Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Shostakovich)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Soviet Union Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diffrences between opus 77 and opus 99

There actually is a very minor difference between the opus 77 and opus 99 versions. In the original opus 77, the opening of the Burlesca had the violin continuing to play without a stop over from the cadenza. During the rehearsals for the premiere, David Oistrakh asked Shostakovich to please give the violinist a rest between the cadenza and the Burlesca. Shostakovich happily complied and re-scored the opening of the finale for the winds and xylophone that we hear today. This became the "new" opus 99. This information is mentioned in Wilson's Shostakovich Remembered and Fay's Shostakovich: A Life.

Very insightful (unsigned) comment from 2006, I’d forgotten completely about that ... there are also two small emendations in the Oistrakh cadenza that differ from the ‘48 version, but this is almost bearing on the pedantic Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, It's Plagiarism

Resolved

– The other source actually copied the content from Wikipedia. --bdesham ★ 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entirety of this article was lifted directly from this source: [1].

I'll just repost the text, since that's exactly what's happened here.

Original version.

"The Shostakovich Violin Concerto No.1 in A minor, Opus 77, was originally written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1947 -1948. He was still working on the piece at the time of the Zhdanov decree, and in the period following the composer's denunciation the work could not be performed. In the period between the work's initial completion and the first performance on 29 October 1955, the composer and its dedicatee, David Oistrakh, worked on a number of revisions. The work was finally premiered by the Leningrad Philharmonic under Yevgeny Mravinsky. It was well received, Oistrakh remarking on the "depth of its artistic content" and describing the violin part as a "pithy 'Shakespearian' role".

The work is scored for piccolo, three flutes, three oboes, cor anglais, two clarinets, bass clarinet, two bassoons, double bassoon, four horns, tuba, timpani, tam-tam, xylophone, celesta, two harps and strings.

The concerto lasts around 35 minutes and has four movements, with a cadenza linking the final two:

1. Nocturne

2. Scherzo

3. Passacaglia

4. Burlesque

Oistrakh characterised the first movement as "a suppression of feelings", and the second as "demoniac". The scherzo is also notable for an appearance by the DSCH motif representing the composer himself. Boris Schwarz (Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1972), commented on the passacaglia's "lapidary grandeur" and the burlesque's "devil-may-care abandonment". The beginning of the passacaglia is also notable for its juxtaposition of the invasion or Stalin theme from the Seventh Symphony and the fate motif from Beethoven's Fifth Symphony."

Your version.

"The Violin Concerto No. 1 in A minor, Opus 77, was originally written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1947 - 1948. He was still working on the piece at the time of the Zhdanov decree, and in the period following the composer's denunciation the work could not be performed. In the period between the work's initial completion and the first performance on 29 October 1955, the composer and its dedicatee, David Oistrakh, worked on a number of revisions. The work was finally premiered by the Leningrad Philharmonic under Yevgeny Mravinsky. It was well received, Oistrakh remarking on the "depth of its artistic content" and describing the violin part as a "pithy 'Shakespearian' role".

The work is scored for piccolo, three flutes, three oboes, cor anglais, two clarinets, bass clarinet, two bassoons, contrabassoon, four horns, tuba, timpani, tam-tam, xylophone, celesta, two harps and strings.

The concerto lasts around 35 minutes and has four movements, with a cadenza linking the final two:

1. Nocturne

2. Scherzo

3. Passacaglia

4. Burlesque

Oistrakh characterised the first movement as "a suppression of feelings", and the second as "demoniac". The scherzo is also notable for an appearance by the DSCH motif representing the composer himself. Boris Schwarz (Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1972), commented on the passacaglia's "lapidary grandeur" and the burlesque's "devil-may-care abandonment". The beginning of the passacaglia is also notable for its juxtaposition of the invasion or Stalin theme from the Seventh Symphony and the fate motif from Beethoven's Fifth Symphony."

Isn't there supposed to be some citation of sources? Somewhere? In some fashion? I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to do it according to the Wikipedia format.

Just in case anyone notices the above, the site referred to (which now seems to have disappeared) actually took its content from as, as can be seen from the history. Good for a giggle, though. Henry ^Flower 17:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third movement

It's a shame we can't express our opinions and say that this is one of the most sublime pieces of music known to man. Oops, I just did! Seriously though, is there any way to work this into the main article? It seems very dry. Uncoolbob 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about it being sublime. =) 152.23.196.162 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately our neutral point of view policy prevents us from adding such a statement, even if many people would agree with it :-) bdesham ★ 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The beginning of the passacaglia is also notable for its juxtaposition of the invasion or Stalin theme from the Seventh Symphony"

As a Russian musician let me try to protect Wiki from this bullshit (allegedly). Can someone provide a prooflink that there is a Stalin theme in the Seventh Symphony, please? Or delete this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.208.26 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Russian Musician: Symphony No. 7 (Shostakovich)#"Music about terror":

The famous theme in the first movement Shostakovich had first as the Stalin theme (which close friends of the composer knew). Right after the war started, the composer called it the anti-Hitler theme. Later Shostakovich referred to that "German" theme as the "theme of evil," which was absolutely true, since the theme was just as much anti-Hitler as it was anti-Stalin, even though the world music community fixed on only the first of the two definitions.[9]

Then the footnote gives "9.^ Novyi mir [New World], 3 (1990), 267." Hope this helps. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uncited material

The several sections added to this article on 19 May 2011 are very helpful, interesting, and well written, but unfortunately are left unreferenced to any source - indeed for the most part they appear to be original research, contrary to Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." In my opinion this seems exacerbated by the anonymity of the editor, posting as 132.162.84.82 without an activated talk page. Hopefully this editor will provide whatever citations may be relevant to the thoughtful Analysis provided. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oistrakh section

First of all, he doesn't have "two" recordings, I can think of three studio recordings off the top of my head and believe there are at least one or two others, plus a dozen-odd known broadcast recordings (almost certainly a conservative estimate). Secondly, and more importantly, "widely considered definitive" is debatable at best, complete BS at worst. You have to consider, among other things, that he underwent noticeable interpretative changes over time, and (for instance) apparently regarded his rendition of the cadenza in the 1972 EMI recording with Maxim Shostakovich as his only one that truly did it justice. It is anyway hardly the same as the 1956 Mitropoulos or 1957 Mravinsky studio versions. And then, of course, Kogan widely advocated the piece, and Sitkovetsky and (?)Spivakovsky both played it, and there's a fair number of other respected versions such as that of Mullova, and it's just really hard to say if one particular recording is considered "definitive". (It isn't at all obvious to me, in any case. Personally I've held for some time the Kogan/Kondrashin/MPO 24.04.1959 live performance to be the greatest I've ever heard, but I'm not sure how widely shared that opinion is.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.100.68 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the untutored ear, there seems to be a klezmer element in several of the solo violin themes - especially in the schrzo and the burlesque, but also in the cadenza. Has anyone discussed this?2A00:23C7:5A19:CB00:7496:A7AC:E5D5:F5AC (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]