Dave Wolf wrote:

>I want to point out that some music seems to STRIVE to deliver -- concepts,
>moods, thoughts, impressions.  A case in point, the Shostakovich 10th
>Symphony, which I saw in San Francisco this Friday.  Much of his music
>seems burdened (in the sense of "freighted") with implication.  In his
>case, with implications that would be politically dangerous to put into
>words.  My thought as I was leaving was that if the music of the Renaissance
>and the Baroque periods carried religious significance, then Shostakovich's
>music seems to say that there is hell, right here on earth.

I got my first recording of that work when I was in high school, the old
Mitropoulos performance, which is still my favorite.  I had no idea of
the political troubles the composer had.  As I recall, the disc featured
a young boy on the cover.  I believe the program notes might have said
something about a fight for the will of the individual...well as a spoiled
kid that had no meaning to me.  I thought of it as great stuff with
exciting themes and an especially exciting scherzo.  I can't say I was
even up to appreciating the bulk of the work, but really did like that
scherzo.

Some 40 years later I am now more informed as to some of the challenges
Shostakovich faced, yet I don't know if I read that into the music.  I
am not suggesting one approach is better than another, but it seems to
me that I find greatness in that work because the basic music elements
are carried through to an almost inexorable conclusion.  Is there greatness
in the music because meaning can be found on a somewhat representational
level and a "pure" musical level?

Karl