Classic Tchaikovsky... hating other composers without any REAL reason. "1st Liszt, then Brahms, now Shostakovich? I love your symphonies, and ballet music, but your Violin concerto is a bit repetitive. As for your piano works...Concertos good, everything else...mmmm Liszt did it better."
I'm so glad that the comment section is tearing this guy apart Shostakovich is full of suffering and is by to means empty This man's contradicting himself
it is empty for with and those who likes a some other composers. Also, what on earth means when she says that something is empty or has no spirit. It requires a explanation otherwise he is talking only of something ethereal, of occurrences coming from down there.
Also not to mention his opinion has no substance at all, it just sounds like gibberish. I respect people's opinions, sure. But his argument is laughable
This guy is elevating his opinions and tastes to the level of absolute or insurmountable truths, and whoever disagrees with that is a fool, the same attitude that snobs have. By the way, what has this guy composed?
In my opinion, Shostakovich is one of the best composers of the XXth century. Both in musical language, structure, harmony... No surprise he is one of the most famous XXth century composers
Sure, I can agree with the last string quartets being hard to listen to, but I wouldn't say because they are awful, rather they are a visceral haunting experience of a man's feelings towards death, his 15th quartet, for instance, is in no way empty I'd argue it's one of the most expressive and raw music he had ever composed, it's terrifying to listen to because of how personal it feels
The fact that John Williams references and motifs Shostakovich and is a king of music composers to this day refutes the basis of everything this fool just said.
Isn't there a contradiction - the music is suffering but empty? Beethoven shows us a great philosophical suffering and seeking in his late quartets but via common major/minor tonalities. But which is its content? Partly - a pure, great despare. Shostakovich writes the similar but another way, due another intonations and modes
This fellow is confusing emotions he finds unpleasant with quality of composition; Suffering does not equal awful music. Shostakovich's ability to express sorrow, grief and fear is a part of his unique genius. Beethoven was too proud to ever be too vulnerable in his music - Shostakovich was more like Schubert and Bruckner. Besides, it isn't all ssadness and misery in Shostakovich's final compositions - The D-Flat Major Quartet ends triumphantly. 💪
I actually think it is you who are confused about what he is saying. The man states in the beginning that he recognises Shostakovich to be a genius. But for his taste, he just don't like what much of Shostakovich music expresses. This is like some people being able to recognise that a horror movie is well produced, but they still hate watching horror movies, simply because of what horror movies expresses.
Hard to compare Beethoven’s 9 symphonies to Shostakovich’s 15 symphonies. Over a hundred years apart, a period that saw a dramatic evolution of the idiom itself. Beethoven’s symphonies are more universally likeable because they are much leaner and taut musically while Shostakovich’s symphonies are more expansive in form, harmony and structure as well as more exact in the intent and emotion. Also hard to take Shostakovich’s as serious because there was always a tongue-in-cheek sarcastic sensibility in his music which diminishes the sense of gravitas.
Are you a composer yourself and have you written something that is far better than than the symphonic carcasses and the trash string quartets that you are talking about? You are entitled to your opinion and preferences though. Just respect all composers and listeners' preferences.
Refreshing to hear a take like this. In contrast to a lot of people who have to always performatively praise every single piece of music by every somewhat famous composer.
@@rotatoenot just his boss, Shostakovich was personally affected by the Second World War, and still held sympathies to Lenin, the revolution, and the Bolsheviks. Attempting to express some of these views simultaneously - specifically support for the revolution, love of his country and it’s history, and his disdain for Stalin and Russian anti-semitism - would’ve been an immense challenge. His artistic life was characterized by suffering perhaps because he could never voice all of these things clearly without risk of death.
@@pat8437 yes definitely, but I just meant the fact that the KGB/ Stalin were always watching over him, how could anyone NOT express suffering with that, plus all the history you listed?
Exactly how did Shostakovich suffer? He was a good boy, did what Stalin told him to do, and he lived in comfort, while real dissenters were dying in the Gulag.
The man contradicts himself when he says “It’s so empty, it’s so suffering.” Shostakovich is marvellous exactly for that reason, it is all about the suffering.
@@dariocaporuscio8701 He had to withdraw his 4th symphony to literally spare his life. He witnessed the Leningrad siege. He wrote his 8th string quartet after visiting Dresden. At one point, he slept in the stairwell and had his suitcase packed out of fear. He probably suffered well beyond anything this man has experienced and is able to comprehend.
I never knew Tchaikovsky could hold a grudge like that. He really does sound like he’s been working on his English since he’s been dead, I’ll give him that.
I am so very tired of this weird anti-Shostakovich sentiment that keeps on being spread around in certain musical circles. Often it's the same people who defend other composers by telling us to listen with an open and curious mind (and rightly so, I hasten to add!) but then themselves engage with Shostakovich's music in a downright hostile manner. One could certainly benefit from a bit more eloquence as opposed to this condenscending tone. Disappointing.
I agree. Nevertheless, I contend that art should not be subject to criticism, evaluation, or judgment. Rather, non-artists ought to engage with artistic works on a personal level, relying on their visual and auditory senses instead of intellectual analysis. Art, as a manifestation of creativity, need not be innovative in nature; instead, its essence ought to be perceived and appreciated through the unique sensory experiences of each individual non-artists.
Well, I think he just had some harsh opinions, anyone can have those, even the ones who say to people to have an open mind. The man said this was just a matter of taste for him
@@danteferrarirodrigues1433 but in his retorica it means that those (including him) who does not like Shostakovich are kind of smart. This type of speech is very common among snobs who believe what they like is Gold and the rest is BS.
Brutal and painful , yeah but negative emotions could be also beautiful, and I have the feeling that Shostakovich shows us perfectly. If you don’t see the beauty you are blind or you have a too simple spirit
Shostakovich was a breath of fresh air until he felt obliged to withdraw the fourth symphony. The fifth is liked for the wrong reasons. It’s not “nice”, it’s painful in places. The world would not be any the poorer without the seventh, and I know I am perverse but the last symphony is better than it’s made out to be by some comments I’ve seen. The string quartets are an astonishing addition to the genre. As a former amateur violist I would not like to play the fifteenth only because of the key. E flat minor for heaven’s sake. All those flats.😱 The musician inside me though wishes I were technically competent enough to play it. The movements may all be marked Adagio, but doesn’t mean it’s easy.
Common performance practice of making it intentionally sound awful is what ruins Shostakovich for most people. It's hardly empty. His music is absolutely beautiful. And full of spirit.
to be honestly, I also agree!! I have been meaning to find shosty's pieces being played by the likes of the Berliner Philharmoniker if they can make Strauss and Stravinsky sound so pristine, at least give shosty some love!
Shostakovich symphonies 5, 10 and 11 are master works, experiencing them (particularly, but not only) in performance are INCREDIBLE! 10 is absolutely amazing, but for me Symphony 11 and its incredible extra intensity throughout (particularly in the pp sections) compared to No. 10 is what elevates it for me. Incredible and unforgettable experiences, all 3 of those symphonies and MANY more of his works!!!!
4 is still avant-garde Shostakovich. If we are talking about the classicist, then 7 is certainly better than 5, not to mention the grandiose Rossiniesque finale of 6.
@@thomaslaubli1886 I wouldn't call any Shostakovich "avant-garde", though. He always been on that post-romantic tradition, but with a fair amount of dissonance and sarcasmo. Think about what Stravinsky or the Second Vienna School were doing around the time Shosty wrote the Fourth, that's avant-garde.
The best I can say for this guy (because wow, he's quite wrong), is that he is not the first composer to not like the music of another composer. And Shostakovich also had his musical dislikes. It's our duty as listeners not to transpose those kinds of catty quibbles into doctrines. We're allowed to love Brahms and Wagner equally. I don't need Berlioz's permission to love Bach and Handel.
The first time i hear someone saying this. Spent my life with shosta-fans and listened to all of his symphonies live to the point of annoyance. its good yes, some works are really good, but its special (due to modernism too, but not exceptionally). Human Suffering and good craftsmenship dont automatically equal good music. Remember that Stockhausen already wrote his masterpieces during shostas lifetime. This is when you realize how much behind his modernism was, kind of oldfashioned. I have a few works from S. which i like and have great respect of his compositional skill. But man DSCH in almost every piece??? What was that supposed to mean? Only Pokemon repeat their name all the time as far as i know. And the fanatical devotion of his fans strikes me, this clip is like personal accusation for them. Same is true for Wagner. If people dont like my favourites, its ok for me BECAUSE theyre neither Wagner, Bruckner nor Shostakovich.
I’m glad everyone else in the comments is shredding him just like how he let his dryer shred his sweater like that 🙄 Shostakovich was BALLER and you know it
Not the first time an intelligent listener has been unable to appreciate what's there, seeking desperately for what isn't. Still, discouraging. Not far off from those who still argue against the music of Schoenberg, or Stravinsky.
I have been playing for many years and I can say I disagree. His works are all well composed and quite honestly most of the melodies are beautiful. There is a broad spectrum of composers and expressions in classical music. You cannot have one particular style only. Shostakovich lived and wrote what he felt in that place and time.
So tired of this anathema to emotion. If someone else's feelings causes you second-hand embarrassment, that's your problem, not theirs. So long as it's sincerely earned (and most of Shosti's music is), music should be expressive - and in fact it's baffling to think otherwise.
why is it baffling? the idea that music even can be emotionally expressive at the personal level at all is a notion that emerged quite recently in music history. of course we all take it for granted now, but it’s very much not how people used to conceive of music’s function
@@sebastianwang670 Whatever the context, music has always been a form of communication, and to communicate is to express oneself. Though I'm unclear what you're implying - that music pre-1800s wasn't personal?
@@l.c.turner-thedailycanon i mean, basically that is what i’m saying, though i’d dial it back from 1800 a bit by a few decades. but your claim that music has always been a means to personally express oneself is just factually incorrect... like what evidence can you give that this has always been the case?
@@sebastianwang670 haha well think _your_ claim is a little wild and I wonder what evidence you have to support it? If a Baroque composer wrote a functional piece like a Mass, whose to say it didn't also come from a place of personal feeling? Surely there were genuinely pious composer's expressing their faith?
@@l.c.turner-thedailycanon i’m not claiming that no music prior to the nineteenth century ever came from a personal place as well, my claim is that prior to that century, personal and individual expression was not considered overall to be one of music’s central functions. i can see why this would seem a wild claim, since it runs so contrary to our modern ideas about the ‘point’ of music, but i can assure you that this is supported by a great deal of historical evidence which is only a few Google searches away. my claim is not absolute in its scope, but yours certainly is, since it concerns what music has ‘always been.’ your claim is much stronger and therefore bears a much heavier burden of proof because you’re speaking for all of human history and all human cultures when you make such a universalizing truth claim
The suffering is “why Shostakovich”. And the latest works (specially after Stalin’s death in 1953) are the best of Shostakovich. The last string quartet is a marvellous masterpiece in the whole 20th century music. To say you do not find it appealing for your taste is one thing, but 😊I do not understand how any musician would degrade it.
I don't know why but this opinion sounds more like "look at me, i'm so cool because I don't like one of the favourites." You can perfectly say that you don't like a composer, but to say that the music is awful and lacks spirit, that's just arrogant and kind of dumb. And personally, I have never heard anyone compare Shostakovich's quartets to Beethoven's.
Of the "greats", Shostakovich probably has one of the most uneven outputs out there, often even in the same work or same movement. The last movement of the 15th symphony always stands out to me. The central passacaglia and especially the coda rank among the best passages he ever conceived in his entire symphonic oeuvre. These wonderful moments are, of course, obscured by about 15 minutes of emptiness that don't matter much at all.
Yeah, but 4th and 8th?? Those are extremely well put together pieces, so tight with all the theme/motif development, everything in its perfect place. Then you have the sloppy ones, of course 😂
I think that if this commentator re-examined Shostakovich’s string quartets from a semiotic viewpoint, putting forward in his consciousness an appreciation of how the composer encoded layers of narrative meaning, then the rather “turgid” aspects of these scores would assume tertiary importance, at best. Nobody teaches musical semiotics now. That’s a problem, because critical content is lost-which is just as much a part of composers’ intentions as the notes on the page.
He can dislike whatever he wants but somebody needs to tell him that people have different tastes. You shouldn’t say they’re lacking ears or spirit just because they think differently.
This guy is elevating his opinions and tastes to the level of absolute or insurmountable truths, and whoever disagrees with that is a fool, the same attitude that snobs have. By the way, what has this guy composed?
I love the fact that that suffering is expressed, music like this really speaks to me in a way that other composer miss because they just don’t capture it. Shostakovich is unique for that, and our musical world would be emptier without him.
Suffering, it’s all what Shosta’s music is about, just like the Russian people under Stalin. You can’t produce a joyful music in a period of pure pain and suffering.
By “the Russian people” do you mean the aristocrats and priests and businessmen that oppressed them? Did you know that the majority of Russians in Stalin’s time were the grandchildren of literal slaves? I’m not a Stalinist, fellow communists suffered more than anyone under Stalinism but let’s not engage in the anti-Semitic conspiracy about the USSR oppressing the Russian people.
While I kind of understand why he has that opinion about Shostakovich's late string quartets I think the 'emptiness' he criticises about is what makes them unique and Shostakovich himself. I don't really think they are 'empty' though.
I particularly love his 10th symphony. And I don't compare anybody with Beethoven. After watching this short video I feel fortunate that I can enjoy music that other people hate.
Well it's quite interesting to listen to a complete opposite view to your own. You have but yourbowm eyes and ears to guide you, borrowing someone else's is a way of broadening your horizons. I absolutely love Shostakovich as well as Mosolov and most Russian futurism (before Stalin), but in the case of Shostakovich I simply love his catalog. So having someone present a different perspective is something I appreciate. It would be interesting to think well, what would have that humorous young enterprising man have turned out to be without the darkness of the Stalin regime and all those restrictions on art? What if Russia had become capitalist or retained their monarchy, how would that have shaped him provided he kept developing his vocabulary? These questions are often not formed because oh I love his 8th String Quartet, oh that thunderous rollercoaster of emotions that is his 7th with Leningrad being hit by the Russians and Germans simultaneously... Yes yes... But what if Shostakovich had kept on the path of "the nose?" Hmmm well who knows? But I really appreciate this man's insight to merely conyemplate it :)
I agree with him to be honest. Every comment here severely misses the point. Meaning alone is not enough for music to be good, it also has to be good music lmao. He recognizes that Shostakovich is a genius, and that some of his pieces are marvelous, but he also admits that most of his songs are empty. Like he said, it's not his fault, but it's still just severely mid music. Also, everyone's saying "he's contradicting himself", but how? Seriously, they're saying "His later string quartets are so awful, it's like suffering." is a contradiction. Where's the contradiction in that statement? I don't think he's even describing the music though, I think he's saying that listening to them is suffering! The most annoying part is that people in the comment section are saying "I'm so glad the comments are ripping him apart." No you're not lmao. You're voicing opinions, and misrepresenting a guy. You're really just yapping, and proclaiming victory, without even understanding this guy's take!
I've been puzzled by some of Shostakovich's symphonic music as well - it's a unique problem: having to compose for the state but try to retain some artistic integrity. His music alternates between being supremely good to being banal or trite, but that's his sarcasm, right?
Yeah, but even his most trashy, propaganda stuff was incredibly personal. I mean, they still sound like Shostakovich, and that's the sign of a great composer. No matter what he wrote, he did it in his own voice.
I'd disagree with some of what he's saying, but I agree, Shotakovich is very hit-or-miss to be honest. Some of his stuff is genius, some is honestly quite bad, and some is kind of mid. And, honestly, with him more that almost any other composer, the value of his music is often due to the story behind it rather than the actual craft. Not that a lot of the "storied" pieces are bad, but some are definitely worse than they're considered.
read some 30 comments to see if anyone tells who is this man talking nonsense but no one knows except he looks like tchaikovsky, so i guess his opinion kind of doesn't matter at all. funny thing is i dont know his name having he uttered these words some months ago nevertheless i know who is mitia having he uttered his words almost a century ago.
His music *is* empty and gives this idea of suffering. Because he was suffering. String quartet no. 8, for example, was a suicide note, which he decided not to go through with, which is why the piece is so angry and hopeless at first, but turns suddenly after the end of the second movement. Saying "it's not for me" is perfectly fine, we all have our tastes and not enjoying something is normal. But can you truly call his music "awful?" Is that really fair to do?
Many people hate watching horror movies, simply because of what these movies expresses (and in turn, what the movies make the viewers feel). I think if would seem completely reasonable for such a person to call a horror movie awful. They could even do this, but still recognise the talent of the people who has written and produced the movie. An even better example would perhaps be Stockhausen's claim that the 9/11 terror attacks where "the greatest work of art". I have no idea what artistic value Stockhausen saw in that horrid act. And while I perhaps could recognise that it took the terrorists some skill to pull off their attack, or how significant their action were to affect or history, etc, I still have no problem calling that "artwork" awful. And it seems perfectly resonable for me to do so.
Yes, why did he keep his inner joy hidden?🤔who can say🤷🏿♂️ his music is as important as any composer in the history of music, because he expresses elements of historical human experience, you will not find in anyone else. Not just sorrow, but true suffering, despair, and terror. Beethoven expresses Beethoven. Mahler expresses the spheres. Bach expresses the divine. Shostakovich expresses the suffering of Russias people. The tenth in particular stands up to anything that you might compare it to, Beethoven or otherwise. And certainly, the journey of the symphonies from the fifth to the tenth is far more compelling.
You can't really blame him for feeling that way, from a musical perspective, because it's true; in a sense. Without context about Shostakovich's 'limitations', you're closer to feeling in the same way he does than recognize that Shostakovich is calling out for help.
Disagree. Shostakovich never reaches the hysterical because the irony and nihilism always take over, that "don't give a fukk" attitude... He's never Mahler or Tchaikovsky, always has that black humour
@@bernabefernandeztouceda7315 It depends on the piece. His 9th symphony? A masterclass of musical irony. But there's no irony in the second movement of the 11th symphony. There is irony in the sad, third movement however, when he takes revolutionary songs and transforms them into a slow lament. At other times, like in the second movement of the 13th symphony, you have both biting irony and hysteria. The two are not mutually exclusive and Shostakovich certainly has no shortage of hysterical moments.
