Dmitri Shostakovich: Dissident or Ideologue?

Scholars have long disputed about the interpretation of Dmitri Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony — whether the piece epitomizes Shostakovich as a political dissident or as a Soviet ideologue. Was the subtitle of the piece, “A Soviet Artist’s Response to Just Criticism,” a sardonic jab at Stalin, or an earnest reorientation of Shostakovich’s composing to Soviet standards? 

Shostakovich was the subject of scathing criticism for his experimental compositions following the premiere of his opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District in 1934. In an editorial in the Pravda entitled “Chaos instead of Music,” the Soviet Union’s state-sanctioned newspaper condemned Shostakovich’s work as cacophonous, dissonant, perversely atonal, and sympathetic to the bourgeoise. Scathing evaluations like these led a disconcerted Shostakovich to suspend the debut of his Fourth Symphony in 1936 — just as Josef Stalin’s “Great Terror” began to strangle the masses. This is the context in which Shostakovich penned the Fifth Symphony in 1937.

In Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich, memoirist Solomon Volkov records Shostakovich allegedly relaying, “I think that it is clear to everyone what happens in the Fifth. The rejoicing is forced, created under threat, as in Boris Godunov. It’s as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, ‘Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing,’ and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, ‘Our business is rejoicing, our business is re-joicing.’ What kind of apotheosis is that? You have to be a complete oaf not to hear that” (Volkov, “Testimony,” 183). This alleged quote is frequently propagated to depict Shostakovich as a resilient dissident amidst Stalinist repression, though its authenticity is dubious. It is more likely that Shostakovich penned Symphony No. 5 as a remedial measure to propitiate the Stalinist regime following criticism. After all, Shostakovich was a member of the Communist Party who received state funding to compose.

There is a tendency to portray Shostakovich as a staunch critic of Stalin’s totalitarian regime, whose brilliance manifests in the satirical critique of the Soviet Union somehow imbued in his music. However, one cannot be so certain that Shostakovich would levy such a denunciation, lest he tempt death by Stalin’s iron fist. Furthermore, it is important to consider Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony in the context of Soviet culture in 1937. 

The 1930s ushered in an aesthetic movement dubbed “Socialist Realism,” which encapsulates the tenets of “narodnost’ (having the quality of being ‘for or of the people’), ideynost’ (possessing ideological content), and partiynost’ (possessing party-mindedness),” as defined by the 1934 Soviet Writers’ Congress (Pauline Fairclough, “Was Soviet Music Middlebrow? Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony, Socialist Realism, and the Mass Listener in the 1930s,” 353). How these maxims manifested in the symphony, however, was nebulous. The prescription to render “the optimistic presentation of reality in its revolutionary movement” in music was uncharted territory for composers (Fairclough, “The ‘Perestroyka’ of Soviet Symphonism: Shostakovich in 1935,” 260). Socialist Realism in music was utterly “impossible to define adequately, since it was basically a mandate for dishonesty” (Ibid). In his Fifth Symphony, Shostakovich mitigates the Socialist Realist dilemma by leveraging the inherent interpretive ambiguity of music as a medium. Through the developmental arc of the Fifth Symphony’s four movements, Shostakovich adeptly composes a piece that can reasonably be interpreted as amiable to the Socialist Realist aesthetic project.

The definitional ambiguity of Socialist Realism in music posed a challenge for Shostakovich. The Soviet prescription of Socialist Realism was not aesthetic or musicological, but political. How could Shostakovich successfully convey Soviet ideals through the musical medium, which is notoriously flexible and subjective in interpretation? Furthermore, how could he, while maintaining “ideological correctness,” compose a symphony well? (Clark, “Shostakovich’s Turn to the String Quartet and the Debates about Socialist Realism in Music,” 587).

No template was “put forward for composers to emulate; no directive for triumphant; major-key codas; no stipulation… as regards the song in symphonic work.” (“The ‘Perestroyka’ of Soviet Symphonism,” 259-260). To some degree, Socialist Realism in music was “recognized as a false aesthetic from the start… an oppressive slogan used to manipulate and condemn.” (“The ‘Perestroyka’ of Soviet Symphonism,” 261). Although scholars can define post facto what represents Socialist Realism in music, its musical properties were cryptic in 1937. At best, composers could construct an apophatic definition of Socialist Realism in music by emphasizing “what not to do and what not to approve of,” including “formalism” — a catch-all term for music deemed dissonant, atonal, avant-garde, and convoluted (“Was Soviet Music Middlebrow?” 358). Formalism was the “ultimate crime,” as well as the incorporation of Western musical conventions (Ibid).

Pauline Fairclough suggests that Shostakovich “may have even believed that the inescapable but as yet unformulated doctrine of socialist realism was sufficiently malleable to allow” the Fifth Symphony to become the prototypical Socialist Realist symphony, which would consecrate Dmitri Shostakovich as the pioneer of Socialist Realism in Soviet music (“The ‘Perestroyka’ of Soviet Symphonism,” 260-261). To determine whether this is true, one must consider in what ways Shostakovich’s Fifth can be read as Socialist Realist. 

Upon its release, Symphony No. 5 surpassed expectations and was commended by the state. The Fifth Symphony not only adequately upheld Socialist Realist expectations to elude censure, but even rehabilitated Shostakovich as the preeminent Soviet composer of his time. This suggests that Shostakovich’s magnum opus does at least marginally integrate Socialist Realism, nebulous though the term may be.

Despite the obscure Soviet directives for Socialist Realism in music, contemporaries recognized Symphony No. 5 as primarily a socialist work. Aleksey Tolstoy, whose interpretation “gave the symphony its trajectory and its rationale in language that explicitly referenced socialist realism,” believed Symphony No. 5 to be an autobiographical piece that “traced Shostakovich’s spiritual (in a Soviet sense) growth toward his final rejection of individualism and his struggle for joy in collective triumph,” i.e., the dialectical “formation of the Soviet person” in the words of conductor Aleksandr Gauk (“Was Soviet Music Middlebrow?” 354). Sentiments like these reflect the accepted hermeneutics of Symphony No. 5 among 1930s Soviet cultural leaders. 

While integrating Western, especially Mahlerian musical conventions in his Fifth Symphony, Shostakovich eschews the reprehensible, avant-garde formalism of his previous works and composes a symphony with a distinct narrative — at times tense and dissonant, but also euphonic, eventually resolving to the tonic center of D minor. Unlike previous works, Symphony No. 5 is more accessible to the masses, masterfully composed with distinct canonical melodies, traceable cadential development within movements, and thematic development between movements. From the immediate tension in the Moderato to the resolution and thunderous timpani in the Allegro’s coda, Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony evokes the social progression of an individual who struggles but, in the eyes of contemporary interpreters, eventually conforms himself to the collective will.

Shostakovich composed his Fifth Symphony as a four-movement sonata in D minor, beginning the Moderato with a tense minor-sixth conversation between the celli and violins. From the outset, struggle — perhaps during the initial period of an individual’s conformity to socialism — is a leading theme of the piece. The intensity lulls soon after and gives way to a pensive motif in the strings. This theme persists, though the struggle reappears twice, until a brooding theme emerges in the first violins as the other strings accompany with a syncopated rhythm. The horns soon enter the conversation, followed by a charming wind melody as the orchestra becomes more forthright. Here, the violas, a section with a more delicate timbre, express a similar brooding ostinato originally introduced by the violins. The exchange of this theme between the strings echoes the opening notes of the piece: the struggle still lingers, but it has become less pronounced, smoother, more prolonged, and almost seems to fester.

This recurring theme may, in a sense, impart Soviet values unto the listener by developing the canonical struggle in the Moderato, which is reintroduced in the Largo, and culminates in the heroic apex of the Allegro’s famous coda. This reading would suggest that the real triumph is a rejection of the ego in favor of conformity to the collective will, thereby rendering the piece compatible with Socialist Realism. If the Fifth Symphony is an autobiographical piece, the theme may represent Shostakovich’s own psychological turmoil and dialectical struggle to conform to the collective consciousness. At times, the struggle is dormant, but quiet rumination gives way to outward conflict, incorporating the whole orchestra in the mounting discord. Was this an attempt by Shostakovich to etch the Soviet objective in the present reality by overlaying socialist messaging in his symphony? The first movement certainly can be and has been interpreted in this way.

Amidst the swelling unrest, the brass becomes agitated as the dotted eighth note pizzicato in the strings increases tempo to allegro non troppo.  In the following minutes, different instruments exchange the syncopated accompaniment as the dynamics increase to forte and suddenly a marching theme surfaces from the tension. Juxtaposed with the brooding motif that was passed between the strings earlier, this sudden shift to thundering percussion and blaring horns almost seems unserious — perhaps a reprieve from the escalating tension that precedes and succeeds the marching theme. 

The percussion and horns soon descend from their jubilant respite for the violins to reemerge with the same dotted rhythms of the opening theme — but this time at a much faster tempo and with louder dynamics. A nervous, almost restless energy pervades the scene as the strings emerge with the dominant motif. The dynamics are gradually reduced to piano in the melody as the same, notorious syncopated rhythm precedes the canonical theme in the flute, this time inflected in a major key. A whispering echo of the opening conflict and alternating dotted rhythm emerges between the celli and violins, yielding to a piccolo solo followed by a violin solo of the same theme. This converges to an E♭ minor triad after the accompanying strings’ glissando, engendering a suspenseful moment charged with tension. Here, the first movement concludes morendo with a piano chromatic scale in the celeste, imparting a sense of lingering tension that resurfaces later in the piece, especially in the Largo. The first movement establishes the introspective friction (exposition) for the psychological drama to unfold in the third movement (development), which resurfaces and resolves in the fourth movement (recapitulation).

The second movement is decidedly less emotionally taxing than the first. As the shortest movement of the piece — only five minutes long — the Allegretto begins fortissimo with a spright melody in the celli that is transferred to the winds. Soviet conductor Evgeny Mravinsky swaps his stern look in the Moderato for an impish smirk as the second movement commences, inviting the orchestra to enjoy the mischief. The Allegretto offers a buoyant energy by featuring several playful motifs in the horns, a lighthearted violin solo carried on by the flute, and the bassoon’s restatement of the opening melody with pizzicato in the strings.

In stark contrast, the Largo begins with a melancholic melody in the strings and the rest of the movement remains reserved for a gentle yet expressive ensemble without horns. At times, the strings crescendo to fortissimo, such as in the largamente section, yet the prevailing theme is somber and contemplative — much like the brooding ostinato in the first movement. While some understand the Largo to be a requiem that elegizes the souls departed under Stalin, the movement is arguably an expositional section that develops the Moderato’s various tense motifs. Tensions rise to a climax as the strings and winds converge to fortissimo in both the melody and tremolo. The celli and violins cry out a wailing phrase that is sustained by the celli as the other strings continue the tremolo with sforzandi in the bass at each bar line. 

At this critical juncture, the dialectical struggle of the individual conforming to the Soviet consciousness comes to a front. The psychological conflict punctuated by the strings in the Moderato has culminated in the final moments of the Largo in the amplified resurgence of the strings. As the tumult subsides, the movement concludes with a harp motif and an unseemly F# major triad — a striking departure from the palpable distress of the Largo and shift towards something generally absent until this point: hope.

The fourth movement begins attacca with a surge in the winds and brass to triple fortissimo, followed by repeated eighth notes in the timpani and triumphant marcato melody in the brass. In this opening, the strings which were ubiquitous in the Largo are notably omitted until the upper strings’ run in the accelerando poco a poco, and the brass take center stage. A distinct textural shift has transpired. No longer do sustained piano passages saturate the score, but the horns revel in the triumphant melody as a frenetic ostinato accompanies them in the strings. Leading up to the finale, there is a period of unresolved tension and quiet anticipation in the strings until the tambourine and timpani herald the final section with a rhythmic, pianissimo solo.

Here, the clarinets and bassoon crescendo and signal a reprise of the triumphant theme introduced by the brass at the beginning of the movement. The final brooding theme has been supplanted, and the psychological struggle is nearly resolved. The winds exchange this melody to the violins who continue it for seven bars and transition to repeated eighth notes. This persists until the cymbal crash, where the violins retain the melody with the winds as the bass drum interjects, until finally the strings sustain repeated eighths for the rest of the piece. As the strings blare repeated eighths, the cadence develops in the brass and the percussion crashes. Two bars later, the trombones herald victory as they recall the triumphant theme in the beginning of the Allegro and the timpani returns in multiple segments of quarter notes.

Amidst the violins’ piercing E♭, a series of cymbal crashes signals the final moments of the piece as the timpani and bass drum resound three notes (A-D-A), finally resolving to D minor and concluding Symphony No. 5.

What is meant by the repeated high E♭ in the violins, the heroic melody in the brass, and the timpani solo right before the chord resolves? What Soviet messaging has Shostakovich overlaid? It is difficult to say definitively, however the struggle in the Moderato that is developed in the Largo is finally overcome in the Allegro’s coda. How is it, then, that the “dazzlingly bright major-mode conclusions to the [finale of the Fifth Symphony] are interspersed with intimations of the minor and sharp dissonances”? (Taruskin, “Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth Interpreting Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony,” 52).

Some may read such dissonances as a covert jeer targeted at Stalin. However, Symphony No. 5 may also be interpreted as an earnest attempt to faithfully execute the nebulous tenets of Socialist Realism. The narrative of the Fifth Symphony can be read as personal struggle and collective resolution: the individual tension in the first movement’s strings develops in the third and culminates in the fourth with the successful conformity of the individual to the Soviet will. 

Whether or not Shostakovich sneered at Stalin as he penned his Fifth cannot be known with certainty. Nevertheless, in the depths of Stalin’s Great Terror, Shostakovich successfully restored his rapport with the Soviet regime by effectively composing a symphony that can reasonably be interpreted as Socialist Realist.

_

Works Cited

Clark, Katerina. “Shostakovich’s Turn to the String Quartet and the Debates about Socialist Realism in Music,” Slavic Review, vol. 72, no. 3, 2013, pp. 573-589.

 Fairclough, Pauline. “The ‘Perestroyka’ of Soviet Symphonism: Shostakovich in 1935,” Music & Letters, vol. 83, no. 2, 2002, pp. 229-261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3526498.pdf.

 Fairclough, Pauline. “Was Soviet Music Middlebrow? Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony, Socialist Realism, and the Mass Listener in the 1930s,” Journal of Musicology, 2018, pp. 353-359.

 Shostakovich, Dmitri. “Shostakovich – Symphony No 5 in D minor, Op 47 – Mravinsky.” YouTube, Uploaded by “Classical Vault 3,” 28 October, 2018. From a 1983 performance by the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra in Minsk. https://youtu.be/H2BLC3-eBuI?si=CmQxT4-24NR16KsB.

 Shostakovich, Dmitri. Symphony No. 5 Full Score. Berlin, Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers Ltd., 2024.

 Taruskin, Richard. “Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth Interpreting Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony,” from Shostakovich Studies, ed. by David Fanning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995. pp. 17-56.

Volkov, Solomon. Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. trans. by Antonina Bouis. New York, Harper & Row, 1979. p. 183