Shostakovich
Wu 1
Political Repression, Cultural Autonomy and Artistic Excellence: The Case of Shostakovich
As an important type of suppression of dissent, political repression on arts refers to actions taken by the government to censor certain forms or subjects of artistic expression because of inconformity to the regime’s legitimacy or official ideology (Mulcahy, 1984). Often seen in totalitarian societies such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and China in modern ages (Rothstein,
1981), this kind of repression is regarded as a characteristic of nondemocratic society (Mulcahy,
1984) and is broadly criticized for hindering artistic development and freedom of expression
(Martin, 2012). Hence it seems natural to tend to be over-pessimistic about artistic achievement …show more content…
under dictatorship.
However, the life of Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich during the Soviet Period shows us a different situation. Shostakovich lived through a special and turbulent historical period of Russia. He was born in a revolutionary family, experienced the Second World War and the Civil War, built most of his career under threats of political purges and intensive cultural control during Stalin’s governance, but still maintained his life and extended his musical creation to the period when the huge totalitarian regime of Soviet Union began to collapse after Stalin’s death (Bryner, 2004; Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004). Over his career, he enjoyed recognition and awards but also went through two denunciations from the state (Mulcahy, 1984). Nevertheless he is still regarded as one of the most important composers of the twentieth century, not only within
Russia, but also in the international music community (Bryner, 2004; Kay, 1971; White, 2008).
The strong connection between political circumstances and his musical career, the unusual fluctuation of his relationship with the government, and the artistic excellence he still managed to achieve all make his case interesting and suitable for investigation on the interaction between political repression and artistic creation.
Wu 2
Therefore, this research paper will focus on the artistic development under totalitarian governments as well as on the influence of modern cultural regulation through study on the case of Shostakovich. As the first denunciation in 1936 can be thought as the most vital and fateful one in Shostakovich’s life (White, 2008), in which case the whole process and many characteristics of political repression under totalitarian regime and dictatorship can be observed, the paper will primarily focus on the repression actions imposed on Shostakovich by the Soviet government and his reactions in the first denunciation, as well as the impact caused on his composition, taking Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op. 47 for example. At the end the paper will highlight several issues observed in the first denunciation and question the possibility of artistic excellence under cultural repression by connecting the characteristics of political repression and the nature of musical creation.
Backgrounds before the first denunciation
When the young composer initially began his musical creation at the beginning of 1920s, the cultural situation of Soviet Union was at one of several free and open periods of its whole history. Lenin’s New Economy Policy was being conducted, allowing a certain degree of expression freedom (White, 2008). The government also announced an open cultural policy particularly for artists’ creation (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). In addition, the avant-garde influence from the West and the growing experimental artistic atmosphere in Russia were thought to accord with revolutionary spirit, which accompanied the establishment of the country and was still tolerated by the government during this period (Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004). As a result, contemporary music thrived in Russia before Stalin came into power. Closely guided by
Alexander Mosolov, a significant futurist composer, during Shostakovich’s study at Petrograd
Wu 3
Conservatory, the young composer was influenced by such trend of modernism in the scene of
Russian music and imitated Igor Stravinsky during his early career (Fay, 2000).
However, tendencies of political repression can be already observed at this period. A plan to promote music with correct ideology was suggested under Lenin’s idea of cultural pragmatism
(Ferenc, 2004; Volkov, 2004) that arts should serve the purpose of political propaganda. This opinion of culture would be adopted later by Stalin over his decades of governance and also applied to deal with Shostakovich. Moreover, the concept of ‘formalism’ had aroused versus
‘utilitarian’ at this time as well (Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004), although they were still equally debated and there hadn’t been an official attitude towards the discussion. Therefore, we can see that the main ideological tools for cultural control had been developed before it was actually made use of several years later.
Shostakovich himself had also felt the pressure from politics even before the first denunciation. One representative of Russian avant-garde artists, Vladimir Mayakovsky, who had succeed obtaining tolerance even acknowledgement from the government by showing political loyalty, committed suicide at 1930, which shocked the entire intelligentsia of the Soviet Union as a warning, including Shostakovich (Volkov, 2004). Since his father died at 1922, the
Shostakovich’s financial situation had been poor. The only economic source of Shostakovich is commission from the Party (Volkov, 2004), which exposed him to the danger of political suppression. In fact, several of his pieces at this time did show some characteristic of conformity.
For example, his Symphony No.2 in B major (“To October”), which is required by the head of the Propaganda Department of the State Music Publishing House to celebrate the 10th anniversary of October Revolution, is thought to integrate Party-proved contents in contemporary form (Volkov, 2004).
Wu 4
The atmosphere was getting increasingly tenser politically and culturally since the 1930s.
To establish and consolidate his dictatorship, Stalin launched the First Purge in 1934, in which the intelligentsia is a primary target (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998; White, 2008). Along came a scheme of tightened control over artistic creation and expression with the infamous Resolution of
1932, in which “social realism” was confirmed to be the official style of arts and direct intervention in creative works was affirmed (Ferenc, 2004; Mulcahy, 1984; Schwarz, 1972).
Moreover, the formation of Composer’s Union of USSR (which would play an important role in
Shostakovich’s first denunciation as a follower of the Communist Party in musician community) in 1932 further constrained freedom of expression and ensured musical creation under the state’s watch (White, 2008).
Repression, critics and reaction
One of the most significant and fateful pieces of Shostakovich, Lady Macbeth of the
Mtsensk District, was premiered under this situation in Leningrad in January 1934 and, unexpectedly, received mass approval from both musical critic and public audience with its creative musical style in terms of the untraditional form and orchestration (Dudeck-Wiseman,
1998; Mulcahy, 1984; “Shostakovich & the Guns,” 1942; Volkov, 2004). However, the success of this opera was abruptly stopped more than two years later by an editorial called “Muddle
Instead of Music” on the official Communist Party newspaper Pravda, which triggered the first denunciation on Shostakovich. Suspected to be drafted by Stalin himself after he attended one performance of the opera (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998; Shostakovich, 1984; “Shostakovich & the
Guns,” 1942; Volkov, 2004), this editorial fiercely criticized Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk
District in terms of both its musical characteristics (dissonant harmony, incomprehensible texture and erotic plotline) and its theoretical features (formalism and naturalism) (“Muddle instead of
Wu 5 music,” 1936; Volkov, 2004). It also questioned the composer’s borrowing from American tradition in terms of Jazz elements in this opera (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998).
Following the voice of the Party, more critics aroused immediately towards Shostakovich and the opera. Articles were published on public media as well as musical reviews attacking
Shostakovich for being a formalist (Volkov, 2004). The Composer’s Union even held a conference lasting for three days on this issue (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). More substantial actions are taken simultaneously, too. Shostakovich’s works disappear from the stage. His family and supporters are arrested, exiled, tortured and even executed (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998;
Volkov, 2004; White, 2008).
Shostakovich’s reaction is mixed. On the one hand, he went through the deepest fear of the danger of his life, which can be reflected by his immediate conforming behaviors. He publicly agreed that Pravda “knew more about music than he did” (“Shostakovich & the Guns,”
1942); His fourth symphony was withdrawn and the plan for a symphony to resume his music career is announced (which is the controversial 5th symphony). In his conversations with
Solomon Volkov, he also talked about his grievance under threat and force and even consideration of suicide (Shostakovich, 1984). On the other hand, he did express his opposition and displease in a subtle and less noticed way (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). When Stalin wanted to know whether he agreed with the critic of Pravda, he replied that he had no opposition to most of it but could not understand the rest (Volkov, 2004). He called his finished 4th symphony a
“creative reply to unjust criticism” (Shostakovich, 1984), which makes his title of the later 5th symphony “An artist 's creative response to just criticism” more like ironic. For Shostakovich, what matters the most seems to be the criticism for him being a formalist, which he had denied even before the denunciation (Volkov, 2004). He also never admitted it till the end of his life
Wu 6
(Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). Interestingly, the composer community’s reactions are split, too.
Although the criticism of the government is rejected and mocked among the intelligentsia including Gorky (which surprised Stalin) (Volkov, 2004; White, 2008), Shostakovich was quickly abandoned by some groups of artists, including his teacher Maximilian Steinberg
(Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998).
Features, causes and effects
This case is not unique in terms of political repression over the Soviet period, especially during the two purges launched by Stalin (Schwarz, 1972). Actually another denunciation did happen on Shostakovich during the second purge (Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004). But it is rather unusual and puzzling for several reasons. First, the Party had not directly interfered in this work until it had been highly praised for more than two years. In fact, a positive review of this opera had been published on one of official newspapers before the critic on Pravda (Volkov, 2004).
Second, the same degree of criticism had not been seen when Shostakovich’s first opera The
Nose was performed, which also possessed musical characteristics against the standard in the
Pravda editorial like atonality as Lady Macbeth did. Although The Nose was attacked by the
Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians and banned soon after its premiere (DudeckWiseman, 1998; White, 2008; Wilson, 1994), the criticism on it was never imposed by a center
Party organ and was never linked so closely to political and ideological meaning as we saw in the Lady Macbeth case. And finally, the severity of this denunciation was not in accord with the importance and influence of this piece of work. The storyline of the opera was adopted from a famous Russian novel (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998), which did not carry much political meaning.
Shostakovich himself had not been a very significant figure in international composer
Wu 7 community at that time, who did not have foreign connection either (Volkov, 2004). There seems to be no reason for such an intense attack from such a high level of the authority.
These unusual aspects should be taken into consideration when discussing causes of this denunciation, along with the social background which has been introduced before. We can see there are both planned and accidental elements in the denunciation’s occurrence. The cultural control scheme based on the idea of “social realism” was just proposed at that moment. Stalin probably needed an example to illustrate to the whole cultural community (Dudeck-Wiseman,
1998; Volkov, 2004). Shostakovich could be a good target: he was still young and fresh among artists, which means there would not be high pressure on the Party caused by the denunciation from the Russian intelligentsia as there would have be if Stalin had targeted Gorky, although he had been already at a relatively influential position (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). His last controversial opera The Nose had provoked discussions among people (White, 2008), which might also draw the Party’s attention. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Stalin planned to attend the particular performance on the particular day out of his propaganda needs, given that the critic on Pravda came right after Stalin’s attendance.
Unfortunately, the story presented by Shostakovich heavily included sex and eroticism, which irritated Stalin personally. In addition, the regime portrayed in the opera could be easily associated with the Soviet Union (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998) and the individualism the work reflected conflicted the agricultural collectivization which Stalin was pursuing. The musical style deviated significantly from Stalin’s taste too, who preferred works of romanticism (DudeckWiseman, 1998). All of these discorded features probably worsened the severity of the denunciation afterwards substantially. In conclusion, the propaganda needs of the Party and the
Wu 8 inconformity between the work and Stalin’s personal preferences both leaded to the denouncement, in which the political reasons should be decisive.
However, the consequence on Shostakovich himself may be the most unusual in this case. Although he and his friends all expected death threats from the government, the Party did not directly impose any physical torture on him. Instead, he was allowed to continue his work in film music, in which his composition for Great Citizen was even recognized by Stalin (Volkov,
2004). And he was still sent as the representative of the Soviet Union to international music conferences by the government (Bryner, 2004). Similarly, the reason for sparing him can be also explained by combination of the Party’s propaganda needs and Stalin’s personal matters. Stalin needed him to serve the purpose of ideological education (Volkov, 2004) through cinema. And he had to concern about international resonance while he was building the national identity of the
Soviet Union. The looseness is also because Stalin had achieved his goals of cultural control by this denunciation: set the standard of official style “social realism”, denied formalism completely and gave the entire musical community a serious warning (Ferenc, 2004; Mulcahy, 1984;
Volkov, 2004).
Symphony No.5 and its controversial meaning
Although Shostakovich’s life was preserved, his musical creation seems to be hindered.
Over the next year, he only finished a very small amount of composition (Kay, 1971; Strayer,
2013). The return came in 1937 with his symbolic composition Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op.
47, which was accepted and praised by the Party as a model of social realism and made him into the most important Russian composer in his generation (Huband, 1990). Titled as “An artist 's creative response to just criticism”, this symphony seems to be composed to show
Shostakovich’s apology and conformity to the Party (Strayer, 2013).
Wu 9
However, scholars have been debating about the true meaning of this symphony for the last decades (Huband, 1990; Strayer, 2013). While some regard this composition as
Shostakovich’s effort to meet the Party’s demand because of the symphony’s simplicity and romantic features (Mulcahy, 1984; “Shostakovich & the Guns,” 1942), others tend to believe that
Shostakovich was actually expressing his discontent towards the Party’s denouncement on his works through the tension and tragic mood built in the piece (Volkov, 2004; White, 2008). Also there are arguments asserting this symphony might be less relevant to the first denunciation as people think. Huband (1990) emphasized on the coherence reflected by comparing the 5th symphony to his previous works. He says the 5th symphony is an integration and evolution of the traits in his early work, especially those from conservative style which Shostakovich adopted increasingly after his 2nd symphony. What Huband means by “conservative style” may include the symphony’s traditional Sonata form with four movements and definite tonality which is emphasized early at the opening (Kay, 1971). More interestingly, this symphony actually still did not meet the Party’s standard, as it did not embrace Russian folk music, include any nationalist idea or heroism theme, or keep a consistently positive mood (Huband, 1990; Kay, 1971).
Therefore, it is suggested that this symphony was more an autobiographical work (Strayer, 2013) or a defense on the existence of tragedy in symphony (Kay, 1971) than a reply or protest to the
Party.
Although people still cannot decide the actual message Shostakovich intended to send when he wrote the symphony, it can be seen that the meaning of a musical piece can be ambiguous even in an expressive symphony, especially with a complex political background as the Stalinist period. In fact, after the first denouncement and the fifth symphony, Shostakovich
Wu 10 did turn to more ambiguous musical forms, mainly chamber music, to ensure his composition uncontroversial (Mulcahy, 1984). His piano quintet won the Stalin Prize in 1941 (White, 2008).
Explanation for Shostakovich’s maintained artistic excellence
Observed throughout the process of the first repression on Shostakovich, there are several characteristics of political repression on arts this paper intend to highlight. The first is the value of pragmatism embedded in the official actions. Arts and artists may not be threatened primarily because of ideological disconformity (although it is often officially claimed as so). Instead, they can be repressed due to practical needs like propaganda purpose, and it is also reasonable that they are preserved for similar needs like international image of the country. Therefore, the denunciations on artists are very likely to be planned, as we can see in the Shostakovich case. As a result, there can be lack of clarity in the official artistic style, which gives the government flexibility so that the practical purpose can be better served (Mulcahy, 1984). As analyzed before, inconsistency between the denouncement of Lady Macbeth and the acceptance of the fifth symphony can be observed, which demonstrated that the definition of social realism and the criticism of formalist is not sophisticated enough, making it possible to apply these ideas whenever the Party feels the need (Rothstein, 1981). This flexibility is an advantage for the government but can benefit artists under the repression as well, as it makes positive interpretation of their artistic works possible. Also one needs to notice that under dictatorship the personal issues of the ruler can play an important part as well, which may considerably influence the degree and the method of political denunciation as reflected by the Shostakovich case. This effect makes actions of repression more likely to show features of randomness and can be another factor in the inconsistency of the official attitude and fluctuation of the relationship between the composer and the government in this specific case.
Wu 11
Several reasons for Shostakovich’s success in survival and use of his musical gift can be discovered from the characteristics discussed above. One of the most important factors is the cultural pragmatism embedded in the Party’s cultural administration, which provided
Shostakovich with practical value for the government (like film music composition) and ability to balance the relationship with the government against a totally vulnerable position, as the government has to take the composer’s international reputation and the country’s international image into consideration, especially when the regime is newly established or the global political atmosphere is competitive, which is exactly the Soviet Union’s situation when Shostakovich was denounced for the first time. In Shostakovich’s case the influence of international factor was particularly vital, which lasted until his death and to some extent protected him later in the second denunciation (Bryner, 2004; Wilson, 1994). From the view of the composer, the flexibility of musical interpretation and creation provides Shostakovich the possibility to hide the true intention for his pieces, although on the other hand the lack of clarity allows the Party to make random explanation and association to its will. Similar to the fifth symphony,
Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 7 in C major, Op. 60 (“Leningrad”) also provoked debate on whether it is a propaganda piece to meet the government’s need or a secret protest to Stalin’s inhumanity (Mulcahy, 1984; “Shostakovich & the Guns,” 1942; White, 2008). Even his political attitude towards the Communist Party is still unclear today (Bryner, 2004; Rothstein, 1981;
White, 2008). Just as the Soviet writer Ilya Ehrenburg said, “Music has a tremendous advantage; without mentioning anything, it can say everything” (White, 2008, p.408).
Moreover, as Strayer (2013) suggests, if a composer’s musical skills are excellent enough, he does not have to sacrifice his artistic integrity and even autonomy to survive under harsh regulation as he can adapt the authority’s demand by adjusting his manner of composition
Wu 12 while maintaining aesthetic. “No one questions the works of Bach or Haydn even though their music was prompted by the demands of the church or a patron. Shostakovich should be treated the same.” (Strayer, 2013, p.67)
In conclusion, the government may be at an advantage in the battle with artists for its powerful apparatus, but the political purpose-oriented nature of political repression and the difficulty in defining musical works still give opportunities for composers to prevail in the sense of artistic excellence.
After all, music is a rather individual and abstract form of expression, any possibility can exist only if it is created out of the composer’s heart (Huband, 1990).
Bibliography
Bryner, M. (2004). Soviet Socialism and Shostakovich: The Effects of Communist Party Control of the
Arts on the Man and His Music. Perspectives: Student Journal of Germanic and Slavic Studies,
12. Retrieved from http://germslav.byu.edu/perspectives/w2004.php
Dudeck-Wiseman, B. (1998). Dmitri Shostakovich, Lady Macbeth, and the Soviet Government.
Undergraduate Honors Thesis Collection. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/ugtheses/23 Fay, L. E. (2000). Shostakovich: a life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferenc, A. (2004). Music in the socialist state. In Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin (Vols.
1-11, Vol. 1, pp. 8–18). New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Huband, J. D. (1990). Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony: A Soviet Artist’s Reply...? Tempo, (173), 11–16.
Kay, N. (1971). Shostakovich. London: Oxford University Press.
Wu 13
Martin, B. (2012). Suppression of Dissent: What It Is and What to Do About It. Social Medicine, 6(4),
246–248.
Muddle instead of music. (1936, January 28). Pravda. Moscow. Retrieved
from http://www.arnoldschalks.nl/tlte1sub1.html Mulcahy, K. V. (1984). Official Culture and Cultural Repression: The Case of Dmitri Shostakovich.
Journal of Aesthetic Education, 18(3), 69–83. doi:10.2307/3332676
Rothstein, E. (1981, August 23). MUSICAL FREEDOM AND WHY DICTATORS FEAR IT. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/arts/musical-freedom-and-whydictators-fear-it.html
Schwarz, B. (1972). Music and musical life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1970. London: Barrie and Jenkins.
Shostakovich, D. D. (1984). Testimony: the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. New York: Limelight
Editions.
Shostakovich & the Guns. (1942). Time, 40(3), 59.
Strayer, H. (2013). Altered but Not Silenced: How Shostakovich Retained His Voice as an Artist despite the Demands of a Dictator. Musical Offerings, 4(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15385/jmo.2013.4.2.2 Volkov, S. (2004). Shostakovich and Stalin: the extraordinary relationship between the great composer and the brutal dictator (1st ed.). London: Little, Brown.
White, R. H. (2008). Shostakovich versus the Central Committee: the power of music. Clinical Medicine,
8(4), 405–409. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.8-4-405
Wilson, E. (1994). Shostakovich: a life remembered. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Political Repression, Cultural Autonomy and Artistic Excellence: The Case of Shostakovich
As an important type of suppression of dissent, political repression on arts refers to actions taken by the government to censor certain forms or subjects of artistic expression because of inconformity to the regime’s legitimacy or official ideology (Mulcahy, 1984). Often seen in totalitarian societies such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and China in modern ages (Rothstein,
1981), this kind of repression is regarded as a characteristic of nondemocratic society (Mulcahy,
1984) and is broadly criticized for hindering artistic development and freedom of expression
(Martin, 2012). Hence it seems natural to tend to be over-pessimistic about artistic achievement …show more content…
under dictatorship.
However, the life of Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich during the Soviet Period shows us a different situation. Shostakovich lived through a special and turbulent historical period of Russia. He was born in a revolutionary family, experienced the Second World War and the Civil War, built most of his career under threats of political purges and intensive cultural control during Stalin’s governance, but still maintained his life and extended his musical creation to the period when the huge totalitarian regime of Soviet Union began to collapse after Stalin’s death (Bryner, 2004; Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004). Over his career, he enjoyed recognition and awards but also went through two denunciations from the state (Mulcahy, 1984). Nevertheless he is still regarded as one of the most important composers of the twentieth century, not only within
Russia, but also in the international music community (Bryner, 2004; Kay, 1971; White, 2008).
The strong connection between political circumstances and his musical career, the unusual fluctuation of his relationship with the government, and the artistic excellence he still managed to achieve all make his case interesting and suitable for investigation on the interaction between political repression and artistic creation.
Wu 2
Therefore, this research paper will focus on the artistic development under totalitarian governments as well as on the influence of modern cultural regulation through study on the case of Shostakovich. As the first denunciation in 1936 can be thought as the most vital and fateful one in Shostakovich’s life (White, 2008), in which case the whole process and many characteristics of political repression under totalitarian regime and dictatorship can be observed, the paper will primarily focus on the repression actions imposed on Shostakovich by the Soviet government and his reactions in the first denunciation, as well as the impact caused on his composition, taking Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op. 47 for example. At the end the paper will highlight several issues observed in the first denunciation and question the possibility of artistic excellence under cultural repression by connecting the characteristics of political repression and the nature of musical creation.
Backgrounds before the first denunciation
When the young composer initially began his musical creation at the beginning of 1920s, the cultural situation of Soviet Union was at one of several free and open periods of its whole history. Lenin’s New Economy Policy was being conducted, allowing a certain degree of expression freedom (White, 2008). The government also announced an open cultural policy particularly for artists’ creation (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). In addition, the avant-garde influence from the West and the growing experimental artistic atmosphere in Russia were thought to accord with revolutionary spirit, which accompanied the establishment of the country and was still tolerated by the government during this period (Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004). As a result, contemporary music thrived in Russia before Stalin came into power. Closely guided by
Alexander Mosolov, a significant futurist composer, during Shostakovich’s study at Petrograd
Wu 3
Conservatory, the young composer was influenced by such trend of modernism in the scene of
Russian music and imitated Igor Stravinsky during his early career (Fay, 2000).
However, tendencies of political repression can be already observed at this period. A plan to promote music with correct ideology was suggested under Lenin’s idea of cultural pragmatism
(Ferenc, 2004; Volkov, 2004) that arts should serve the purpose of political propaganda. This opinion of culture would be adopted later by Stalin over his decades of governance and also applied to deal with Shostakovich. Moreover, the concept of ‘formalism’ had aroused versus
‘utilitarian’ at this time as well (Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004), although they were still equally debated and there hadn’t been an official attitude towards the discussion. Therefore, we can see that the main ideological tools for cultural control had been developed before it was actually made use of several years later.
Shostakovich himself had also felt the pressure from politics even before the first denunciation. One representative of Russian avant-garde artists, Vladimir Mayakovsky, who had succeed obtaining tolerance even acknowledgement from the government by showing political loyalty, committed suicide at 1930, which shocked the entire intelligentsia of the Soviet Union as a warning, including Shostakovich (Volkov, 2004). Since his father died at 1922, the
Shostakovich’s financial situation had been poor. The only economic source of Shostakovich is commission from the Party (Volkov, 2004), which exposed him to the danger of political suppression. In fact, several of his pieces at this time did show some characteristic of conformity.
For example, his Symphony No.2 in B major (“To October”), which is required by the head of the Propaganda Department of the State Music Publishing House to celebrate the 10th anniversary of October Revolution, is thought to integrate Party-proved contents in contemporary form (Volkov, 2004).
Wu 4
The atmosphere was getting increasingly tenser politically and culturally since the 1930s.
To establish and consolidate his dictatorship, Stalin launched the First Purge in 1934, in which the intelligentsia is a primary target (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998; White, 2008). Along came a scheme of tightened control over artistic creation and expression with the infamous Resolution of
1932, in which “social realism” was confirmed to be the official style of arts and direct intervention in creative works was affirmed (Ferenc, 2004; Mulcahy, 1984; Schwarz, 1972).
Moreover, the formation of Composer’s Union of USSR (which would play an important role in
Shostakovich’s first denunciation as a follower of the Communist Party in musician community) in 1932 further constrained freedom of expression and ensured musical creation under the state’s watch (White, 2008).
Repression, critics and reaction
One of the most significant and fateful pieces of Shostakovich, Lady Macbeth of the
Mtsensk District, was premiered under this situation in Leningrad in January 1934 and, unexpectedly, received mass approval from both musical critic and public audience with its creative musical style in terms of the untraditional form and orchestration (Dudeck-Wiseman,
1998; Mulcahy, 1984; “Shostakovich & the Guns,” 1942; Volkov, 2004). However, the success of this opera was abruptly stopped more than two years later by an editorial called “Muddle
Instead of Music” on the official Communist Party newspaper Pravda, which triggered the first denunciation on Shostakovich. Suspected to be drafted by Stalin himself after he attended one performance of the opera (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998; Shostakovich, 1984; “Shostakovich & the
Guns,” 1942; Volkov, 2004), this editorial fiercely criticized Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk
District in terms of both its musical characteristics (dissonant harmony, incomprehensible texture and erotic plotline) and its theoretical features (formalism and naturalism) (“Muddle instead of
Wu 5 music,” 1936; Volkov, 2004). It also questioned the composer’s borrowing from American tradition in terms of Jazz elements in this opera (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998).
Following the voice of the Party, more critics aroused immediately towards Shostakovich and the opera. Articles were published on public media as well as musical reviews attacking
Shostakovich for being a formalist (Volkov, 2004). The Composer’s Union even held a conference lasting for three days on this issue (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). More substantial actions are taken simultaneously, too. Shostakovich’s works disappear from the stage. His family and supporters are arrested, exiled, tortured and even executed (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998;
Volkov, 2004; White, 2008).
Shostakovich’s reaction is mixed. On the one hand, he went through the deepest fear of the danger of his life, which can be reflected by his immediate conforming behaviors. He publicly agreed that Pravda “knew more about music than he did” (“Shostakovich & the Guns,”
1942); His fourth symphony was withdrawn and the plan for a symphony to resume his music career is announced (which is the controversial 5th symphony). In his conversations with
Solomon Volkov, he also talked about his grievance under threat and force and even consideration of suicide (Shostakovich, 1984). On the other hand, he did express his opposition and displease in a subtle and less noticed way (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). When Stalin wanted to know whether he agreed with the critic of Pravda, he replied that he had no opposition to most of it but could not understand the rest (Volkov, 2004). He called his finished 4th symphony a
“creative reply to unjust criticism” (Shostakovich, 1984), which makes his title of the later 5th symphony “An artist 's creative response to just criticism” more like ironic. For Shostakovich, what matters the most seems to be the criticism for him being a formalist, which he had denied even before the denunciation (Volkov, 2004). He also never admitted it till the end of his life
Wu 6
(Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). Interestingly, the composer community’s reactions are split, too.
Although the criticism of the government is rejected and mocked among the intelligentsia including Gorky (which surprised Stalin) (Volkov, 2004; White, 2008), Shostakovich was quickly abandoned by some groups of artists, including his teacher Maximilian Steinberg
(Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998).
Features, causes and effects
This case is not unique in terms of political repression over the Soviet period, especially during the two purges launched by Stalin (Schwarz, 1972). Actually another denunciation did happen on Shostakovich during the second purge (Mulcahy, 1984; Volkov, 2004). But it is rather unusual and puzzling for several reasons. First, the Party had not directly interfered in this work until it had been highly praised for more than two years. In fact, a positive review of this opera had been published on one of official newspapers before the critic on Pravda (Volkov, 2004).
Second, the same degree of criticism had not been seen when Shostakovich’s first opera The
Nose was performed, which also possessed musical characteristics against the standard in the
Pravda editorial like atonality as Lady Macbeth did. Although The Nose was attacked by the
Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians and banned soon after its premiere (DudeckWiseman, 1998; White, 2008; Wilson, 1994), the criticism on it was never imposed by a center
Party organ and was never linked so closely to political and ideological meaning as we saw in the Lady Macbeth case. And finally, the severity of this denunciation was not in accord with the importance and influence of this piece of work. The storyline of the opera was adopted from a famous Russian novel (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998), which did not carry much political meaning.
Shostakovich himself had not been a very significant figure in international composer
Wu 7 community at that time, who did not have foreign connection either (Volkov, 2004). There seems to be no reason for such an intense attack from such a high level of the authority.
These unusual aspects should be taken into consideration when discussing causes of this denunciation, along with the social background which has been introduced before. We can see there are both planned and accidental elements in the denunciation’s occurrence. The cultural control scheme based on the idea of “social realism” was just proposed at that moment. Stalin probably needed an example to illustrate to the whole cultural community (Dudeck-Wiseman,
1998; Volkov, 2004). Shostakovich could be a good target: he was still young and fresh among artists, which means there would not be high pressure on the Party caused by the denunciation from the Russian intelligentsia as there would have be if Stalin had targeted Gorky, although he had been already at a relatively influential position (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998). His last controversial opera The Nose had provoked discussions among people (White, 2008), which might also draw the Party’s attention. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Stalin planned to attend the particular performance on the particular day out of his propaganda needs, given that the critic on Pravda came right after Stalin’s attendance.
Unfortunately, the story presented by Shostakovich heavily included sex and eroticism, which irritated Stalin personally. In addition, the regime portrayed in the opera could be easily associated with the Soviet Union (Dudeck-Wiseman, 1998) and the individualism the work reflected conflicted the agricultural collectivization which Stalin was pursuing. The musical style deviated significantly from Stalin’s taste too, who preferred works of romanticism (DudeckWiseman, 1998). All of these discorded features probably worsened the severity of the denunciation afterwards substantially. In conclusion, the propaganda needs of the Party and the
Wu 8 inconformity between the work and Stalin’s personal preferences both leaded to the denouncement, in which the political reasons should be decisive.
However, the consequence on Shostakovich himself may be the most unusual in this case. Although he and his friends all expected death threats from the government, the Party did not directly impose any physical torture on him. Instead, he was allowed to continue his work in film music, in which his composition for Great Citizen was even recognized by Stalin (Volkov,
2004). And he was still sent as the representative of the Soviet Union to international music conferences by the government (Bryner, 2004). Similarly, the reason for sparing him can be also explained by combination of the Party’s propaganda needs and Stalin’s personal matters. Stalin needed him to serve the purpose of ideological education (Volkov, 2004) through cinema. And he had to concern about international resonance while he was building the national identity of the
Soviet Union. The looseness is also because Stalin had achieved his goals of cultural control by this denunciation: set the standard of official style “social realism”, denied formalism completely and gave the entire musical community a serious warning (Ferenc, 2004; Mulcahy, 1984;
Volkov, 2004).
Symphony No.5 and its controversial meaning
Although Shostakovich’s life was preserved, his musical creation seems to be hindered.
Over the next year, he only finished a very small amount of composition (Kay, 1971; Strayer,
2013). The return came in 1937 with his symbolic composition Symphony No. 5 in D minor, Op.
47, which was accepted and praised by the Party as a model of social realism and made him into the most important Russian composer in his generation (Huband, 1990). Titled as “An artist 's creative response to just criticism”, this symphony seems to be composed to show
Shostakovich’s apology and conformity to the Party (Strayer, 2013).
Wu 9
However, scholars have been debating about the true meaning of this symphony for the last decades (Huband, 1990; Strayer, 2013). While some regard this composition as
Shostakovich’s effort to meet the Party’s demand because of the symphony’s simplicity and romantic features (Mulcahy, 1984; “Shostakovich & the Guns,” 1942), others tend to believe that
Shostakovich was actually expressing his discontent towards the Party’s denouncement on his works through the tension and tragic mood built in the piece (Volkov, 2004; White, 2008). Also there are arguments asserting this symphony might be less relevant to the first denunciation as people think. Huband (1990) emphasized on the coherence reflected by comparing the 5th symphony to his previous works. He says the 5th symphony is an integration and evolution of the traits in his early work, especially those from conservative style which Shostakovich adopted increasingly after his 2nd symphony. What Huband means by “conservative style” may include the symphony’s traditional Sonata form with four movements and definite tonality which is emphasized early at the opening (Kay, 1971). More interestingly, this symphony actually still did not meet the Party’s standard, as it did not embrace Russian folk music, include any nationalist idea or heroism theme, or keep a consistently positive mood (Huband, 1990; Kay, 1971).
Therefore, it is suggested that this symphony was more an autobiographical work (Strayer, 2013) or a defense on the existence of tragedy in symphony (Kay, 1971) than a reply or protest to the
Party.
Although people still cannot decide the actual message Shostakovich intended to send when he wrote the symphony, it can be seen that the meaning of a musical piece can be ambiguous even in an expressive symphony, especially with a complex political background as the Stalinist period. In fact, after the first denouncement and the fifth symphony, Shostakovich
Wu 10 did turn to more ambiguous musical forms, mainly chamber music, to ensure his composition uncontroversial (Mulcahy, 1984). His piano quintet won the Stalin Prize in 1941 (White, 2008).
Explanation for Shostakovich’s maintained artistic excellence
Observed throughout the process of the first repression on Shostakovich, there are several characteristics of political repression on arts this paper intend to highlight. The first is the value of pragmatism embedded in the official actions. Arts and artists may not be threatened primarily because of ideological disconformity (although it is often officially claimed as so). Instead, they can be repressed due to practical needs like propaganda purpose, and it is also reasonable that they are preserved for similar needs like international image of the country. Therefore, the denunciations on artists are very likely to be planned, as we can see in the Shostakovich case. As a result, there can be lack of clarity in the official artistic style, which gives the government flexibility so that the practical purpose can be better served (Mulcahy, 1984). As analyzed before, inconsistency between the denouncement of Lady Macbeth and the acceptance of the fifth symphony can be observed, which demonstrated that the definition of social realism and the criticism of formalist is not sophisticated enough, making it possible to apply these ideas whenever the Party feels the need (Rothstein, 1981). This flexibility is an advantage for the government but can benefit artists under the repression as well, as it makes positive interpretation of their artistic works possible. Also one needs to notice that under dictatorship the personal issues of the ruler can play an important part as well, which may considerably influence the degree and the method of political denunciation as reflected by the Shostakovich case. This effect makes actions of repression more likely to show features of randomness and can be another factor in the inconsistency of the official attitude and fluctuation of the relationship between the composer and the government in this specific case.
Wu 11
Several reasons for Shostakovich’s success in survival and use of his musical gift can be discovered from the characteristics discussed above. One of the most important factors is the cultural pragmatism embedded in the Party’s cultural administration, which provided
Shostakovich with practical value for the government (like film music composition) and ability to balance the relationship with the government against a totally vulnerable position, as the government has to take the composer’s international reputation and the country’s international image into consideration, especially when the regime is newly established or the global political atmosphere is competitive, which is exactly the Soviet Union’s situation when Shostakovich was denounced for the first time. In Shostakovich’s case the influence of international factor was particularly vital, which lasted until his death and to some extent protected him later in the second denunciation (Bryner, 2004; Wilson, 1994). From the view of the composer, the flexibility of musical interpretation and creation provides Shostakovich the possibility to hide the true intention for his pieces, although on the other hand the lack of clarity allows the Party to make random explanation and association to its will. Similar to the fifth symphony,
Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 7 in C major, Op. 60 (“Leningrad”) also provoked debate on whether it is a propaganda piece to meet the government’s need or a secret protest to Stalin’s inhumanity (Mulcahy, 1984; “Shostakovich & the Guns,” 1942; White, 2008). Even his political attitude towards the Communist Party is still unclear today (Bryner, 2004; Rothstein, 1981;
White, 2008). Just as the Soviet writer Ilya Ehrenburg said, “Music has a tremendous advantage; without mentioning anything, it can say everything” (White, 2008, p.408).
Moreover, as Strayer (2013) suggests, if a composer’s musical skills are excellent enough, he does not have to sacrifice his artistic integrity and even autonomy to survive under harsh regulation as he can adapt the authority’s demand by adjusting his manner of composition
Wu 12 while maintaining aesthetic. “No one questions the works of Bach or Haydn even though their music was prompted by the demands of the church or a patron. Shostakovich should be treated the same.” (Strayer, 2013, p.67)
In conclusion, the government may be at an advantage in the battle with artists for its powerful apparatus, but the political purpose-oriented nature of political repression and the difficulty in defining musical works still give opportunities for composers to prevail in the sense of artistic excellence.
After all, music is a rather individual and abstract form of expression, any possibility can exist only if it is created out of the composer’s heart (Huband, 1990).
Bibliography
Bryner, M. (2004). Soviet Socialism and Shostakovich: The Effects of Communist Party Control of the
Arts on the Man and His Music. Perspectives: Student Journal of Germanic and Slavic Studies,
12. Retrieved from http://germslav.byu.edu/perspectives/w2004.php
Dudeck-Wiseman, B. (1998). Dmitri Shostakovich, Lady Macbeth, and the Soviet Government.
Undergraduate Honors Thesis Collection. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/ugtheses/23 Fay, L. E. (2000). Shostakovich: a life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferenc, A. (2004). Music in the socialist state. In Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin (Vols.
1-11, Vol. 1, pp. 8–18). New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Huband, J. D. (1990). Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony: A Soviet Artist’s Reply...? Tempo, (173), 11–16.
Kay, N. (1971). Shostakovich. London: Oxford University Press.
Wu 13
Martin, B. (2012). Suppression of Dissent: What It Is and What to Do About It. Social Medicine, 6(4),
246–248.
Muddle instead of music. (1936, January 28). Pravda. Moscow. Retrieved
from http://www.arnoldschalks.nl/tlte1sub1.html Mulcahy, K. V. (1984). Official Culture and Cultural Repression: The Case of Dmitri Shostakovich.
Journal of Aesthetic Education, 18(3), 69–83. doi:10.2307/3332676
Rothstein, E. (1981, August 23). MUSICAL FREEDOM AND WHY DICTATORS FEAR IT. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/arts/musical-freedom-and-whydictators-fear-it.html
Schwarz, B. (1972). Music and musical life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1970. London: Barrie and Jenkins.
Shostakovich, D. D. (1984). Testimony: the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. New York: Limelight
Editions.
Shostakovich & the Guns. (1942). Time, 40(3), 59.
Strayer, H. (2013). Altered but Not Silenced: How Shostakovich Retained His Voice as an Artist despite the Demands of a Dictator. Musical Offerings, 4(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15385/jmo.2013.4.2.2 Volkov, S. (2004). Shostakovich and Stalin: the extraordinary relationship between the great composer and the brutal dictator (1st ed.). London: Little, Brown.
White, R. H. (2008). Shostakovich versus the Central Committee: the power of music. Clinical Medicine,
8(4), 405–409. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.8-4-405
Wilson, E. (1994). Shostakovich: a life remembered. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.