I admit, based on these responses, that I have probably been mixing
arguments. I am almost positive that my emotion on this subject has
driven much of the verbiage I have used. So now I would like to try and
better outline my thoughts on this subject.
First I want to start with my personal qualifications. This is ABSOLUTELY
not intended to position myself as the "all knowing" or anything self
assuming like that, it is just to further explain my position and show the
basis for my passion on this subject. In other words, I wish to show that
I am no slouch in music, but most certainly a beginner in philosophical
studies.
I will be a second year masters in conducting at Peabody Conservatory in
Baltimore next year in the studio of Gustav Meier. I earned my
undergraduate in violin performance also at Peabody, having taken from
Martin Beaver (now the first violinist of the Tokyo String Quartet) and
Pamela Frank (world reknown soloist, though presently injured and only
teaching). I would like to include my professional resume, but I will
include it in a subsequent posting so that no one has to read it if they
don't care, which I wouldn't blame anyone for!
Anyway, now to the point.

Nova's post:
> Grant said "The one Andante movement may stand on its own from an
> entertainment perspective, but it is not an entire work
> on its own by any means." You have a point that one cannot judge an
> entire piece or a composer's oeuvre by one movement--and this point is
> entirely irrelvent here, as this is not at all what Monart is doing. Why
> argue where there is no disagreement?
>
> Monart is using this "Andante movement" as an example of what he finds
> to be an rare exception in Shostakovich's music--an expression of
> untainted joy/ etc. If, as Grant claims, Monart had "obviously" never
> heard any other Shostakovich, why would Monart say this quality is rare
> in Shostakovich's music? Comparison and contrast by definition requires
> looking at more than one thing. Grant, you yourself have said "...if you
> know the music... then this element of protest and pain of persecution
> is overwhelmingly obvious."-- so it seems as you should agree with
> Monart that, in terms of emotional quality in Shostakovich's music,
> pain/torment/angst is the norm, whereas untainted joy/tenderness/heroism
> is the exception.

Absolutely right, this is an area where I mixed arguments. I believe I
picked out what I was emotionaly struck by and argued it in the opposite
direction of the statement.
It is true that I think pain/torment/angst are all very easily found in
Shostakovich's music. However, this statment I made was in referrence to
this statement by Monart in digest 58: "Shostakovich did not value
philosophy in any way like Rand did, and thus suffered under a
totalitarian Russia with little protest until his death in Moscow 1975."
Taking into context the impact symphonic music had at that time, maybe as
much or more than movies and tv have today, I believe that if audiences
perceived this "protest" in the music it was a powerful and inspiring
message. Shostakovich was world famous before Stalin threatened
sensorship, so if he could superficially "conform" to the requests of
Stalin and thumb his nose at him at the same time, isn't that a form of
inspiration? His first four symphonies are so different from all the
following up to the 13th because the first four were his chosen style.
What is inspiring to me is that he found many opportunities to inject his
own style that Stalin thought "unpatriotic" into what Stalin requested.
In the face of such injustice limiting free expression Shostakovich still
brandished his musical prowess. Had he blatantly continued on with the
music he was writing then Stalin may have had him murdered anyway, and not
just his family, friends, and musical acquaintances. However, even after
all that said, you are correct, that I agree the norm for his music is
"pain/torment/angst," but though it may be splitting hairs, I would
include "tenderness/heroism" minus the joy. Heroism for the reasons just
mentioned, and tenderness supported by many other examples in the music.
One notable one (since we all seem to be familiar with the 5th) being the
horn and flute, and in the recap horn and viola (in a very high, nasal
range) duos in the first movement, over an undulating string rhythm.


> Judging the value of these expressive choices is
> another question, in which you may disagree.

Right, I do, and this is probably what I was arguing, instead of Monart's
point. My mistake.

> When I consider sections of Shostakovich's music that seem "untainted"
> in joy or heroic character, in the context of the whole piece or all his
> work, their joyful character seems to become tainted. It has often been
> said that such heroic-sounding momements (such as the character of the
> Finale of his 5th Symphony) are intended as parodies of the character of
> Soviet villains, rather than sincere expressions of admirable virtues.
> When I see moments of joy and tenderness in the context of violence and
> torment, these moments are less clearly life-affirming and more
> ambiguous in terms of the sense of life expressed. The point is that
> considering this Andante in its wider context probably only helps
> Monart's argument that joy is rare in Shostakovich's music.

I am a little confused here. Can not joy come from triumph over "violince
and torment"? I have never heard that exact argument, that the finale is
"intended as [a] parody of the character of Soviet villains," though I
disagree with the analysis anyway. I can see no reason why Shostakovich
would create an image of the "Soviet villains," parody or not, rather than
an image of his own boot squashing the same villains. The latter is
always the impression I have gotten. If I could have put words to it, it
would be something like: "YOU WANT YOUR HAPPY, MAJOR KEY ENDING, THEN
HERE IT IS YOU ....... GRRRRRRRRR!" I know that seems kind of funny, but
it is my take. Not to mention, I also believe Shostakovich wins out on
the last bar, where he eliminates all other chord tones but the tonic,
four octaves thick, which gives the music a hint of minor, NOT major. So,
basically my point is that the triumph I hear is in a "bear your chest and
go to battle for what you believe in so strongly that nothing will ever
stop you" kind of way. I understand that this is not joy, by any means,
but I was inspired by the courage Shostakovich had to write it that way,
with the risk of continued threats if even one part of the piece was
misread by "the powers that be."
Anyway, my point is that I see "joy and tenderness in the context of
violence and torment" as even more powerful since it is in contrast,
possibly in triumph over. In fact I think in that case the "sense of life
expressed" is even less "ambiguous" since Shostakovich is only expressing
his own life, and the feelings he had therein. Probably not necessarily
virtuous, but certainly not ambiguous.


> Analyzing the features of a single movement of music does not reveal
> one's "blatantly obvious" "total lack of musical knowledge." In fact,
> Grant, as you seem to be one to like credentials, I have a degree in
> music, and through my studies, movements of music were frequently
> studied for features within themselves, as well as within the context of
> the piece and a composer's oeuvre.

Absolutely right, you are correct. This is also what I have done nonstop
since I was in high school. Studying individual movements can reveal
elements of a composer's technique on a small and very large level. I
think I was trying to make a point out of an argument not made.


> Grant, you are complaining that evidence is not provided for Monart's
> assertions. Monart said that "Whether Shostokovich was a dissident or
> sympathizer of communism may be debatable, but whatever dissidence he
> did show, in music or in words,
> is neither courageous nor inspiring." Personally, I find many moments in
> Shostakovich's music that feel courageous and inspiring. But I think
> that Monart was referring more to the premise that Shostakovich
> protested the Soviet condition through angst in his music---Monart finds
> this form of protest "neither courageous nor inspiring." Argue with his
> premises or conclusion as you like. But Grant, please provide some clear
> evidence for your own bold assertions:
>
> "It is more than obvious that you do not in fact know or have studied
> more than this one section of one work by
> Shostakovich."
>
> "Your statement shows an outrageous lack of knowledge
> of this man's music. "
>
> "Your total lack of musical knowledge is blatantly
> obvious."

You are right, I have no real basis for these acusations, and I must say
they are very hard to re-read. I appologize. I was very worked up. I
believe it is very hard to interpret intentions and inflections via this
email format, and I misinterpret them quite frequently. That is where I
believe I went awry.

> To me it seems that the real unanswered questions are:
>
> What is it really that Shostakovich's music expresses?
> Can music that expresses pain and suffering be beautiful?

Just for the record, I do believe this to be true.


> What role should dissonance/conflict/"dissidence" play in music?

I am quite impressed with this statement. When I made this argument
previously I realized later that I did not thuroughly point out my
connection between dissidence and dissonance. This statement not only
proves that you interpreted this for me, but that you didn't hold my lack
of explaination against me, a courtesy that I have obviously not afforded
to Monart, for which I am sorry.

> What is the proper artistic response to pain and suffering in the real
> world?
> What in music is inspiring and courageous?

I hope that much of my response here has made my view on these two
questions clearer, hopefully in a much less childish way.

I promise to hereafter assume much less and act more professionaly. I
hope that you can forgive my presumptious attitude, since in real life I
am mostly very humble.

Cheers,


Grant A. B. Gilman
ggmuze@...
(443)286.2160
Campus Box #214

"When people refuse to consider the source of wealth, what they refuse to
consider is the fact that wealth is the product of man's intellect, of his
creative ability, fully as much as is art, science, philosophy or any other
human value."

-Ayn Rand





__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html