Talk:Symphony No. 4 (Shostakovich)

Old Discussion

I would respectfully disagree with at least one point in this article. The first movement, it seems to me, actually has just the usual two main themes of a sonata structure; what the writer calls "second theme" is really just part of the whole first-theme area. Both the first theme and the solo bassoon melody (what I view as the second theme) have various subsidiary, "satellite" themes that turn up here and there, so that the British sonata-form usage of "first group" and "second group" really suits this movement. Seeing it this way also allows the movement's proportions to make somewhat better sense.

The third movement also makes better sense if one sees it as an immense A-B-A' with some large-scale mirror-image structuring present, as in the first movement. The first A (in two parts)lasts up to the first galop material; B (a suite of dances) from that point to the gentle waltz-style reappearance on the flute of the descending two-note motive from the first allegro music of the movement; and A from that point to the conclusion. The mirroring happens at the "edges" of the movement: slow C-minor-to-C-Major, then a fast semi-waltz at the beginning (the A section); a semi-fast waltz leading to a slow C-Major-to-C-minor conclusion (the A' section). Sorry I do not have the score at hand to provide measure numbers or rehearsal figures to clarify the points I refer to.

I wrote a lengthy master's thesis analysis of this symphony some twenty years ago and looked into the structural issues present in this symphony (among many other things) at great length. I will not bore you with a further re-hash of that material here; anyone who cares can look it up through the Boston University libraries. Wspencer11 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very interesting comments. I always felt that "second theme" to be just that because it assumes too great an importance in the first movement's structure to be heard as a mere off-shoot of the first theme. The composer himself makes this theme's importance clear when he surprises us by recapitulating it before the first theme (albeit with the first theme's stamping accompaniment). I don't have the score handy right now, as I lent it out to a friend, but as soon as they return it, I will cite instances in the score where this second theme assumes great importance.

This article is very unfortunate. Obviously someone's put a lot of work into the descriptive section, but it's really not encyclopedic. It would be a good thing if someone gave it at least a major trimming. Henry^Flower 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I wrote a lengthy master's thesis analysis of this symphony....":

And did you also add the reference Spencer, William (1985). The Fourth Symphony of Dmitri Shostakovich: an analysis (M.M. thesis). Boston: Boston University to this article? I don't suppose wikipedia categorically disallows this sort of thing, but in this case I find it particularly striking because it's currently the only reference cited here (not counting the score itself, which I consider a redundant citation). Presumably your thesis includes a bibliography. Rather than cite your thesis, I think it may be more helpful for you to cite works your thesis cites. TheScotch (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A master's thesis from an accredited university is an acceptable source. There are many cases -- not so much with major works by major composers, but elsewhere in the music literature -- where they are the main sources. I think listing it is fine. Antandrus (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is whether it's acceptable for the author of the thesis to stick it in Wikipedia. This sounds to me very much like fairly blatant self-promotion. TheScotch (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The music section

In response to Henry Flower's suggestion, I decided to tighten up the music section. I felt that the music's description, while very detailed and done by somebody who obviously loves the music very much, tended to ramble and lose focus. Let me know if you guys like what I've done! El Chileno Chido 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. Henry^Flower 08:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite follow what has happened to the music section in the past decade and a half, but as it now stands, it's rather thin. The article details the political background and the instrumentation, and adds a long discography, but I can't find much about the symphony itself, apart from the list of movements and the odd comment in other sections, e.g., the influence of Gustav Mahler. It looks from the discussion as though there was a very full description of the symphony as a piece of music but that this was trimmed; it appears to have been trimmed into non-existence. Straw in the Wind 12:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawinthewind (talk • contribs)

Not much on Wikipedia is lost forever. The version before the cuts mentioned above can be seen here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Recordings

I know Rostropovich recorded it with the National Symphony on Teldec; did he do a second recording with the LSO? Or is the one listed supposed to be with the NSO? Also, I believe Rozhdestvensky made three different recordings but there are only two listed. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a second Rostropovich recording. This live perfromance (from 1998) was issued in a three disc box set from the Andante label. The third Rozhdestvensky recording you're mentioning is either one of two. It's either the "live" performance issued on Praga which was later revealed to be the studio Melodiya recording with applause added. The other one is another "live" performance this time with Rozhdestvensky conducting the Vienna Philharmonic. If I remember correctly, the CD stated that the recording was from 1978. I've seen this CD around every now and then but I've never actually listened to it. I know Rozhdestvensky was principal or guest conductor of the Vienna Symphony Orchestra around this time. Is there anybody who can confirm that Rozhdestvensky perfromed with the VPO around this time? -El Chileno Chido 21:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would post the following for the curious. As you know, BMG/Melodiya released Kondrashin's cycle of the Shostakovich symphonies back in the late 90's. It was a fine set that was unfortunately hampered by BMG's "NoNoise" remastering and a MONO transfer of the Fourth Symphony. The latter was particularly unfortunate as the Fourth Symphony is a work that cries out for stereo sound. I am pleased to announce then that the recent remasterings by Aulos Classics and Melodiya of the same set is a substantial improvement. Best of all, Kondrashin's recording of the Fourth is finally presented in stereo. Of the two sets, I slightly prefer the sound on the Aulos release but the Melodiya set includes valuable recordings of The Sun Shines Over the Motherland, October, and a white hot Execution of Stepan Razin in addition to the symphonies. To be honest, both sets sound quite good and either one would be an essential investment. -El Chileno Chido 07:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the Aulos remasterings available singly or only as a set of all the symphonies? If singly, is there a way to tell from the packaging which are the Aulos versions and which the Melodiya versions? I keep seeing single discs of this or that symphony available, packaged with bright colors and large digits for which symphony it includes, but I'm uncertain if these are Melodiya or Aulos. Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a table with a list of recordings. I've retained previous references of notable recordings. Since I saw the section 'Recordings' has been pushed out of the way, the section added by me may be removed or modified. Modification would be a better option, since I don't think removing the section would serve any purpose. My research is pretty much based on 'Recommendations' on the website arkivmusic.com (which I believe is authentic) including my own knowledge of Shostakovich recordings. Centaur81 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain what makes any of the recordings recently added "notable?" As distinct from "recommended," which I feel is inherently too POV to use. Just because somebody recommends a recording doesn't make it notable. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, I really cannot explain what makes the listed recordings "notable" except the fact that they have been "recommended" by (knowledgeable) music critics and reviewers, but then, why would people go and refer to... say, 'The Penguin Guide to Recorded Classical Music'...? The aim is to make Wikipedia a source of reliable, definitive information that people can use as a reference (though I don't claim to be the sole flag-bearer for providing it). Centaur81 (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is, Wikipedia cannot be reliable or definitive, simply because anyone can change anything in it at any time if they choose to do so. I can go through just about any WP article I want and remove every instance of the letter "e" with impunity. Sure, someone else can go through and undo my edits four seconds after I make them, but that doesn't mean I cannot continue to make such edits (though I would undoubtedly get blocked by an administrator before too long). Something like the Penguin guide cannot be changed in that way; only the editors and the publisher can do so. That means that enough editorial control exists to satisfy most folks that what's included is at least reliable, and maybe even definitive. And even that isn't necessarily enough; the first run of The New Grove, in about 1980, included at least one biographical article for a completely fictitious person.

I have resigned myself to having lists of recordings included in WP, but I still feel that any list that is not genuinely complete cannot be described as "notable" or "recommended" or anything else. I happen to think that the Naxos recording listed is not really worth much to anyone, but someone else may be head-over-heels in love with it. I also know for a fact that the Ormandy recording was made rather earlier than 1968, and I also know that the list does not include either Rudolf Barshai's recording or Bernard Haitink's second recording at all. So since they are not there are they not notable?

As Dame Edith Sitwell once said somewhere or other, "There is no such thing as truth, there are only points of view." --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you about the 'definitive' part and I realize that WP cannot be a definitive source. I was rather new to WP (and immature) when I wrote the above paras. However, I am certainly for including lists of recordings. If the recordings you mentioned are not included, why not go ahead and add them? If you think the Naxos recording is not worth much, well, remove it. As for the rest, well, I guess we must credit the reader with some level of intelligence whether to take something or anything on WP seriously or not, eg. there are several articles with regard to the medical field and the human body which I do take seriously although I'm not sure whether some of that information is reliable. Let each of us decide for ourselves what to believe and what not to believe, as we do for any written and published material. Centaur81 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting consensus to move 'Notable Recordings' to new section

Requesting consensus to move section to Symphony No. 4 (Shostakovich) discography. See also discussion on Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Shostakovich). Centaur81 (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• oppose - the article is not too large. --A1 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First Western performance

I have always heard that Rozhdestvensky gave the Western premiere at the 1962 Edinburgh Festival, and it might have been with the Philharmonia? Can anyone confirm? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Rozhdestvensky did not give the first western performance of this symphony. It was Kondrashin and the MPO that gave the western premiere at the 1962 Edinburgh Festival. See Wilson, Shostakovich: A Life, pg. 231. However, Rozhdestvensky was the one who suggested to Goskonsert that the Fourth should be included in the festival's program. Rozhdestvensky did perform the Fourth later during the same 1962 tour of England and I do believe the orchestra he first played the work with was the Philharmonia. I wonder if Klemperer heard the work then or had heard about it all and if so, what were his thoughts? Hmmmm... El Chileno Chido 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rozhdestvensky gave the Western premiere at the Edinburgh Festival 1962. The recording of that concert was just issued by the BBC. The Sporty Jew 22:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

External reference?

I have clarified the instrumentation list, but am not certain of how to repair the external reference. I used the published score, which I would think is the definitive source for this information; the earlier list referred to CD liner notes and referred to them very well. Anyone who wants to should clean up my mangled reference... --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the instrumentation list using a much more verifiable source than my most encyclopedic CD booklet notes! I assume that the published score you refer is this one? (If not, there is also the pocket score, I believe.) If the aforementioned score is indeed the one referenced, I (or someone else) could most certainly compile a citation for it. --Obfuscator 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My score is the Kalmus reprint of the first Soviet edition from 1962. I know there was a later Soviet edition from the 1970s sometime, and the collected edition score from about 1984, but I do not know the Boosey score. They have had a relationship with something called the Anglo-Soviet Music Press but I know nothing about what that is. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited! A bit of digging outside of Wikipedia yielded that most citation methods indicate that musical scores should be cited like books. I also found another mention of the Kalmus edition, with the publication date of 1973, but didn't cite the year as I wasn't sure of the verifiability of this date. Hope this helps! --Obfuscator 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I know there's supposed to be an edition of the Fourth edited by Kondrashin where the dynamics, phrasing, metronome markings, and such have been slightly tweaked. Is this the 1984 Collected Works edition? My own refenrence scores of this symphony are the Kalmus reprint of the 1962 Muzyka edition and the new Collected Works edition edited by Manushir Yabukov. El Chileno Chido 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Rozhdestvensky edition, which is part of the early 1980s collected edition? I have never heard of a Kondrashin edition. I have also not heard of any collected edition aside from the one from the early 80s...can you provide any details on this other one? I admit to not having kept up that closely with the recent publishing history of the work but I would be somewhat surprised if there were another collected edition so soon after the first one. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there's a new edition of Shostakovich's collected works being published by DSCH Publishing. Overseeing the project is Maxim Shostakovich, Irina Shostakovich, and Manushir Yakubov, president of the Russian Shostakovich Society. They've published quite a bit so far including all 15 symphonies (both in full score and two piano reductions), 15 string quartets, Lady Macbeth, the complete score to Kozintsev's New Babylon, and much more. They've even published the first drafts for the Fourth Symphony and the Ninth Quartet. They're planning to publish 150 volumes in all. See http://www.devinci.fr/chostakovitch/BILINGUE/150.htm for more info. El Chileno Chido 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes in article?

What a difference a few months make! I haven't checked this article in awhile and boy did somebody gut it. I changed the article back to how Wspencer11 left it back in January as I believe a lot of dreck was inserted afterwards and a lot of pieces of insight were sadly left out. For example:

1.) Shostakovich was not nearly finished with the symphony as the most recent version of thi article had stated. In fact, Shostakovich mentioned to his friends that he was dragging his heels with this symphony. If I recall correctly, Shostakovich had either not started the finale yet or was just getting around to composing it when the Pravda article showed up.

2.) The Mahler quote regarding his Third Symphony was, I believe, quite relevant to this symphony as it does shed light on this work's architecture. Let's remember too that Shostakovich was absorbed in Mahler' Third during the gestation period for his Fourth and had even gone so far as to copy down parts of that symphony for study. Compare the structures of the first movement of Mahler' Third with that of the Shotakovich Fourth to hear what I mean.

There's more I'd rant about but I'm too tired right now to go on further. Anyway, I believe the old version of the article was just fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! El Chileno Chido 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Something" instead of music?

As I noted in the talk for the main DSCH article, I have always understood that "Chaos" was a better translation than "Muddle." Can anyone who actually knows Russian (not me!) help here? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahler

Re: "The symphony is strongly influenced by those of Gustav Mahler, whose Third Symphony served as a model for Shostakovich in the first movement.":

Unless Shostakovich said this himself, it's POV. If Shostakovich did say this himself, we need a citation. If the citation is from Testimony, bear in mind that the authenticity of Testimony is greatly controversial, and rather than footnote it, it would be better to say in the article itself something like "according to Testimony...". TheScotch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing POV here - it's fact. During the time of the symphony's gestation, Shostakovich was immersed in Mahler's Third Symphony. He went so far as to copy out parts of the score. I can't recall exactly where it has been mentioned but I know it is cited in Laurel Fay's Shostakovich: A Life, Elizabeth Wilson's Shostakovich: A Life Remembered, Pauline Fairclough's Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony: A Soviet Credo, and in David Fanning's liner notes for Simon Rattle's EMI recording of the Fourth. The Sporty Jew (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If these sources make the claim (that Shostakovich was influenced by Mahler here), the article needs to say so unequivocally. Their saying it doesn't make it true, it makes it their point of view. TheScotch (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "In fact, these words written by Mahler about his own Third Symphony may just as well apply to the first movement of Shostakovich's Fourth....":

These "words written by Mahler about his own Third Symphony" may belong in a wikipedia article about Mahler's third symphony, but they clearly don't belong here. TheScotch (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored the Mahler quotes. While I see why you would think this quote is more relevant to an article for Mahler' Third, it is also relevant here as it served as a model for Shostakovich's Fourth. Yes, Mahler was referring to HIS symphony but it also describes the first movement of Shostakovich's Fourth so aptly and, considering how the symphony is deeply influenced by the Mahler Third, deserves to be mentioned.

Again, the influence of the Mahler Third on the Shostakovich Fourth is not speculation on the part of musicologists. It is fact - the composer himself admitted it and this has been referenced in the aformentioned writings. When I have time, I will place the citations in the article myself.

Finally, as for where the Mahler quote can be found, I refer you to Johnathan Carr's Mahler: A Biography. The Sporty Jew (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your point on Mahler one bit. There really need to be footnotes, however, so that readers not as knowledgable on this point know from where your point initiated. It may not be POV to you or in general, but, again, for someone not as knowledgeable, it can appear to be POV. Jonyungk (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Current state of the article

This article has gone through tremendous expansion since my last close encounter with it (at least a year ago), with a great deal of new material reflecting a great deal of hard work. I admit to not having kept up with the DSCH bibliography over the past 20 years or so, so I can't speak to the accuracy or reliability of sources that have become available in that time.

I do wish, though, that the article itself were more polished. A fair amount of what's here sounds as though it either has been translated from another language or has been regurgitated from secondary sources more or less verbatim, and without any concern for whether the source material is either accurate or sensible. Just because Boris Schwarz or "Ian MacDonald" or Solomon Volkov say something does not make it so, especially when it comes to analytical questions. Schwarz had no interest in true analysis; his book is excellent, absolutely essential reading for anyone who cares about his subject, but he was no analyst and didn't care about analysis. "MacDonald" was a provocateur as much as anything else. His classical training was close to non-existent from what I can gather, and while his Shostakovich-related writing is typically very vivid, highly characterized, and quite effective on its own terms, I believe it tells us far more about "MacDonald" than it does about DSCH because it is so blatantly speculative. I also note that references to "MacDonald’s" work appear in the body of the article but not in the bibliography, which strikes me as being very odd. Volkov (like "MacDonald" a journalist rather than a scholar) will always be shadowed by the controversy surrounding “Testimony,” so I feel that anything he says requires extremely close examination—once burned, twice shy, as they say.

The trouble is, of course, that DSCH has become so over-politicized over the past 25 years or so that I suspect attempts to clean things up and improve the article's quality (beyond fixing pretty basic stuff) could easily result in nasty edit wars for which I have neither the stomach to fight nor the time to pursue the research that could serve to dampen the flames a bit. Sad, because this is a great, greatly important, and greatly misunderstood score. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have completed what I hope is a thorough re-write and general improvement of the article. Please note: I commented out a couple of substantial sections (I was good and didn't delete them outright!) because I felt they were insufficiently sourced, especially the "encryptions" section. By doing so, I am not saying that DSCH did not insert such references into the symphony, I am only saying that any citation of a specific quotation or reference really should have details listed. Just because someone says there are two Stravinsky quotations in the finale, for example, doesn't mean you can just leave it at that, especially when the originals are specified. Be specific: pinpoint exactly what the quotation is, including measure numbers and instruments in both the original and here. My view is that if you can't do so then don't say anything about it. Similarly with the list of recordings; I personally really loathe the whole notion of WP being a place to include discographies. I would have taken the whole thing out but decided to include a few notable ones, and I indicated exactly why they're notable. I only wish every article with a recordings list would do the same. Please note that if you feel strongly about putting any of that back, please let's talk about it first, since I obviously feel strongly that they should not be there and I am trying to be very open about that here on the talk page. Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to prune this article... again!

It's that time again. Once again this article has become bloated with empty conjecture and opinionating. Unless anybody has any objections, I'll be treating it to a good trimming the next week or so. Let me know what you people think.The alpaca herder (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you offer some examples of what you mean before you simply take stuff out? I spent a lot of time rewriting this not so long ago, and while I am always happy to see things get better, I'd also like to see some discussion of proposed changes. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 03:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed

In the Form section, the list numbers for the three movements read 1 - 1 - 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.1.60 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This discography is wack

This article (like most of the classical music articles on Wikipedia) has some major problems, mostly with style (all the gushing!), lack of references, and simple fact-checking. I don't have time to work on any of these things, but I'll point out one issue that ought to be fixed. Who designed this wack discography? Kondrashin recorded the symphony three times for Melodiya? Nope. He only recorded it once (the early Le Chant du Monde and BMG/Melodiya transfers were botched jobs that used a dub of the master tape rather than the master itself); Ormandy's recording is from 1963, not 1968 (he recorded the 10th that year); Gergiev recorded his second version in 2013 (it was released the next year).

I'm sure a lot of people here do a fine job, or at least try. But the farrago of errors, opinionizing, and sheer sloppiness that comprises so many of the classical music articles here is sad beyond words. Can we get some people who aren't bloviating first-year music majors to work on some of these articles?

CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)