Elizabeth Wilson (1)

A biography in a book-documentary style where Shostakovich's contemporaries contribute their personal recounts of the man himself along with some Soviet history and contextual colourings and fact checking from Wilson. This style of the book reminds me of the painting Charles I in Three Positions by van Dyck; Despite rarely appearing in the book through his own eyes and mostly through the perspective of others from many different angles, we receive the full effect of Shostakovich's contrasting public and private personas - the mythologising and humanising - , while the style also raises interesting points about the importance/accuracy of oral history. If there is ever to be a "proper" biography of Shostakovich, this book surely will be an indispensable source, similar to the diaries - but perhaps more accurate due to the different perspectives - of famous artists.

Aside: Not being a music aficionado, I wish there were an accompanying soundtrack to the book. My solution was a Shostakovich playlist on Youtube.

Aside II: I really like painting on the book cover: Portrait of Dmitri Shostakovich by Alisa Poret.… (lisätietoja)

Elizabeth Wilson talks in her forward about why she chose to write this book since there already exists biographies about Jacqueline Du Pre. Her answer was that none of the books so far had focused on Du Pre's music. So with encouragement from Du Pre's husband, Daniel Barenboim, Wilson, a cellist herself, wrote this book.

I am a great admirer of Jacqueline Du Pre. I also love classical music. I have played several instruments in my life and I am well versed in music theory. This book should have been a good fit for me but I found there was so much information about the music it became a bit tedious. Everything Du Pre played was written about. What she played. How she played. With whom she played. What the reactions were by fans and critics.

I found myself skipping large sections just wanting to get on to information about her life. Perhaps Wilson realized that there was a degree of tedium in the book as there were three chapters which ended alluding to the coming meeting with her future husband, Daniel Barenboim.

I would recommend this book to serious students of music, otherwise you might look to other books about Du Pre such as Hilary and Jackie by Hilary and Piers Du Pre.… (lisätietoja)

Elizabeth Wilson's biography of Shostakovich is a brilliant and convincing portrait of the Soviet-era composer. Based on letters, diaries, and interviews with and of his contemporaries, Wilson weaves together a sort of 'external/internal' picture of Shostakovich that is credible because it stems from the people who knew him and, to whatever extent, understood him.

In an article for the New Yorker, Louis Menand suggested that "the premise of biographies is that the private can account for the public". In a sense, Wilson takes this assumption and turns it around, repositioning the public in the forefront -she allows Shostakovich's public persona, and the reception of that persona, to lead the narrative. This is effective because it situates us, the reader, within the historical moment(s) of the USSR, of developing 20th century music. By showing us the composer's miluex, Wilson strings together something perhaps more credible and ultimately more interesting than a potted history intersected with diary entries and personal thoughts. To be sure, Shostakovich's voice does enter the text here and there -the odd diary entry, etc-, but it is mainly through reports of his own conversation that his speech and mannerisms are portrayed.

I think an interesting point, perhaps only to the oral historian, is to the extent which Wilson has edited and/or modified these entries. Some were taken from long, personal interviews with Shostakovich's contemporaries. I also wonder how it is that Shostakovich's speech, when repeated in sections of interview (etc), reported by his contemporaries, seems largely consistent. Perhaps it portrays these individual's good memory?

I can think of two weaknesses with the text. Firstly, there is an unevenness in Wilson's study of his works. Often, she will describe in rich, musicological terms the nature and effect of his symphonies and other compositions. At the same time, certain works don't recieve this detailed treatment. These descriptions, while very detailed, are more than a little incomprehensible to the non musical expert. I picked up this biography because I have a fascination with Shostakovich's music -I have for many years listened to his quartets, his symphonies. My main interest is in Russian literature and culture in the Soviet 20s and 30s. I just didn't know much about the politics and atmosphere of that era's music (except a little of its film scores and jazz). As such, then, these sections in the text are a little bewildering, assuming knowledge that I don't have and would struggle to acquire. The only other missing link is, I think, the absense of a complete musical bibliography in the back end of the text for Shostakovich. A dated list of all of his completed and incomplete works would have been very useful indeed, as well as recommendations about various quartets (Borodin, Beethoven, etc) who have variously played his music.

Perhaps the best thing that I have taken from this work is a deeper understanding of musical interpretation, of the subtle ways in which different players and conductors and singers 'interpret' the music of a composer. It has also spurred me to sit down and listen to different versions (or, that is, interpretations) of the same piece, such as the piano concertos.

Ultimately, this is a sage, literary, and engaging work that, despite its massive length, I have read through very quickly (for some reason, it has made excellent train reading).… (lisätietoja)