aS ara ye The following is the continua- tion of the article by N. E. Story from last week on new record- ings of Soviet composers. SHOSTAKOVICH: Symphon- ies Nos. 2 & 3 — Victor Stereo LSC—3044—Time‘ 47°57—Royal Philharmonic Orchestra & Chor- us, conducted by Morton Gould. For those interested in Soviet attempts to realize the content of their socialist revolution in artistic terms or in the evolution of Dmitri Shostakovich —the Beethoven of our century — the Secqnd and Third Symphonies are of supreme fascination. Shos- takovich’s First Symphony (written as a graduation exercise at the age of 19 in 1925) had been the first work in one of the major European musical forms expressing the content of Soviet reality, to win world recognition and to enter the stendard concert repertoire. It had an instinctive, humane con- sciousness of the new epoch. The Second and Third Symphon- ies were the fulcrum in philoso- phical content (the Fourth per- haps in more formal terms of experiment with the expressive possibilities of the modern orchestra) between the direct, tactile expression of the First and the conscious intellectualiza- tion of the Fifth Symphony (1937), with its profound matur- ity. His output since then has reconfirmed and enhanced his stature as the greatest commun- ist composer thus far and a giant of 20th Century European art music. This 1968 recording is all the more fascinating be- cause this is the first time the Second and Third Symphonies have been available to a general audience in the West. Symphony No. 2 in C, op.14 (1927) — “To October: A Sym- phonic Dedication” (Time: 19’18). It was premiered by the Lenin- grad Philharmonic under Nikolai Malko on 6 November 1927, to mark the 10th anniversary of the Soviet Revolution. The dedica- tion, one might note, was by one who had been an 11-year-old eyewitness of revolutionary events. The Symphony is in one movement with subdivisions, in- cluding a final section for mixed chorus in a setting of a poem by Alexander Bezymensky. It summarizes the evolution of mankind from “chaos” to state power by the common people. The Second Symphony was per- formed frequently during the tenth anniversary year, includ- ing simultaneous performance in Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov; but a lesser work than Shostakovich’s phenomenal First Symphony, critical reception was lukewarm and the Second fell into relative disuse. There are harsh and awkward ele- ments, the chaos depicted at ’ times is chaos of the music itself; but the work does not de- . serve to be neglected, particu- larly in the U.S.S.R. where there are not only many fine choruses but sufficient funds allocated so that a symphony concert that also requires a full chorus does ‘not have to cope with “free enterprise” financial problems. Lesser Shostakovich is still more interesting than most other music being written. Individual instruments _ rise up out of nothingness (chaos) with fragmentary and apparently meaningless scale runs and ar- peggios. The first connected statement is delayed for almost three minutes, until a solo trumpet rises out of the shape- MAN'S MARCH TO THE FUTURE the = Shostakovich’s seco’ > ind symphony was premiered in 1927. It includes a choral arrangement of a poem which tells of the evolution of man- kind from chaos to state power held by the common people. The photograph shows a scene of the reconstruction of industry in Petrograd in this period, which the symphony celebrates. less mass of sound. Two minutes later, a phrase in tubas leads to emergence of a _ march-like theme from the orchestra. Par- tially subdued by drumrolls, it continues; woodwinds taunt a solo violin then woodwinds and strings interact increasingly frenetically. Form evolved from formlessness disintegrates again —into orchestral anarchy. Snare drums impose their clatter on the tumult, tympani sound and the brass intrude. They finally rise above the whole and briefly take command with a virile theme. This recedes into a sub- dued, tragic sequence with an undercurrent of tension: per- haps a personal recollection from 1917. A solo violin over quiet orchestral phrases is in- terrupted by a factory whistle (horns and trombones if an F# factory whistle is unavailable) and the choral third of the sym- phony opens with the basses: “We marched, we asked for work and bread Our hearts gripped by pain and grief. The factory chimneys were stretched to the sky Like hands too weak to clench a fist.” There is a climax on: “Lenin! Our destiny is: Fight!” (“Borba!” in Russian) expressed in sharply accentuated rhythm. An orches- tral interlude, then the chorus rises to a new climax on “Octo- ber” (Oktyabr); the culmination of an evolution from chaos through struggles, anarchy and pain, to fulfillment and triumph. The yearnings of ages are real- ized. We are momentarily re- minded of the opening formless- ness, illogic, disorganization; that become form, logic, organi- zation. The symphony concludes with emphatic and triumphant declamation of “October—The Commune! Lenin!” and an or- chestral flourish dominated by trumpets. Symphony No. 3 in Eb. op.20 (1931) “May First” (Time: 28739). Dedicated to and expressing the spirit of the international day of labor, the Third Sym- phony was premiered on Novem- ber 6, 1931, by the Leningrad Philharmonic under Alexander Gauk. Words are by S. Kirsanov. It encompasses national festiv- ity, mass songs, triumphal marches and demonstrations. Shostakovich is said to have called it a “revolutionary tract in tones,” embracing the call to action characteristic of May Day’s feeling of solidarity, work- ers consolidating their ranks, taking stock of and rejoicing PACIFIC TRIBUNE-—FEBRUARY 7, 1969—Page 10 in their achievements. Kirsan- ov’s words are like a labor hymn. There are deeper, contem- plative moments; but generally the Third is a celebration: exu- berant, gay, triumphant. Compared with Shostakovich’s other choral symphony—‘“Octo- ber’ —the Third conveys less harshness and confusion, is more directly accessible and ingratia- ting. But with familiarity, this writer feels (unlike other obser- vers) that the Second Symphony achieves more in formal and philosophical terms. The May First Symphony seems to end essentially where it begins, how- ever much it may stir our emo- tions en route; whereas the October Symphony has an in- evitability of philosophical logic and formal organic growth, from chaos to fruition. The Third Symphony is in one movement with subdivisions. It opens on a pensive allegretto theme performed by clarinet over plucked basses. (1'52). The tempo accelerates to allegro and for several minutes the orches- tra rushes along joyously but in no particular direction. A lyrical theme appears briefly in violas. (5’39). The orchestra resumes its hurried movement and declama- tory brass add their voices, then a quick march rhythm asserts itself. An oratorical trumpet is interrupted by humorous sallies from strings and woodwinds. (9’20). The pace slackens to an- dante. The atmosphere quietens at the instigation of tympani, which recede into the distance under ghostly violins. (10'14). Suddenly the tympani return with loud demands and there are sharp jabs from the trum- pets. The violins try again but yield to calm basses, which are in turn displaced by scherzo- like frolicking in high strings and other instruments. (11’45). Soon a thoughtful mood takes over, rising to a brief elegy. As cello and viola voices trail away, (14’45) the orchestra playfully races off again and there are jocular comments from all sides After a while the pace eases up (1707) for broad oratory from the brass, joined by the rest of the orchestra to culminate in shouting recitatives over extend- ed drum rolls. Emphatic repeti- tions of these shouted slogans (?) are intensified by firm strokes on bass drum. The noise receded but continues for a time under quieter voices: (20'07) brass choirs and low strings in a leisurely dialogue. (22’32). Violins join the dialogue, four times supporting the low strings, As I am neither a Catholic, Protestant, nor adherent or advocate of any particular re- ligion, I found myself in no great danger of blowing a denominational fuse when Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau aired his recent pro- posal re the possibility of Canada establishing ‘“‘diplo- matic relations” with the Vatican. However the ensuing up- roar in some “religious” cir- cles couldn’t have been more noisy, more bigoted or more conducive to inter-denomina- tion emnity, distortions and suspicions, had the P.M. pro- posed the Knights of Colum- bus “bed-down” with the Orange Order of Ontario—or better still, Northern Ireland. Given certain conditions, even under capitalism, “dip- lomatic relations” with Vati- can could conceivably serve a useful and beneficial pur- poses to the country and peo- ple concerned, if directed to- wards the elimination of superficial conflicts and hat- reds (so long and arduously built up) between those hu- mans designated as “Cath- olic’ and/or “Protestant” workers. Of course in a class-structured society such as ours, that “if” should always be heavily under- scored, Under other conditions in which workers, regardless of religious affiliation should always be most concerned about, such “diplomatic rela- tions” can also be a very re- trogressive step, since at bot- tom it is a class question, ad- vocated by a spokesman of and for class privilege; a move to combine and conso- lidate all that is most power- ful in the realm of “spiritual” and “temporal” forces for the advance of those class interests which our P.M. so truly represent—despite his disarming flair for the “ra- kish” modus vivendi. “God” it is said “is always on the side of the strongest battalions,” which probably helps to explain ‘(in part) why “diplomatic relations” with his charge d'affaires here on earth has invariably proved a valuable asset to the class which fattens on the blood, sweat and toil of others? The late Cardinal Spellman of New York re- affirmed this Cromwellian contention in 1968 when he donned a GI uniform in Viet- nam to “bless” the efforts of U.S. troops in their genocidal war upon the heroic people of that country, and to de- scribe these U.S. war atroci- ties as “a holy war in the service of God,” or words to that effect. Along about the same time and not to be outdone, the English high priest of Pro- testantism, Archibishop Ram- say, did much the same thing during his visit to Canada, but an indignant public opin- ion compelled that Protestant holy man to re-chew his pro- U.S. cud in less belligerent tones. Since M. Trudeau's propo- sition other old myths have been dug out of the Protest- ant mothballs to spike the idea. In some quarters, main- ly non-Catholic, the argu- ment goes that since the Vatican is a church or reli- gious entity, and since we in the “free” Western world enjoy a complete “separa- tion” of church and state, any such thoughts of “diplo- matic relations” between these “material” and “spiri- tual” entities is therefore neither desirable nor condu- cive to social progress. And anyway dear brethren, such “diplomatic” ties be- | © tween us and Rome, (softly i please) would tend to give | © Catholicism in Canada a po- litical edge over Protestan- ism in Canada, and that would never do. No wonder large sections of the so-called “Christian” church are beginning to feel the tremors of revolution stirring their conscience in a changing world; young men and women who think the church should return to the people, rather than the peo- ple returning to a church steeped in the bigotry, emni- ty and idolatry of its own making. Young men and women who see as the first prere- quisite to such a transforma- tion, calling a halt to the emnities and the class grov- elling of the organized church as a whole; to its slavish obedience before the “golden calf” and the big guns of Mammon. If Pierre Trudeau's “diplo- matic relations” proposal does nothing more than open the lid on this foul-smelling mess which passes for ‘“‘chris- tianity,” he will have ren- dered Canada—and other na- tions a _ service. Even the shillelagh-swinging _Protest- ants of North Ireland might get to know that their best ally against a common ene- my—is their Catholic bro- thers and vise-versa. 2 SRST SHE eager oo ‘with words was repeating their phrase with a decisive upward twist. The brass extends its com- ment into a fanfare that ushers in a choral paean to May Day for the last five minutes of the Symphony. (2335). (Just as the idea of concluding the symphony inspired by Beethoven’s Choral Symphony; Shostakovich’s logic paralleled that of Beethoven in working in a broad and exultant melody, with flourishes and moral sup- port from the orchestra. The mood is one of happiness and optimism. Orchestral support be comes more boisterous, cymbals crash and a climax is reached on the words: “Hoisting the flags in the sun A march resounds in our ears. Every First of May A step closer to socialism.” Chorus and orchestra rise t? a peak of exultation and the orchestra assumes final com mand under a triumphal trum pet, for a buoyant and festive? conclusion. ’