SYMPHONY No.5, SHOSTAKOVICH A critical analysis of how Shostakovich portray's conflict in the first movement of Symphony No.5 - Chiara Federico 12LCL Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District was critically acclaimed following its first premier in 1934 – the plot was exciting and different, and the music challenged the audience. However, when Stalin watched the opera two years later, he wrote a scathing criticism, claiming the performance was ‘muddle instead of music’ – raucous, ugly, a “pandemonium of creaking, shrieking and crashes” (Vulliamy, 2015). Overnight, Shostakovich’s patriotism was publicly condemned. This is one of many examples where Stalin’s regime was intent on extirpating opposition to his totalitarian rule, subjecting all art and culture to central control. Music was expected to be distinct and isolated from Western influence, and instead feature traditional Russian and Soviet melodies. Following Stalin’s review, Shostakovich sought to write a politically acceptable piece, allegedly as an apology – Symphony No.5.
Despite seemingly conforming to Stalin’s criteria, it is recognised as one of Shostakovich’s most prominent ideological masterpieces. Its repressed tone, dissonance and exuberant orchestral style offers a dimension of emotion for those oppressed by the regime. The 5th symphony evokes memories and makes musical associations that the audience can recognise but would not dare speak. Inspired by Beethoven (one of the ‘unforbidden’ composers), Shostakovich wrote the 5th symphony in Sonata form. During the three
21
sections, Shostakovich effectively uses both melody and melodic motifs as a cohesive tool to communicate emotion and conflict. The first 5 bars of the exposition contain three main melodic elements: the angular/chromatic/dotted rhythm idea, the 3 note conjunct cell from bar 3 onwards, and three repeated notes in bar 4. These ideas become increasingly important through the movement, making brief (though prominent) appearances. The first subject is introduced by the violins, playing a descending scale in the Phrygian mode. The following melody uses all 12 semitones in the scale, hinting at serialist influences. This is offset by the throbbing accompaniment (open 5ths) played by the lower strings. The rising and falling contour of the melody seems aimless, meandering between different tonalities, yet never settling. The phrases seem chromatically juxtaposed, and enhances a sense of insecurity, a lack of trust. The second subject is derived from a folk song recognisable by the Soviet audience, though with a few note changes. Whilst seemingly celebrating Slavic culture, the minor shift and alteration of notes suggests emotional turmoil behind the simple admiration (Thomas, 2009). The extreme tessitura of the violins starkly contrasts with the throbbing, homophonic accompaniment – a dark, thick wall of sound pierced by notes in the 7th position. Shostakovich then introduces solo lines for flute and oboe over a thin texture, adding a layer of innocence and fragility to the tone of the music. During the development passage, Shostakovich further heightens the intensity and drama of his writing. The section starts with a forte dynamic and an unrelenting ostinato line which creates a persistent motor rhythm. The seemingly innocent
