Show Meanings

[xandandl]

Show meanings and composer's meanings of pieces are not specifically on the DCI sheet and may be duly disregarded by judges and corps if the corps presents something unique and excellent by corps re-working and performance.

Pouting, panting, and throwing philosophical tantrums by ideologues does not change the corps' mission, the judges' mission, or the scoring process.

If you think the sheets are wrong, change them.

Otherwise it's all verbiage to make one look knowledgeable and important. And we all realize that such self-pride stinks.

[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.

[sadtrombonesound]

Looking at 2014, and also purely from an audience perspective, Tilt, while having a theme, didn't really hinge (no pun intended) on it too heavily and focused more on the music and performance. Felliniesque, however, focused much more on the theme and telling a story. That being said, both shows wowed crowds and ended up scoring 1st and 2nd. Looking at this, I think it's hard to say that either heavy theme and storytelling is better or less theme and more focus on music is better. It's all about how each individual corps approaches their design. Whether a show is story/theme heavy or not usually does not in itself indicate placement, score, or crowd appeal.

[snare_guy_83]

Looking at 2014, and also purely from an audience perspective, Tilt, while having a theme, didn't really hinge (no pun intended) on it too heavily and focused more on the music and performance. Felliniesque, however, focused much more on the theme and telling a story. That being said, both shows wowed crowds and ended up scoring 1st and 2nd. Looking at this, I think it's hard to say that either heavy theme and storytelling is better or less theme and more focus on music is better. It's all about how each individual corps approaches their design. Whether a show is story/theme heavy or not usually does not in itself indicate placement, score, or crowd appeal.

BD 2014: Storytelling -- Won

BD 2015: Storytelling -- Won

Crown 2015: Storytelling -- 2nd but won prelims and semis

I believe the focal point of a character(s) is currently leading the way. Not that other themes are working/effective, just that the "storyline" is winning out in the end. 2016 could be completely different though.

[Channel3]

Show meanings and composer's meanings of pieces are not specifically on the DCI sheet and may be duly disregarded by judges and corps if the corps presents something unique and excellent by corps re-working and performance.

Depth of concept. It's right on the score sheet. Why are you so angry about this?

[Channel3]

Looking at 2014, and also purely from an audience perspective, Tilt, while having a theme, didn't really hinge (no pun intended) on it too heavily and focused more on the music and performance. Felliniesque, however, focused much more on the theme and telling a story. That being said, both shows wowed crowds and ended up scoring 1st and 2nd. Looking at this, I think it's hard to say that either heavy theme and storytelling is better or less theme and more focus on music is better. It's all about how each individual corps approaches their design. Whether a show is story/theme heavy or not usually does not in itself indicate placement, score, or crowd appeal.

Depth of concept. It's on the score sheet and is the final determinant of the winning corps among closely scoring corps at finals.

[Channel3]

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.

Every bit of research on Shostakovich's 10th's Symphony says it was about Stalin. Every single bit. Dudamel himself said it. And Dudamel was the inspiration behind selecting the piece. It's the most common interpretation. If you're going to mount a "Not Stalin" interpretation, it's still going to be about why it's not about Stalin. It's the big pink elephant in the room. These are basic principles of theatrical production. Basic artistic direction here. No concert symphony dare attempt the piece with any other context, except for, well, you know. So, I'm sorry, you're incorrect. The most rudimentary research proves it, and makes me wonder why you're fighting it with unfounded statements like "you can make a strong case." Shostakovich was interviewed. He said it was. Most agree. Any experienced producer knows you'll never get the stink off. Stay away from it. Period.

Don't play the "interpretation is up for grabs" card because it makes you sound like you're in a shame spiral. In your remarks, you mention Stalin at least 17 times. Any theatrical artistic director or production executive will tell you, everybody thinks it's about Stalin. The more you type the word Stalin, the more the piece becomes about him. When you're on your seventeenth paragraph about Stalin, the piece becomes about Stalin. Some pieces have one indelible interpretation and an ineluctable historical context, and this was one. Other pieces may have more interpretive leeway, but not this one. Also, drum corps is now an art form that is becoming theatrical. Themes are more important now. Historical context. Literary allusions. Cultural allusions. Common perceptions about the piece. The philosophy of the composer. It's okay if you're struggling against the idea that interpretations must have contextual integrity, but eventually you'll have to embrace it. Visual art forms must embrace the original context of the music in some way in order for the production to have integrity and depth of concept. It's got to match the composer's intent, or the consensus of that intent, otherwise it's incongruent, becomes nonsensical, and except for bald parody, simply can't win the depth of concept category.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Channel3

[Channel3]

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.

Is Shostakovich's own interview about it referring directly to Stalin a "signifier?" Hard to misinterpret that one. What's next, the Holocaust Symphony with the theme of "HS" for "high school?" Reckless, historically revisionist and simply pants-down, permanent marker on your buttocks, oh my god what did I drink last night embarrassing.

[HockeyDad]

Is Shostakovich's own interview about it referring directly to Stalin a "signifier?" Hard to misinterpret that one. What's next, the Holocaust Symphony with the theme of "HS" for "high school?" Reckless, historically revisionist and simply pants-down, permanent marker on your buttocks, oh my god what did I drink last night embarrassing.

Maybe it's about playing good music. Looking for deeper meaning can be found in church, not on a football field. Why does the Israel Philharmonic play Wagner, that raging anti-Semite? Because he wrote some fricken good music. Trying to mandate that a drum corps show must have meaning alternatively makes me want to giggle at the silliness of it and throw up in my mouth at the pretentiousness. It seems to be a desperate argument from those who know their faves couldn't win a contest adjudicated at musical presentation and excellence alone. No, we must introduce an adorable girl to pop out of a book prop to bring it all together at the end. That shows much more talent than simple pedestrian drumming and brass playing.

[xandandl]

Depth of concept. It's right on the score sheet. Why are you so angry about this?

Angry?

Stop playing junior shrink. You are not good at it.

Depth of concept is on the sheet. The judge may disregard original meaning of piece if the corps presents another concept with it. Having been part of a committee which formed the sheets, I know that literalism is not one of the tools used by the DCI judging community who well appreciates nuances.

Edited October 25, 2015 by xandandl