TheGaggle
Politics • Culture • News
Our community is made up of those who value the freedom of speech, the right to debate and the promise of open, honest conversations.

We don't agree on everything but we never silence our followers and value every opinion on our channel.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
The Gaggle Music Club: Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 7 in C major

This week's selection for The Gaggle Music Club is Dmitri Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 7 in C major, Op. 60, commonly known as the “Leningrad” Symphony—one of the most historically and politically significant works of the 20th century.

Shostakovich began work on the symphony before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. Initial sketches appear to predate the launch of Operation Barbarossa. However, once the siege of Leningrad began in September 1941, the symphony quickly became identified with the suffering and resistance of that city. Shostakovich, himself a resident of Leningrad, remained in the city during the early days of the siege and famously worked on the score while serving as a fire warden. The work was completed after he was evacuated to Kuibyshev.

The composition is in four movements: The first, Allegretto, begins with a calm, pastoral theme, often interpreted as evoking pre-war life. This is followed by the “invasion theme,” a 22-bar melody repeated and orchestrated in an increasingly militaristic and grotesque manner (12 repetitions).

The second movement, Moderato, is a melancholic scherzo. The mood is haunted, introspective, and evokes the emotional exhaustion of war and suffering.

The third movement, Adagio, is considered to be the emotional core of the symphony. It is lyrical, solemn, and features a sorrowful string theme.

The fourth movement, Allegro non troppo, opens turbulently and gradually builds to a broad, triumphal coda.

The Seventh Symphony stands at a pivotal moment in Shostakovich’s life and career: It is a bridge between his pre-war and post-war symphonic output. Compared to the ironic and avant-garde idiom of his Fourth Symphony or the intimacy of the Fifth and Sixth symphonies, the Seventh is vast and public. It marks the beginning of his “patriotic” symphonies. The work however contains coded criticism and ambiguity, typical of his mature style.

The symphony premiered on March 5, 1942 in Kuibyshev, and was conducted by Samuil Samosud. On Aug. 9, 1942, it was performed in besieged Leningrad by the surviving musicians of the Leningrad Radio Orchestra, under Karl Eliasberg. Loudspeakers broadcast it across the city. The work became a symbol of Soviet resilience, and Stalin approved its heroic tone.

The symphony premiered in the United States in July 1942 under Arturo Toscanini. At the time it was seen as a rallying cry for the Allied cause. Critics such as Virgil Thomson and Theodor Adorno ridiculed the symphony. Thomson called it “vulgar movie music,” resembling the background scores of Hollywood war films. Writing for the New York Herald Tribune during and after World War II, Thomson claimed the work was not high art but sentimental bombast, music that relied on emotional manipulation rather than formal or intellectual depth.

Adorno criticized the Seventh for its banality, repetition and apparent accessibility. He viewed its structure—especially the long, escalating "invasion" theme—as mechanical and manipulative, designed to provoke emotional response rather than intellectual engagement. He saw it as a product of totalitarian culture, equating its mass appeal and nationalistic fervor with both Soviet and fascist propaganda art. According to Adorno, the Seventh pretended to resist fascism, but actually mirrored the authoritarian logic of the system it opposed.

Pierre Boulez and the post-war avant-garde rejected Shostakovich entirely, focused as they were on innovation over populist narrative. Boulez dismissed Shostakovich's compositions as derivative. In a 1999 interview with he Independent, Boulez stated:

"I have to tell you that I have very mixed feelings about this music. It is often said that Shostakovich is the 'more recent' equivalent of Mahler; but I would say that to compare Shostakovich with Mahler is like comparing Meyerbeer with Wagner. The musical substance of his work is trivial. Okay, I can accept that he worked under great pressure, that he was afraid and that he rebelled discreetly. But, for me, that's not enough of an excuse."

Boulez also likened Shostakovich's music to overused clichés, remarking: "Shostakovich plays with clichés most of the time, I find. It's like olive oil, when you have a second and even third pressing, and I think of Shostakovich as the second, or even third, pressing of Mahler."

Within the Soviet Union, during the post-Stalin era, musicologists questioned its formal construction, the repetitive structure of the invasion theme and the symphony's overblown character. By the time the Brezhnev era came around, the Seventh was increasingly viewed as dated and ideologically compromised. It was performed less frequently and sometimes dismissed as propagandistic bombast.

In today's Russia, critics and intellectuals often describe the work as artistically inferior to Shostakovich’s later symphonies such as the Eighth and Tenth. The also claim it to be a transitional work that marks his compromise with Soviet diktats. To be sure, others emphasize its emotional power and historical weight, treating it as a profound statement of artistic resistance and suffering.

However, any fair listening to Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 should lead one to the conclusion that it is a magisterial composition, whether it conforms to modern tonal requirements or not.

In this performance from 2019, the Frankfurt Radio Symphony is conducted by Klaus Mäkelä.

01:23:37
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Live Chat
Monday Night At The Movies: "Capturing the Friedmans" (2003)

Join Gagglers for "Capturing the Friedmans"!
The screening starts at 3 p.m. ET sharp.
Share all of your thoughts, comments and criticisms on the Live Chat.

See you at 3 p.m. ET

01:48:09
November 08, 2026
TG 2208: EU Melts Down Over Meeting In Abu Dhabi

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss the European Union's hysterical reaction to the talk of a possible peace agreement being reached during the upcoming talks in Abu Dhabi.

01:06:36
November 08, 2026
TG 2207: Russell Brand's Conviction--A Judicial Farce

George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle discuss the conviction of comedian and performer Russell Brand, and conclude that the entire court proceeding cannot be seen as anything other than a travesty of justice.

00:41:11
Monday Night At The Movies

Please choose which one of the following 8 movies you would like to have screened next Monday, Nov. 16.

The theme of the poll is films that address the oppressive British state through the ages.

Please continue to vote in this poll after Nov. 16, so that we can determine the runner-up. The runner-up will be screened on Nov. 23.

WATCH | Russia, US, and Ukraine Face Off in Historic UAE Summit | NDTV World

NDTV World

149K subscribers

Subscribe

Nov 10, 2026

High-stakes trilateral peace talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. have officially begun in Abu Dhabi. Is a historic end to the conflict finally within reach? The Summit: U.S. Presidential Envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff join UAE-hosted trilateral talks with Russian delegation leader Vladimir Medinsky and Ukrainian intelligence chief Rustem Umerov. U.S. Position: American mediators report significant progress in narrowing key diplomatic gaps, aiming for a framework that offers security guarantees for Ukraine while addressing broader European security. Territorial Sticking Points: Russia maintains its demand for full control of the Donbas region, while Kyiv rejects unilateral land concessions without concrete security assurances and leader-level talks. European Dynamics: European and NATO officials engaged in ...

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський
@ZelenskyyUa
·
48 m
Ceding Ukrainian land for peace is just abstract words. It’s not only about reality, even more about philosophy. Putin was talking about Donbas, but then he decided to occupy Kyiv, our capital. His words were about Donbas, but the reality was about Kyiv. He kept saying he was defending Russian-speaking people and then tortured hundreds and thousands to death in Bucha and other places. So that wasn’t about Russian-speaking people.

This is why when Americans asked, “Can you exchange Donbas for security?” I said right there, “Can you tell me what it means? What security? NATO?”

“Not NATO, but similar to NATO.”

“Similar? But you don't want the answer about Donbas to be ‘similar.’ You want a clear answer about Donbas. This is your goal. And this is Putin’s goal, for today. What will you do if we have security guarantees but not NATO?”

They took our nuclear weapons. I'm not a fan...

January 21, 2023
More Leftie Than Thou
"Jacobin" Magazine Celebrates A Strike Against Ol' Blue Eyes

Here at "The Gaggle" we have very little time for the "more Leftie than thou" school of thought--that's the approach to life according to which the only thing that matters is whether you take the right position on every issue under the sun from Abortion to Zelensky. No one in the world meets the exacting standards of this school of thought; any Leftie leader anywhere is always selling out to the bankers and the capitalists. The perfect exemplar of this is the unreadable Jacobin magazine. 

The other day I came across this article from 2021. It's a celebration of trade union power. And not simply trade union power, but the use of trade union power to secure political goals. Of course (and this is always the case with the "more Leftie than thou" crowd), this glorious, never-to-be-forgotten moment on the history of organized labor took place many years ago--in the summer of 1974 to be exact. Yes, almost half a century has gone by since that thrilling moment when the working-class movement of Australia mobilized and prepared to seize the means of production, distribution and exchange. 

Well, not quite. Organized labor went into action against...Ol' Blue Eyes, the Chairman of the Board, the Voice; yes, Frank Sinatra. Why? What had Sinatra done? Sinatra was certainly very rich, and he owned a variety of properties and businesses. But if the Australian trade union movement were, understandably, searching for the bright, incandescent spark that would finally awaken the working class from its slumber there were surely richer, greedier, more dishonest, more decadent, above all more Australian individuals it could have discovered. Australia was never short of them. Rupert Murdoch immediately springs to mind. Why Sinatra?

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals