Symphony/Composer Bravely Condemns Evil

It was while I was enjoying a quiet pint at work when I happened upon this lively article about the Symphony No. 7, by Shostakovich.

Music Review: BBC National Orchestra of Wales

Peter Collins, South Wales Echo, July 21, 2010

IT was while I was enjoying a quiet pint during the interval of this gripping Welsh Prom concert that I eavesdropped on a lively conversation about the Symphony No 7, by Shostakovich.

Beer is about the only way I know to prepare for that symphony, too.

The symphony, known as Leningrad, occupied the whole of the second half of the concert.

As symphonies tend to do from time to time.

So, what of their lively conversation.

The thrust of the tete-a-tete was whether the massive work was Shostakovich’s nationalistic symbol of Russian resistance and defiance to Nazi totalitarianism, or a more general depiction and condemnation of totalitarianism, with the brutality of Stalin as its driving force. As always with Shostakovich it is an interesting but ultimately futile debate.

God, how incredibly fascinating. Did his music actively hate Nazis, or just passively hate them?

figure argument: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Also, futile? Really? Let's ask wikipedia, they know everything.

In its time, the symphony was extremely popular in both Russia and the West as a symbol of resistance and defiance to Nazi totalitarianism and militarism. As a condemnation of the German invasion...

Okay, so in its time, it was a "symbol of...resistance and defiance to Nazi totalitarianism".

Hmmm...that seems strangely familiar. Hey, wait a minute!

...[rereads article...then wikipedia entry...then article again...then takes a shot of whiskey]...

Wikipedia seems to suggest that the symphony both condemns AND resists Nazi totalitarianism!

How can that be? Don't keep us in suspense...which is it? Who won the argument?

Nevertheless, it was fascinating to see which view conductor Thierry Fischer would take as he picked up his baton to lead BBC NOW.

Good call...let the conductor decide. So, which is it: resistance or condemnation?

It seemed to me that Fischer, who was in command of the music and the orchestra from start to finish, was inclined to view the opus as more of a general condemnation of evil.

Really? The symphony condemns evil in general? Not just Nazi totalitarianism, but all evil?

Really?

Maybe the Eighth symphony is a statement that the children are our future.

[sigh...]

Also, copying from wikipedia is lazy, and such.

figure copying: Thank you, Al Gore, for the internets.

I... You... Wait, What? History???

1. Kurt Weill studied with Busoni, who studied with Wilhelm Keinzl, who studied with Franz Lizst, who studied with Anton Reicha, who studied with Antonio Salieri, who studied with Geovanni Battista Pescetti, who studied with Antonio Lotti, who studied with Giovanni Legrenzi... in 1660-ish.

2. Weill’s Violin Concerto is, decidedly, a modernist work, yet with an inclination towards neoclassicism and romanticism. It is not and cannot be a blank slate. Can any music ever be?

3. It is true that Weill’s idealism, as exemplified in his comic-operas Die Bürgschaft (1931) and Der Silbersee (1932), made the Nazis mad, forcing him to “relocate,” as it were. Thus, being a political progressive (and a Jew) was not particularly beneficial to his personhood.

Now, since we have facts, why say this about Brahms?

But the connection to Weill? By contrast, Brahms was a composer steeped in history:

Just like Weill, who borrowed from Busoni, who borrowed from Keinzl, who borrowed from Lizst, who... wait.. contrast?

The "Requiem" purposefully borrows Bach's fugues and Beethoven's escalating climaxes...

Why not purposefully imitate Ludwig? Right? He goes down with the most ardor. Ladies.

...in its effort to render its vision of divine comfort universal and timeless.

“My name is Johannes. I like to fugue* and climax. That makes my piece timeless. But you’ll never find that in a history book, because I never said that.”

The group's generous performance ennobled the sentiment, but Weill's brash tabula rasa was a reminder that Brahms's idealism, however well-intentioned, was part of a societal worldview that ultimately led to the trenches of the Great War.

But... but... I... you... wait, what??? He’s a lover not a fighter.

These are the actual causes of World War I: the HMS Dreadnought, Karl Marx, revanchism, irredentism and the Franco-Prussian War, not fugue-ing nor climaxing, nor musical history-having.

Also, Weill's music is not a blank slate (tabula rasa).

For Weill, looking forward was automatically a better view than looking back.

Except that he had to defect from Germany, because he looked forward.

Implied, perhaps: the Nazi’s liked Brahms? Did you know that Schoenberg liked Brahms?

Matthew, I think it would be of great advantage to read one of Arnold's articles, especially the one titled Brahms the Progressive, written in 1947. You can find it in Style and Idea. It’s really good, and progressive, which is awesome, but only in some cases, unlike Weill’s, who had to flee Germany, because he borrowed from Busoni (a socialist), who borrowed from Keinzl, who borrowed from Lizst, who borrowed from Reicha, who borrowed from Salieri, who borrowed from Pescetti, who borrowed from Lotti, who borrowed from Legrenzi.

* In some languages fugue is a four-letter word.
-