Symphony 5 in D minor, Op 47
Symphony 5 in D minor, Op 47
Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony is without doubt one of the greatest works of the 20th century and yet, behind the music itself, there lies an intrigue more convoluted than many a work of fiction. Was Shostakovich a communist sympathiser or a secret dissident? Ever since the 1979 publication of "Testimony - the Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich as related to and edited by Solomon Volkov", the world of Shostakovichiana has been locked in a dispute, bitter enough in its argument, counter-argument and invective to make even the least sensitive recoil. "Testimony", an absolutely riveting read, lays Shostakovich wide open. We hear his opinion on his colleagues, including less than complimentary references to compatriots Stravinsky and Prokofiev, on the authorities, his own music, Stalin and the West. Throughout, there is a disturbing ground bass of inner turmoil and a very genuine fear of being sent to a labour camp or, worse still, "disappearing" - the high-flying Marshal Tukhachevsky was but one of the many friends and fellow artists who were taken never to be seen again.
If "Testimony" is authentic, and many scholars and leading musicians, including Ashkenazy, Rostropovich and Barshai, believe it is, then Shostakovich's music must be seen in one light. If it is false or misrepresents the situation, and some leading Shostakovich experts believe this to be the case, the music must be seen in another. Take, for instance, the ending of the very symphony to be performed by the NSO (see footnote). Is the affirmation of the key of D major, hammered out by the full orchestra, a paean of praise to the state or a cry of pain from a soul enduring a personal nightmare? If Shostakovich was a devout comrade, then the Fifth Symphony could be construed as a work by a composer, repenting of his previous ideological sins, attempting a reconciliation with the Party by writing a "correct" work according to his political bosses. On the other hand, the weight of both musical and historical evidence is strongly in favour of an anti-Stalin, anti-Party Shostakovich. Consider then. The Fifth Symphony was written at the height of Stalin's Reign of Terror, the Fourth Symphony, written in 1935/6, had been withdrawn at the behest of the authorities as "unsuitable", Shostakovich had been denounced in public and he had a suitcase packed ready for the dreaded visit of the NKVD. From the freedom of the West it is hard to imagine how important an occasion the first performance of the new symphony was for the composer. After his denunciation in Pravda, which almost certainly had the full backing of Stalin, Shostakovich was in a very dangerous situation. The apparatchiks, for whom he had little time, were satisfied with the major-key ending but the real meaning of the work was clearly apparent. Kurt Sanderling, the eminent conductor, was in the audience for the Moscow première. "Probably this is the first time that Shostakovich addressed himself to the dominant theme of his life: anti-Stalinism. The audience was very receptive to Shostakovich's message, and after the first movement we looked around rather nervously, wondering whether we might be arrested after the concert. The vast majority of the audience knew perfectly well what it was all about. Maybe this explains why it was such a resounding success. It faithfully reflected the sentiments uppermost in our minds." Of the slow movement, Israel Nestyev, often allied with Shostakovich's enemies in the Soviet Composers Union, said: "Even now I perceive this music as a requiem for the millions of innocent victims of Stalin's regime. Not a single other artist - no painter, dramatist, or film-maker - could think of using their art as a means of expressing protest against Stalin's Terror. Only instrumental music was able to express the terrible truth of that time."
The composer's son, Maxim has written feelingly on this symphony: "The Fifth Symphony is his 'Heroic Symphony'." For Maxim, the opening bars are "stormy" and "intense", as if the composer is saying: "Listen to me! I am going to speak now!" (This is "deep melody, not song. He is thinking about the time he is living in.") Maxim's account of the work continues as follows: "Fig. 9: More intimate musical language. All develops very slowly. The theme requires much time to show the atmosphere of that time... Fig. 17: Stormy allegro intrudes. Attack of evil. Music preceding is human, warm, kind. It asks 'Why aren't we kind to each other?' With the allegro, the attack of negative forces begins and grows. Not as much as Fig. 27. It climaxes at Fig. 36, the hero being torn apart. After Fig. 39, everything is a requiem for that man who would have lived a different life if he did not attack the evil. The critics call the second movement a Mahlerian waltz. I strongly disagree. Mahler was in his (Shostakovich's) tradition, but this is not a waltz. It is the aggression of a soulless negative force. A machine of destruction. Fig. 57, violin solo, is a child's voice from beneath a soldier's boot. It is not a waltz. The flute repeats the solo, a defiant fist still raised. Fig. 61, the force begins again, and the movement finishes with the victory of evil. The third movement is the highest achievement of lyricism in all of Shostakovich's work. Very intimate. Shostakovich divides the violins into three parts to increase the number of voices. It is the last night at home of a man sentenced to the gulag; but the problem is eternal! I see a man who spends his last night before execution with his family. He hears his children breathe. He feels the warmth of his wife. But he does not cry!"
I am indebted to the young NSO violinist, Becky Harris, who pointed out a fact of major interest that I had missed in my researches. The NSO's performance of Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony is on the very anniversary of its first performance in 1937.
Footnote. To add a further twist, the score at the point in question had a mistake indicating that the music should go at twice the speed that the composer had intended. A letter to Shostakovich, asking whether he really had intended the slow speed, elicited the single word response, "Yes".
James Stobart
