709

The common interpretation of Shostakovich's 10th symphony as being about Stalin and the Stalin years in the Soviet Union has one, ONE!, source. A book called Testimony by Russian musicologist Solomon Volkov. Testimony makes many claims about the secretly anti-Soviet stance of Shostakovich himself as well as the hidden and concrete coded-meanings in many of his works, such as the 10th symphony. Volkov claims that Testimony is based on the memoirs of Shostakovich himself, however, there is no evidence that this is actually true! It might be worth noting that Shostakovich actually served as a member of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union (a supreme government institution) from 1947 until his death. In 1960, Shostakovich actually joined the Communist Party and took the Soviet Government position of General Secretary of the Composer's Union. Shostakovich was denounced twice for his music in the Soviet Union. The first was in 1936 after a performance of Lady MacBeth of Mtsenk attended by Stalin and the Politburo. Anonymous articles attacked Shostakovich's work in the state propaganda paper, Pravda. In 1937, Shostakovich composed his famous 5th symphony which regained his standing with the Soviet government. An article which was purportedly written by Shostakovich and appeared in a state paper days before the works premier stated the symphony was, "a Soviet artist's response to just criticism." Many have claimed, in a post Testimony world, that this was simply pandering to the powers that be and the work is very clearly anti-Soviet in it's intention. However, it is not explicitly clear what Shostakovich's intention truly was with the work. If we are to not immediately except the words of Testimony as being true, one could easily still make the claim that the work is a memorial piece for those that had been lost during Stalin's regime, especially with the allusions and quotations of the Russian orthodox requiem mass in the Largo movement. While we today might not catch those references, it is likely that a great portion of the Russian audience would have at the time of the premier of the work. However, the question of the jubilant finale to the work has a frightening duality to it when examining the work from both a pro-Testimony and anti-Testimony perspective. In the former, the jubilation is ironic, very much in the, "the beatings will continue until morale improves," mold. In the latter, Shostakovich is showing genuine hope for a brighter future, possibly for himself after learning the errors of his ways and the truth of the vision of Social Realism, and possibly for the Soviet Union at large after the end (hopefully) of the purges. Possibly even optimistic for the future explicitly provided by the purges, praise for the now stronger and more unified Soviet Union. The point is, without excepting Testimony as being truth, there is simply no way to know without hopping in your Delorean and gunning it to 88. The second time that Shostakovich was denounced was more official in nature. As part of the Zhadnov Decree of 1948, Shostakovich (as well as Prokofiev, Khachaturian, and many others) were officially accused of writing inappropriate and formalistic music. This was all part of a government plan to reduce the influence of Western culture on all the arts in the Soviet Union. The eventual goal being a more universally audience friendly (sound familiar?) and Russian-centric direction in concert music as well as the other arts of the time. As a result of the decree, Shostakovich lost his position at the Leningrad Conservatory. Over the next five years he wrote film music to pay the bills, works assigned by the government as rehabilitation, and serious works he called, "for the desk drawer," which were not meant to be performed in that cultural climate. In 1953, Stalin dies. New leadership of the Communist Party and Soviet government took a different approach to the arts and lifted restrictions and prohibitions against composers such as Shostakovich. Shortly after that, Shostakovich begins work on his 10th symphony. Some have claimed that the 10th was actually written earlier, a work, "for the desk drawer," but there is no hard evidence of that. We know that the 10th was a deeply personal work for Shostakovich because of the DSCH (D, E flat, C, B) signature motive found throughout the third and fourth movements. In addition, the personal nature of the work is foreshadowed in the first movement, as Shostakovich quotes his own earlier work, "What Is My Name?", the second of the Four Pushkin Monologues. However, the claims that the work are specifically about Stalin and the brutal nature of his regime come from only one source. That's right. You guessed it. Testimony. Considering the heavy use of the Elmira motive (E La[A] Mi[E] Re[D] A) which represents a former student of Shostakovich whom he had an intimate relationship with while still married to his first wife, one could easily (ignoring Testimony) create an interpretation of the work which represents a much more personal struggle inside Shostakovich revolving around his personal struggles while contemplating the nature of his love triangle. Or one could interpret the composer's intention as begin about his personal struggles dealing with the oppression of his music under Stalin, without speaking to the larger brutality of the age. The point is, we just don't know Shostakovich's original intention of the work. Why would so many conductors choose to embrace the Testimony view of the 5th, the 10th, and so many other works from Shostakovich? Simply, that historical narrative is more interesting and is pro-Western. Endorsing this unconfirmed view of his life and works makes Shostakovich a more sympathetic character in the West, and gives his music a historical gravitas that it lacks without it. A major conductor's job (aside from conducting) is putting butts in the seats. This version of Shostakovich is purported to put more butts in seats. Hence, Dudamel and others use this version as if it is the only version when discussing the work, even though he knows very well that it may not be true at all. Is it a problem that we cannot know Shostakovich's intention? Absolutely not! A composer's intention is in many ways irrelevant! A work of music cannot inherently communicate meaning. This is a false premise. What a composer does is organize sound and time into an intentional experience for the listener. The only way a composer can "communicate" is by including in a piece of music "signifiers." A signifier is a symbol which can represent an abstract or concrete thought, but it has no communicative power aside from the audiences' ability to decode its meaning. Simply stated, if the audience cannot decode a signifier, than the audience cannot infer its meaning. The second movement of Shostakovich's 10th symphony carries a great number of signifiers. It is dark, violent, unrelenting, menacing, ominous, one could say evil. It moves very fast and shifts gears on a dime, implying an unpredictable nature. It does not finish, as there is no proper cadence at the end, which leaves you feeling like the terror you've just experienced is ongoing, never-ending. One can see the appeal of the "portrait of Stalin" that Volkov asserts. However, I could think of any number of stories in which this set of signifiers in the right context would be completely appropriate. If you also know that the snare drum is sometimes used in the symphonic repertoire and specifically Shostakovich's music to represent the military, that could add an additional signifier that you could decode that would add to the meaning of this work to you. But, if you didn't know that, your interpretation of the work would be no less valid. Once the work is written and performed, the composer gives up all rights to its meaning. Each individual audience member is personally responsible for decoding signifiers, and every interpretation of the work has as much validity as it is heartfelt by the person who made it. Should we not enjoy Money when it comes on the radio, because Pink Floyd intended you to listen to Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety? Should we be mad at Carolina Crown for using Beethoven's 9th symphony to represent an ascent from Dante's Christian hell to Dante's Christian heaven, even though many interpret the Schiller poem that Beethoven used for the text of the fourth movement to be about all of humanity coming together as brothers and celebrating the joy of all creeds and faiths being equal? Absolutely not! Because if Dante as a Christian would read that poem, he would decode those signifiers as a Christian and take it as praise for a loving God, even though a secular humanist would decode it completely differently. In my opinion, The Cadets show was amazing and deeply flawed. They should have dropped the counting and abandoned that attempt at a theme. It seemed ridiculous and tagged on way after the fact to me. But, I have no problem with them doing a show which uses Shostakovich 10th symphony without making it about Stalin and the terrors of the Soviet Union, because you could make a very strong case that that isn't what the piece was supposed to be about at all in the first place. But much more importantly, you can make a much stronger case that it doesn't matter what the piece was supposed to be about in the first place. And trying to tell people that the way you decode a work's signifiers is inherently superior to the way that they decode a work's signifiers is fascist. You aren't better than someone because you heard a piece a different way, but you are worse than them when you tell them that they were wrong about it.

It is much less competitive to join the hornline, even in the top echelon of corps, than the percussion.

Without taking anything away from anything more recent, I think you could make a convincing case for Star 91 as one of if not the most difficult horn books ever.

Anybody else see this topic on the front page again and came in here thinking you would find out something interesting or new about the program or staff for Bluecoats for this coming summer? Oh well.

General Effect 30 points GE Music 1 7.5 points (15 when only one judge) GE Music 2 7.5 points GE Visual 1 7.5 points (15 when only one judge) GE Visual 2 7.5 points Music 40 Battery (Field) 10 points (15 when only one judge, on the field like now) Front Ensemble (Track) 5 points Brass (Field) 5 points Brass (Box) 10 points (15 when only one judge [in the box]) Music Ensemble (Box) 10 points Visual 30 Color Guard (Box) 10 points Visual Proficiency (Field) 10 points Visual Analysis (Box) 10 points Rationale: GE - Still using multiple judges at big shows to limit subjectivity. Using the same sheets and job descriptions as we use currently, but worth a smaller percentage of the overall score. This is meant to raise the value of performer achievement over achievement in design. I would also suggest a separate judging category, which is not included into the overall score of the performing group which would solely evaluate the design as a cohesive whole without taking into consideration the performance. This could be done only on finals week to save money. That way we could still award the designers and give them the recognition they deserve for achievements in design, while making that recognition a smaller part of the performers score. Music: Music is worth a larger chunk of the whole than it is currently, as most people seem to agree (in my perception anyway, disagree to your hearts content, I make no claims that I am 100% correct) that the visual has become too important in the scoring to the detriment of the musical design. The battery gets a full time judge, who will now have the wonderful responsibility of keeping track of all the times they don't play anything and keep that in mind when evaluating the difficulty of the book. The pit gets the dedicated judge that they have needed for over a decade due to the gradual change in its use. The brass gets the traditional guy on the field with smaller weight because they can only hear who they are in front of and the score should not be based on whether the judge knows where to stand. The brass also gets someone in the box who can evaluate timing, blend, etc. in an effective manor without having to worry about the percussion writing. The ensemble judge is basically the same as current. Visual: The big change here is that the visual proficiency judge on the field should not evaluate the color guard. Someone has to be dedicated to watching the hornline and battery for uniformity of technique, but the added responsibility of watching the color guard makes this judge's job as difficult as the current percussion judge. Color Guard and Visual Analysis are the same as now. These numbers make the visual worth less overall when compared to music, and limits slightly the effect color guards have on the overall score (which was one of the goals of this). Now you go.

I take it by (the original), you are referring to the classic recording by The Animals from 1964. However, you may be interested to know (or maybe not) that their version is not an original at all. "The House of the Rising Sun" is a traditional folk ballad and its origins are unknown, though it is certainly from at least the early or mid 1800's. In fact, Bob Dylan recorded it in 1961! It has been arranged and performed certainly thousands of times by different people, most likely with drastically different harmonic, rhythmic and/or metric, and even melodic treatments. At the end of the day, all that really means (aside from being of slight interest to you music historians out there) is that it's public domain. So when you do your arrangement of the song, you won't have to pay anybody! And I think that's awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_the_Rising_Sun

STU AND GUARDLING: I almost never sign in to DCP (spend most of my time just reading the forums and not contributing). That being said, I feel so strongly about this that I just signed in for what must be the first time in months to say this... SHUT UP! Handle this stuff in PM's. If you could possible think that everyone else here wants to read your hissy fit screaming match, you are quite possibly the two most narcissistic people I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with. Thanks,

I believe the Bluecoats show is actually called: "...to look for America" not: "...To Look for America" A tiny thing, I know, but it's bothering me for some reason.

I don't think I would be too crazy if I said that the Bluecoats corps song sums up a summer of drum corps better than any other song... ever! The falling leaves drift by the window The autumn leaves of red and gold I see your lips, the summer kisses The sun-burned hands I used to hold Since you went away the days grow long And soon I'll hear old winter's song But I miss you most of all my darling When autumn leaves start to fall

Michigan City wasn't a full panel.

I think it would be a mistake to think that anyone anywhere has ever cared about this stupid board. I'm not saying this judge is corrupt, I’m just saying that if he was he wouldn’t care one bit about anyone calling him out on it on here.

I truly mean no disrespect to this poster, but I believe it is important to be accurate with these kinds of things. from Wikipedia: Nearly 3,000 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the [9/11] attacks. Among the 2,753 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center were 343 firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City and the Port Authority, and 8 private emergency medical technicians and paramedics. Another 184 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon. I mean no disrespect to the dead or the living; obviously these events were truly tragic regardless of the exact number of casualties. Nevertheless, in this age of rampant misinformation we all must hold ourselves to a higher standard of honesty and truthfulness in all modes of communication.

Cadets - Toy soldiers come to life. Thats it. Pretty obvious to any fifth grader in the audience that tried to get it. If you're confused, it is because you are trying to make it more than that. Cavies - Post traumatic stress disorder, definetly. I was saying that to myself in the stands the first time I saw them, less than one minute into the show. I thought that this was painfully obvious. The world is falling apart around us, and they made a show about how if you don't see that, you are insane, and if you do see it, you should be going insane. Bluecoats - giant city of the future, never sleeps, never slows down, never stops being ominous and unknowable. I think that is what they were going for, but I think the music could have been darker at times to fully achieve a level of menace that would make it pop. But then again, you don't need the story to enjoy the product they have on the field at all. I haven't seen Crown, so I will not comment. All that being said, can't a show be BOTH entertaining upon first viewing... and have a narrative that might not be easily detected in one viewing??? I'm confused by the absolutisms in this discourse. Why can't a show have a narrative, theme, character, setting, or any other unifying concept for that matter and still be entertaining upon one viewing?? I'll go even further. Why can't a show have a unifying concept that is completely impossible to understand upon only one viewing still be entertaining on only one viewing??? I'm not saying that all shows with narratives are entertaining on one viewing to everyone, but certainly some CAN be, and ALL of the three mentioned shows in this thread that I've seen most definetly were entertaining. Alright, rant over. oh, and I WAS yelling when there were all caps, just to be clear.

It is not a joke. Check the website. When I marched, we always had about a dozen people from southern california without any recruitment/audition camp there, and about 25 people from texas before we started the texas camps. Numbers from texas went way up with the camp, so it seems like a good idea in california too. This seems like a very realistic and practical thing for Coats to do. Also, I think one year we had less than ten people who were actually from ohio marching. I don't know about any other corps, except what I read on here, but Coats has really become a national corps. I think people today join a corps because of identity and repertoire more than geography.

I don't hate people, or organizations. But I have most certainly hated programs vehemently. Thus there is a semantic problem, as 'the 2008 Cadets' means both the members (whom I didn't hate) and the program (which, if it were a living thing, I would have killed it). So I can very truthfully say that I did in fact hate the 2008 Cadets, without being negative about the hard working members. I don't think that anyone is out there hating every member of a corps. In fact, it seems pretty stupid to assume that is what people mean when they say they hate a corps. When I say that I hate the Cadets, I don't mean the members or staff, I mean every program since 98 except 00 and 09. And there is nothing wrong with that. We are entitled to our opinions, whether they are positive or negative. And yes, this is the place to say these things. So everybody calm down about getting the thread closed, and spend time answering the post. Better yet, go read a book.