovely tone is a
pleasure to hear. Despite my personal reservations about the existence of
arrangements of Shostakovich’s string quartets and not wishing to
appear to be damning with faint praise this disc is a fine example of them
and of the Sinfonietta’s warm sound.
Steve Arloff
