Shostakovich 5
programme notes
written by JUDITH VAN EECKHOUT
Jörg Widmann Concerto for Horn (Belgian premiere) (2024)*
Dmitri Shostakovich Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op. 47 (1937)
*co-commission Brussels Philharmonic, Berliner Philharmoniker, Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Stavanger Symphony Orchestra & Lucerne Symphony Orchestr
[discover also: matinee concert]
[discover also: Close Encounters]
[discover also: Echoes in Cinema]
[discover also: Shostakovich in 3 minutes]
[discover also: Living the Classical Life]
[read also: Who is Widmann?]
[all programme notes]
-----
25.01.2025 FLAGEY BRUSSEL
‘A Soviet artist’s response to just criticism’: that is the subtitle Shostakovich gave his 5th Symphony. But everything about the work is ambiguous: order becomes restlessness, joy is stifled, the harmony suddenly turns shrill. The regime didn’t realize any of this, and yet Shostakovich managed to express the oppression of his people through the music.
"The question arises: Who or what is triumphing? Is this the work of the artist-barbarian—the blackening of the work of genius that was the Fourth? Or, by the end, has the illicit drawing been erased, revealing Shostakovich's intentions in their original purity? Many listeners had already lost friends and relatives to the Terror, and were in a numbed, terrified state. The Fifth had the effect of taking away, for a little while, that primitive fear. One listener was so gripped by the music that he stood up, as if royalty had walked into the room. Others began rising from their seats. ... Shaporina wrote in her diary: 'Everyone kept saying: That was his answer, and it was a good one.'"
- Alex Ross, The Rest is Noise
The Soviet Union in the 1930s
In 1922, Joseph Stalin was elected General Secretary of the Communist Party and gradually consolidated power. The chief architect of Soviet totalitarianism, Stalin was a brilliant yet ruthless organizer who sacrificed individual freedom and the well-being of his citizens to build a rigid and powerful dictatorship. His reign of terror claimed the lives of millions of citizens. Artists and composers were also compelled to conform to the state’s vision or risk being erased from the annals of history.
In 1932, the Union of Soviet Composers was established. This organization served as concert promoter, publisher, and the sole commissioner of Soviet music, enabling total centralized control. While the Union’s aesthetic demands rarely inspired groundbreaking works, Shostakovich—an advocate of Soviet modernism—managed to infuse his music with creativity, originality, and progressiveness. This earned him acclaim both domestically and internationally. Though he never left his country, Shostakovich became the only composer of his generation to achieve global recognition at the time.
Although Dmitri Shostakovich enjoyed favor with the Union of Soviet Composers, he is now regarded as a joerodivy composer—a concept rooted in Russian tradition. A joerodivy is a jester who dares to confront the tsar with uncomfortable truths, or someone who subtly exposes evil and injustice under the watchful eye of the authorities. Subtly and in code, because openly dissenting voices often faced execution or exile to the gulag.
Symphony No. 5
Shostakovich’s fall from grace began on January 28, 1936, during a performance of his opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District. Although the opera had been a great success, Stalin attended a performance, leaving early and clearly displeased. The next day, Pravda, the official party newspaper, published a scathing critique, condemning the opera as chaotic and 'formalistic'. The message was clear: Shostakovich had to simplify his style and conform to the ideals of socialist realism.
With a packed suitcase under his bed—ready to flee at a moment’s notice—he began work on a new symphony, subtitled A Soviet Artist’s Response to Just Criticism. Symphony No. 5 became a prime example of Stalinist neoclassicism: its clear four-movement structure avoided the experimental tendencies of his Fourth Symphony, its harmony and orchestration were more restrained, and its overall tone was optimistic, culminating in a central theme of human creation.
Stalin and the Union of Soviet Composers were delighted. Official reviews hailed it as a public apology and a “creative response to justified criticism.” Remarkably, however, the public also reacted with overwhelming emotion. Eyewitnesses reported that audiences wept openly during the Largo, moved by reflections of their own suffering and losses under Stalin’s brutal regime. To many, the symphony’s critical undertones resonated deeply, offering solace and solidarity amidst their grief.
The bombastic finale, seemingly celebratory, transitions into a dissonant passage that transforms its triumph into tragedy. This duality demonstrated Shostakovich’s mastery of the Romantic symphonic tradition. Using vivid imagery without explicit meaning, he appeased the regime while providing a powerful outlet for the anguish of Soviet citizens. This delicate balance allowed him to survive artistically under oppressive circumstances. For the rest of his career, Shostakovich remained loyal to a heroic form of classicism, a strategy that ensured his survival while continuing to speak to those who could decipher his messages.