Berkley Center

Back when I used to play piano, my repertoire was full of Russian composers. As I struggled to play the pieces, it never really occurred to me that classical music could be politically motivated. Later, when I learned that one of my favorite Russian composers Dmitri Shostakovich had been denounced by Stalin as “formalist, coarse, primitive, and vulgar,” I could not understand why such a wonderful and inspired composer had been tossed aside by a society that supposedly sought to foster musical talent. In fact, even after considerable research, I cannot, or at least do not want to, grasp how a beautiful composition could be dangerous to Russia’s communist regime.

Times have changed and now Shostakovich and many other composers previously condemned by Soviet society are admired and listened to frequently. Recently, my host mother and I discussed Shostakovich’s music because one of his operas was playing on TV. When I asked her why his music was such a contentious issue during the Soviet Union, she simply replied with one word, “Бывает,” it happens. Essentially, this means that she herself does not know or understand. It is just how things were. It was just accepted as fact.

Shostakovich is a particularly interesting and strange example of musical control in the Soviet Union. Even though he was more or less publicly denounced by Stalin, he was simultaneously showered with Soviet awards. One of this composer’s most famous creations is his opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. Though it had been performed hundreds of times to international and domestic acclaim, it was publicly condemned in Pravda soon after Stalin demonstrated his disapproval by laughing during the performance. It has even been insinuated that Stalin himself was responsible for the particularly scathing review that stated, among other things, “Lady Macbeth is having great success with bourgeois audiences abroad. Is it not because the opera is non-political and confusing that they praise it? Is it not explained by the fact that is tickles the perverted taste of the bourgeois with its fidgety, neurotic music?” I am not much a fan of opera, but if I were to criticize an artist’s work, I would not attack its political nature, but rather its composition or lack thereof.

Recently, I had the great honor of hearing Shostakovich’s Concerto for piano, trumpet and strings Op. 35 at a special concert in the Hermitage. As a volunteer at the museum, I was able to listen to a lecture and then stay for the concert. Regrettably, the lecture was simply about instrument restoration and not Shostakovich himself, but the fact that the organizers chose this composer in particular was interesting. Shostakovich is a figure who raises many challenging and exciting issues that apply to modern music in Russia and other issues that go even beyond music. Questions of conscience, the moral role of the artist, and how humanity should confront mass oppression are all important when looking at Shostakovich and his heartbreaking life story.

Perhaps his very act of creating music was considered an incitement to fight oppression, to find inner strength, and overcome fear while searching for justice. Lenin seems to have understood the power of music when he wrote, "Every artist, everyone who considers himself an artist, has the right to create freely according to his ideal, independently of everything. However, we are Communists and we must not stand with folded hands and let chaos develop as it pleases. We must systemically guide this process and form its result." Essentially, Lenin states here that this act of creation must be controlled or else people will undermine the regime, and chaos will reign.

This control came in the form of the Union of Soviet Composers (Союз композиторов СССР), a bureaucratic control of all arts including music. This union concentrated on the promotion of Socialist Realism which demanded patriotic, elevating scores that were supportive of the Communist ideology and the regime, as well as being accessible to the masses. A composer’s deviation from these ideals was dubbed formalism and was condemned. This union pressured many composers, including Shostakovich, to not drift from the path placed before their feet. Some composers, like Sergei Prokofiev, chose to leave the Soviet Union to not be constrained; others were forced to remain.

I know some bands are politically motivated. To make an obvious, and perhaps overused, example: Pussy Riot. This punk-feminist band stated in the closing of its trial, "Pussy Riot's performances can either be called dissident art or political action that engages art forms. Either way, our performances are a kind of civic activity amidst the repressions of a corporate political system that directs its power against basic human rights and civil and political liberties." The lyrics and actions of this band are undeniably political in nature. However, when I look at a composer like Shostakovich, I do not see a person actively opposing the Soviet Union. He was merely a talented artist who wanted to share his gift with the world. He was forced to curb his abilities and to join the Communist Party simply to survive.

Clearly, times have changed. The Soviet Union has fallen, and Stalin is certainly no longer in power. Nevertheless, music is still a very important medium to subvert authority or make a political point, as Pussy Riot has demonstrated. However, I think sometimes music is simply music, created for the benefit of listeners. Regardless of the reason music is created, the government should not try to contain creation or who knows what genius the world will lose.