Concert Review
A review of Lazarev's Glasgow Concert

Pauline Fairclough
Guardian, Tuesday October 31, 2000

Home Back to contents

If there were works that caused Shostakovich embarrassment in his mature years, his Second and Third symphonies must rank fairly high among them. He tried to talk both his son Maxim and Rostropovich out of conducting or recording them, and while they chose to ignore his pleas, thankfully, plenty of conductors have heeded them.

The two symphonies remain Shostakovich's changeling works - gigantic political gaffes in an otherwise impressive symphonic legacy, largely ignored in both the concert hall and the recording studio.
So why, then, was the opening concert - comprising the first three symphonies - in the Royal Scottish National Orchestra's Shostakovich series rewarded with such an enthusiastic response? This is, in fact, easier to understand than the embarrassment they caused their composer.

The agitprop texts which conclude both the Second and Third symphonies raise hardly more than a smile today, although, ironically, Shostakovich himself apparently found them hilarious. The subtitles To October and The First of May belie the enormous complexity and innovation of both works - they are not merely rabble-rousing pieces.

These apparently political symphonies essentially perform the same delicate balancing-act as many of Shostakovich's most popular works: striving for creative freedom within political constraints. Hearing them now is exhilarating, particularly when, as with the RSNO, they are played with a sense of danger and excitement. Their theatrical impact is undeniable: they go out with a bang, not, as the Fourth symphony does, with a whimper.

Lazarev and the RNSO were on less vigorous form in the First symphony, which was decidedly patchy; there was some first-rate solo playing - particularly from the principal oboe and cello - but also a number of rough edges.

The Second and Third symphonies proved better suited to the mood of the evening. Lazarev's dynamism and sense of theatre prevailed to magnificent effect. The fine RSNO chorus coped well with the unfamiliar Russian texts

Over-exposure to a handful of works has slanted our view of Shostakovich. It may be that more frequent performances of works he didn't want us to hear might serve him better than he could have imagined. A chance to hear Shostakovich as experimental modernist once in a while makes a refreshing change. It also reminds us that for sheer imaginative vitality he is hard to beat.

Home Back to contents Top