Here is the Symphony No. 12 by Weinberg (written in memoriam of Shostakovich).
I think that previously I didn't listen to Weinberg very closely, just gave him a kind of vague proximity credit for being friends with Shostakovich. But now I listen closely, I see the problem. This music, while being in the same general sonic universe as Shostakovich, is an entirely different take on it. Take the very opening theme: to my ear it is both cruder and sloppier (rhythmically) than Shostakovich would have done. And it is very complicated, which makes it grueling for the listener. As the symphony goes on, this does not improve. It is disquieting, forboding and without relief. I picked that symphony by just typing in "Weinberg" to the search field and picking the first symphony shown. Now let's do the same for Shostakovich. That turns up the Symphony No. 15.
What an utter difference in mood, texture, orchestration! The whole is pervaded by not just expressiveness, but by powerful contrasts in mood from tantalizing to jocular to simply whimsical. And the melodic material is much simpler. There is nothing grim about this. The Weinberg, on the other hand, is pretty much grim all the time--sometimes quiet grim and sometimes loud grim, but always grim. And no Rossini quotes.
I could pick out specific works from each composer, but I rather prefer randomizing the selection as it is more objective. But I will definitely perform this exercise again with different pieces from each composer.
Comments?
5 comments:
I guess it wasn't the intended effect (if there was an intended effect at all) but this made me want to check out Weinberg more. Then again, I absolutely adore Allan Pettersson who often gets criticized in a similar way. Love the blog, keep it up!
Fred
Just some phenomenological data--your milage may vary. But here is the funny thing, I also really like Allan Pettersson. Music is kind of mysterious.
And thanks!
I don't think Weinberg and Shostakovich are 2 sides of the same coin. The more significant question is why Prokofiev and Shostakovich have popularity with today's classical audiences unlike any other composers that composed their works post WW1. All the rest are just drifting with the breeze. This one or that may appeal to someone for idiosyncratic reasons but that's all it is. I happen to like Edgard Varese and Alberto Ginastera but dislike Weinberg and Petersson. But none of the 4 will draw a modern classical audience. Maybe if rock or metal fans were dragged to a classical concert with Varese works they would like them more than Shostakovich. It's an interesting question. But you need a different audience at the very least.
I would emphasize that this has little to do with dissonance or complexity either. Copland is not played very much nor is Vaughan Williams outside their home countries just for starters.
Maury, my title is just a metaphor, not an argument. And again, I'm not terribly interested in popularity contests. Listening to Shostakovich and Weinberg side by side, I think we can hear some reasons why one is more listenable than the other.
I think we are talking past each other so I won't continue this but popularity contest was not my point at all.
Post a Comment