John White roughly ranks his Shostakovich symphonies:
>I shall stick my neck right now and say that IMHO Shostakovich was at his
>best as a symphonist in his middle period works.say in Nos. 5 to 10, and
>that thereafter, although probably still the greatest symphonist of his
>time, his inspiration diminished. ...
>
>Brahms, after the success of his 4th symphony, wrote no more symphonies in
>the last 9 years of his life and, in own time, Malcolm Arnold retired after
>N0 9.
Malcolm Arnold suffered from Alzheimer's, I believe. Hardly conducive to
writing anything, let alone symphonies.
>What do other list members think on this subject, or have I just written
>a load of rubbish.
No, you've simply written about your tastes. I don't happen to agree,
but that shouldn't worry you. For example, I've never liked Shostakovich's
10th, which I find a long, windy bore. This puts me in a definite minority
of the fans of this composer. I also think 13 through 15 his best, if only
because he finally leaves a 19th-century conception of symphonic form for
something quite original. In short, this is *new* music. I have no idea
where this puts me in the demographic sweepstakes.
Steve Schwartz
|