Symphony no. 5, Shostakovich - Chiara Federico 12LCL

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.

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 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

Despite seemingly conforming to Stalin ’ s criteria, it is recognised as one of Shostakovich’ s most prominent ideological masterpieces.

three notes from bar 3 have adopted a darker, destructive tone, perhaps alluding to the feigned appreciation and love of the Soviet regime. At Figure 19, we hear the woodwinds playing a decorated version of the second subject. The violins have an antiphonal interaction with the woodwind, also playing the developed first subject. The elaborate melodic development propels the listener

to Figure 22/23 where we observe a change in tempo, giving the music more urgency and direction. Chaos erupts as we listen to a contrasting two-part texture with leaping minor 6ths in the horns and lower strings. The initial motif from bar 1 is then furiously reintroduced in the strings and woodwind, played at fortissimo. Meanwhile, the second subject, played in canon, is distorted and warped by the brass. Perhaps the most poignant section of the 1st movement is the recapitulation, where the whole orchestra plays the first motif in unison. At this point, the melody is so heavily emphasised and powerful that it almost acts as a lament – a communal cry of frustration and melancholy, with all the musicians (and by extension, the people of the Soviet Union) summoning their energy in this attempt to shake the political climate. However, the futility of this protest is slowly understood as the orchestra resigns to a piano dynamic, with deeply personal, yet empty solo lines bringing the movement to a close.

Shostakovich’s use of harmony effectively captures a feeling of hopelessness and loss. The majority of the movement is tonally ambiguous, lacking a tonal centre to ground the music. Although there is a sense of D minor from Figure’s 1-9 (first subject), the chromaticism darkens the tone of the music, with hints of a Phrygian mode. In Figure 7 particularly, we hear a Neapolitan relationship. The Neapolitan tonality has a distinctly painful effect on the listener and is often known as the chord of death: this chord becomes increasingly dissonant with a progressively strong urge to resolve. The theory of musical equilibration shows that “a Neapolitan sixth figuratively transforms that onceupright person into someone in utter despair who has lost every sense of support” (Willime k & Willimek , 2011). Thus, by extension, although a Neapolitan chord is not pronounced, Shostakovich subtly hints at its presence, suggesting the prevailing presence of death and destruction.

The second subject uses the remote key of E

♭ as opposed to the dominant key or relative major, giving the music an almost isolated, sorrowful tone. Throughout the second subject, Shostakovich unusually employs jazz style harmonies with the use of extended chords over the 2nd subject melody (derived from a Russian folk tune). Rather than illustrating conflict in the form of war, perhaps Shostakovich is illustrating the conflicting relationship between Western and Slavic music – Stalin was opposed to modern Western music, believing it to be subversive. However, one could argue that Shostakovich is subtly protesting Stalin’s censorship towards the arts by having the two ideas and styles of music coexist. In the recapitulation, Shostakovich writes the second subject in D major, giving the piece peaceful and ethereal qualities with the melody beautifully

poised at the top of the texture. However, the ‘peace’ soon subsides, and minor modes carry the piece through the coda to its conclusion. The piece ends with eerie chromatic scales on the celesta and empty, distant solos from the piccolo and the violin. The major harmonies were false (the Potemkin village of the symphony), and the dry ending reminds the listeners of their dire and inescapable reality.

It is also important to note Shostakovich’s use of rhythm in portraying the struggles of a common Russian. Perhaps the most important rhythmic feature is the crotchet, quaver, quaver ostinato (or vice versa). It permeates throughout the whole 1st movement and serves not only as a rhythmic motif/ostinato, but a ‘dead end’ . We first hear this idea in bar 4, as the violins utter three A’s before resigning to the dotted ostinato in the lower strings. The bar 4 motif is heard again in Figure 9, where it becomes the ostinato for the second subject, providing pulsating simple homophony. The constant, unrelenting rhythm serves to ilustrate the endless struggle felt by the Russian working class. We also hear this ostinato in the development section with an imitative texture between the double bass, cellos, and piano – the notes are attacked with pizzicato and with the una corda on the piano, stripping away the emotion. The empty tone and lack of vibrato makes the music feel like a monotonous march. This becomes particularly evident in Figure 27, with the timpani playing a diminished version of the ostinato. The militaristic entry of the percussion marks a strong change of mood, depicting a march or parade of the regime: a grotesque parody of Stalin’s reign. The ostinato is then finally revisited in the recapitulation and coda, with the piece ending fatefully on three repeated notes. Shostakovich’s 5th symphony is truly a masterpiece: it thoughtfully details the conflict, fear and sorrow people felt during Stalin’s oppressive regime. The melodies are deeply intimate, the harmony appropriately evasive, and the rhythms assured and unfailingly constant, all of which strikingly encapsulate the common attitudes felt towards the Soviet Union. This piece, although his ‘apology’ , can be interpreted as Shostakovich’s silent cry against a remorseless, brutal dictator.

Bibliography

Vulliamy, E., 2015. Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk and the muddle surrounding Shostakovich's opera. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/sep /25/lady-macbeth-of-mtsensk-dmitrishostakovich-opera-english-national [Accessed 7 April 2021]. Willimek, D. & Willimek, B., 2011. [Online] Available at: https://www.willimekmusic.de/music-andemotions.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2021]. Thomas, M., 2009. Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5. [Online] Available at: https://www.pbs.org/keepingscore/shostakovic h-symphony-5.html [Accessed 9 April 2021].