Sunday, August 30, 2020

Analyzing Shostakovich Symphony no. 5, I: Moderato

The Symphony no. 5 by Shostakovich, written to restore his fortunes after severe criticism from Stalin and his close associates who had unfavorably viewed a performance of his opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, was premiered in November 1937. His Symphony no. 4 had been in rehearsal when the crisis unfolded so he quickly withdrew it and composed the 5th instead. I say "crisis" because in the totalitarian Soviet Union under Stalin, falling into disfavor meant more than just having your performances banned, though that was certainly a consequence, it also could mean banishment to a labor camp in Siberia or even execution as happened to more than one person in Shostakovich's circle. So we could certainly expect that Shostakovich would attempt to compose something that would not only be acceptable to Stalin and his cronies, but that would also touch the hearts of the listening public as both these results would help him past this crisis (he would experience another criticism and banning in 1948). He very much succeeded in this goal and I recommend reading Richard Taruskin's paper "Interpreting Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony" for a discussion of the context and reception. Regarding the climax of the first movement he writes:

While thematic or motivic recurrences are in themselves defined as syntactic, their interpretation often depends on semantic codes. The climactic unisons in the first movement of Shostakovich's Fifth, for example, derive their significance equally from both perceptual spheres. Their loudness speaks--or rather shouts--for itself. At the same time they remind us of the famous passages all'unisono in Beethoven's Ninth, with which Shostakovich's symphony shares its key. [Shostakovich Studies, p. 29]

He goes on, but I don't want Taruskin stealing my thunder, so I won't quote the rest discussing the structural function of this passage, which you can seek out yourself. Instead, I want to dive right into the first movement. Oh, and much as I appreciate the interpretive work that Taruskin has done here and in other places, I am not interested in pursuing that kind of meaning in this analysis. A big climactic unison for me in this piece is an aesthetic and musical event, not a sociological and historic event because I am writing about the music as I (and we) are experiencing it sui generis.

The symphony is of moderate length for Shostakovich, well under an hour, and the first movement is about fifteen minutes long, so it is more easily absorbed than many other of his symphonies. There are a lot of references to previous music not only in the kinds of themes, but also in the formal structure. This is in first movement sonata allegro form in its overall layout of exposition--development--recapitulation. Shostakovich manages to re-envision all this in his own stylistic terms--he may use well-established forms, but he realizes them in his own unmistakable style. So while I am going to be talking about these structural divisions and about first theme and second theme and so on, I am going to be showing how he handles these elements differently from other composers.

Just to reiterate, I take my starting point for this analysis from Yuriy Kholopov's paper on form in Shostakovich's instrumental works in Shostakovich Studies. Here is how he outlines the basic structure of a sonata form exposition in Shostakovich:


Let me explain the diagram. The MT stands for "main theme" and ST for "secondary theme." They are connected by a transitional section that modulates ("Mod"). Between the secondary theme and the conclusion is a "passage" which is a loose, flowing section typically with modulations. At the bottom of the diagram the harmonic scheme is outlined: tonic, modulation, dominant, passage and dominant.

He also has a more complex diagram outlining the exposition of the Fifth Symphony but I can't quite make sense of it as he doesn't connect the elements of the diagram to specific themes. So I will just proceed on my own. Here is the opening motif which acts as a kind of introductory theme. It is presented in stretto. I'm going to label this motif 'A':

Click to enlarge

This is extended with another dotted-note motif which I am going to label motif 'B':


(Notice the end of that theme, with the repeated note 'A's? The last of them, the two eighth-notes followed by the eighth-note plus rest form an anapest, the poetic foot consisting of two short syllables followed by a longer one. Later on, the Secondary Theme will be accompanied by the reverse, a dactyl, one long and two short notes.)

A clever transformation of the initial motif from a minor sixth to a fourth becomes the accompaniment to the next theme, which I am going to call motif 'C'. 

Click to enlarge


Let's call these three motifs collectively the Main Theme or MT.

A couple of comments on tonality. Shostakovich designates this symphony as being in D minor, but he shows no key signature. Also, in motif C, he moves into D Phrygian. From here until rehearsal number 9, when the dactyl accompaniment in divisi strings begins at a new, faster, tempo, this initial group of motifs are presented and developed in different ways. In the Gergiev Mariinsky recording, this new section begins at 5'07. So everything up to this point has been one complex theme group consisting of three separate ideas, the first two of which have a distinctly Baroque feel to them. Now we have a new theme which I will label the Secondary Theme or ST.

The new theme, ST, provides the greatest possible contrast with the first group of motifs forming the MT. First of all, he has modulated to E flat minor, the Neapolitan. As well, this new theme is one long, long melody extending for twenty-three measures. These are the first violins:

Click to enlarge

That theme certainly plumbs the stratosphere! As soon as that theme is stated, however, a new motif appears, like motif 'A' in stretto, in the violas and cellos:


This motif, which I am going to call motif 'D', seems strangely familiar. It is actually closely related to motif 'B', three notes spanning a minor third. He then takes this motif and uses it to build a lovely flute solo:


This technique, of transforming melodies into accompaniments and vice versa, actually dates back to the Beethoven quartets. The flute solo, accompanied by sustained chords in the bassoons and horns, is in F# minor and is followed by a clarinet solo on the same theme that leads into a restatement of the ST but this time in B minor modulating back to E flat minor. This ends the Exposition. At the 8 minute mark (in the Gergiev Mariinsky recording) the Development begins with the piano and double basses returning to motif 'D' and in a faster tempo:


And that is where I am going to stop as this post is already very long. Let's listen to the piece to end:


Next time, the Development and Recapitulation.

3 comments:

Maury said...

Thanks for doing threads like these. I think the question that I ask is what did Shostakovich do differently if anything than what previous composers had done? Bruckner and Mahler tended to have sets of themes and counter themes. I don't think it's necessary for a composer to use different techniques as long as they do something fresh and personal. Looking for example at a Sibelius score particularly of the later symphonies is rather disconcerting as there doesn't seem to be anything in them other than the left over fragments of tonal symphonies but somehow it hangs together.

If I were forced to give a subjective impression of Shostakovich's mature music (Sym 5-10) it would be a middle period Beethoven rewriting late Romantic symphonies. Late 19th C techniques are used but in a framework that suggests middle period Beethoven i.e. coherent structure, strong themes, very few song like or even sweeping melodies.

Bryan Townsend said...

When I finish the analysis I am going to have some conclusions in that regard. One thing that Kholopov mentions is that Shostakovich tends to take some traditional structural strategies and heighten them. Where an earlier tonal composer would destabilize the tonality at the beginning of a development, for example, Shostakovich would completely obscure any sense of tonality for a time. He calls this going into a "black box." Another example, instead of going to some form of dominant in the exposition, he goes to the flat II, the Neapolitan. The closest he gets to what should have been the dominant, A major, is F# minor, the relative minor and that only in passing.

I think we could give Sibelius a bit more credit. I wrote several posts on his different structural techniques for beginning and ending symphonies and they were quite original.

Maury said...

Thanks for the comment. In these comments I sometimes assume I am clearer than I am. With Sibelius I meant the musical content itself looked at atomistically, not the structure arrangement and the sequencing of the content. The actual material itself looks singularly un-prepossesing: little scale runs and melodic turns, bouncing repetitive accompaniment brief interjections of the brass, woodwind filigrees. Yes the form and sequence are utterly original.