Author: Enming Zhang, Independent Member of UHHC from Shenzhen
Introduction
Arts can be an ideal container to hold an artist’s state of mind and best mirror of the history. As one of the non-negligible silhouettes of 20th-century contemporary musicians, Dimitri Shostakovich was a pioneer in conveying his political view through his music works. His impressive pieces left not only an enormous legacy for musicians to learn and entertainment for ordinary people to enjoy but also a rich inner world of his for historians to decipher.
Shostakovich’s confrontation with Joseph Stalin when Stalin consolidated his power with the Great Purge, as well as Shostakovich’s survival in the massacre of Stalin have widely been regarded as a symbol of freedom’s victory against tyranny. When almost everyone around him perished, he weaponized his music as a defense for survival and outlasted Stalin. However, as musicologists and historians keep debating on the reliability of remaining evidence from the Soviet Union era, it’s a pity that until now, there’s few research that attempted to analyze if he supported Stalin or not and there was a great debate on his first memoir, Testimony, from journalist Solomon Volkov.
To address these enigmas, this paper explores why Dimitri Shostakovich shouldn’t be considered a supporter of Stalin and the Soviet Authoritarian Government. First, the paper is dedicated to revealing the compulsive nature of the Soviet Government, forcing Shostakovich to compose Realism opuses in his early period. Then, the paper looks into evidence that some of his easily acceptable works were a compromise to water down his real perspective. It then gives an overview of his discordant pieces in the later period in which he hinted at his rebellion and discusses how these chords, motifs, and cadences illustrated his spiritual disobedience. Finally, this paper demonstrates his hidden attitude toward the Soviet Union, Stalin, and the Communist Party, and shows how his leftist ideology be considered Democratic-Socialism, in disagreement with Stalinism in many aspects.
Into the abyss: Inevitability of the Great Purge, and its progress to Art fields
It was not until 1905 that the first flame of revolution burst in the Russian Empire. After a bloody Sunday’s massacre, the conflict between the Romanov and the starving hoi polloi reached its climax and turned into a rebellion. Though the resistance was eventually crushed, it foreshadowed the total revolution from proletarians, which stepped into a new epoch. Dimitri Dimitrievich Shostakovich, a name echoed in millions of concert halls by four repeating notes, became a mark of the new period for his redefining of how music should be and how to struggle against authoritarians in silence.
Consolidating Lenin’s legacies, his proudest disciple Joseph “Stalin” Vissarionovich was granted authority in 1922 and changed the name of Soviet Russia to Soviet Union. He was known for his collective production policies like the Kolkhoz system or similar collective cooperatives, large-scale domestic industrialization, and five-year plans for production.
Nevertheless, tragedies still took place during the Soviet Union’s reign. Though the first five-year plan triumphantly enhanced the foundation of the USSR, it failed to keep Ukraine from famine and millions of local people from starving to death. On the other hand, the first five-year plan consumed human resources, thus evoking objection. When this plan ended, politicians Leo Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin advocated party members to dismiss Stalin. This alerted Stalin that the dissenting noises needed to be silenced so that the whole party could be united as one under his government. It first led to the assassination of General Sergei Kirov. Although still debating whether Kirov was intentionally “cleared” by his old friend Stalin, the leader was, accordingly, provoked, confirming this event to be a masterpiece from opponents, and determined to initiate the notorious Great Purge. “the struggle against Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotov, Zhdanov, Kosior, and others is a struggle against the Soviets, a struggle against collectivization, against industrialization, a struggle, consequently, to restore capitalism in the towns and villages of the USSR.”
For all these reasons, the Great Purge was inevitable for the Soviet Union. As it expanded, for each phase, the range of the victims widened: from dissenters in the party and important institutions to hoi polloi and artists. Accusations varied. for example, Bukharinism, Trotskyism, and the Fifth Column spies were the most common, , with corrupters and mutineers, and most of them were randomly imposed. Generally, this terror chain of suspicion could shift, as the authority could consider collusion from one to all people the convicted had contact. Hence, people couldn’t trust their comrades, coworkers, friends, and even families.
Besides trials, auxiliary measures like media control also came into service. There was no independent news media, all dominated by the central government, which could control the controversy and rewrite history however they wanted. For instance, The Truth, hereinafter Pravda, was the most celebrated propaganda newspaper of that time, which calendared the officers’ opinions. Though they may have some private-running magazines and pamphlets, they were aimed at nothing but politics and news. Still, under the censorship of the NKVD, which refers to the secret police under Stalin’s dominance aiming at eliminating all opposing sound by conducting millions of arrests, trials, exiles and executions. they were soon also required to express communist political ideas. Additionally, more procurators were set to put citizens’ movements under watch. When suspicious works occurred, the author must acknowledge theirs sins and go to court.
Fate of most sufferers was pitiful enough. The notorious Gulag, literally mandatory labor camps and prisons, could imprison a man for at least five years and he would then be thrown into the blizzard of Siberia before working his way back home. It is an indication that at least the man was not immediately “obliterated” along with his families under NKVD’s second chief Nikolai Chekhov’s Order 00447. Many victims suffered worse, like the Red Army General Mikhail Tukhachevsky who was charged with treason; director Vsevolod Meyerhold wasshot by Stalin in person. The leader Yezhov himself was also dead after the purge. Inaccurate statistical data showed that, in total, almost seven hundred thousand were directly executed, with the death counts inside Gulags exceeding one hundred thousand. Taking murders, accidents, and exodus issues into account, the sum of total deaths can reach a million. Stalin’s rule was characterized by pervasive state control and surveillance, primarily through the NKVD and other enforcement agencies. Citizens were constantly monitored, creating an atmosphere of fear and suspicion. This period saw an unprecedented loss of life.
The meticulous supervision, draconian retribution, and pervasive atmosphere of terror cast a long shadow over the Soviet Union, leaving an indelible mark on its history. Even the field of liberal arts was watched by the government.
Early in Oct 1932, in activist writer Maxim Gorky’s residence, Gorky himself, Stalin, other leaders as well as writers attended a meeting where the concept of “Socialism Realism” was proposed. It required all artists to comply. “Socialism Realism means not only knowing reality as it is, but knowing where it is moving. It is moving towards socialism; it is moving towards the victory of the international proletariat. And a work of art created by a Socialist Realist shows where that conflict of contradictions is leading, which the artist has seen in life and conveyed in his work.” In 1934, the Union of Soviet Writers was founded to dominate not only writers but also musicians, directors, painters, and sculptors and make sure that they were synchronized with the main project of Soviet Propaganda through regulating private publishing. The reasons behind this originated from Lenin’s theory of “two cultures in one”, which claimed that for each stage, the cultural trend could not be regarded as united as one but could be divided as at least two tendencies of the class with vested interest and the exploited class. For most Authoritarian or Totalitarian nations like Nazi Germany, the Kingdom of Italy, or even moderate nations like China, this method of cultural control for stability was not rare.
This event indicated that the claws of the Soviet Union would turn to artists, not just politicians. The first monumental action of the purge in fields of fine arts dates back to 1934 when Poet Osip Mandelstam was accused of exhibiting his anti-Stalinism piece Stalin Epigram to his Intelligentsia circle: “He rolls the executions on his tongue like berries. He wishes he could hug them like big friends from home.” Figures like poet Boris Pasternak, writer Isaac Babel, director Vsevolod Meyerhold, and linguist Nikolai Durnovo were chronologically and systematically punished or executed during the period of the Great Purge by NKVD. They were accused of collusion with Western anti-socialism organizations, espionage, or anarchism.
Worse still, this deck shuffle was an ultimate weapon for status in an occupation. One could tip off a coworker in order to take his seat even though he was innocent. This probability of making up charge undermined trust between people.
To survive in such an age was an art that was not easy to manage. Unfortunately, many artists were so immersed in their field that they didn’t realize how to master this way of struggle. Take for example Shostakovich, who was embracing pioneer music of the twelve-tone system and atonic elements. He was not aware of the following storm. After his friends and coworkers got caught, he didn’t compromise but composed more, assuming he would be safe. How could such a musician, the diametrically opposite of Stalin, the red tyrant, the tsar of the proletarians, survive this holocaust? Did his survival mean his loyalty to Stalin and the Soviet Government?
Cross the heart: individual will, or scripts from the government?
Dimitri Shostakovich’s compositions were influenced by his depression during the Purge, leading him to develop sarcastic techniques to evade censorship. Scholars debate whether he was a true patriot or a pretender seeking social advancement. However, many of his famous works were likely created under duress and propagated chauvinism.
Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony, written in 1937 during the end of the Great Purge, has been one of his most celebrated works. This patriotic piece saved his reputation after he was harshly criticized by a Pravda editorial, which was likely influenced by Stalin. Shostakovich composed this symphony under extreme pressure, and it is suspected that his motivation was survival under the dictatorship rather than genuine praise. These reasons were derived from private letters and explanations about these suspicious pieces. Likewise, even in the very domains of music and drama where Shostakovich managed to showcase his talent, famous musicians and players like dramaturge Adrian Piotrovsky, playwright Mykola Kulish, and actor Mykola Voronyi perished, too.
As described above, many intellectuals in fine arts faced severe scrutiny and were accused of serious judgment in their previous works against Socialism Realism. In this tensing atmosphere of censorship, Shostakovich’s previous compositions were dug up and questioned to see if they had alleged formalistic or anti-communism tendencies. After the incomprehension from hoi polloi of his great work The Nose and The Golden Age, he decided to write more than soundtrack of movies. Amidst the uncertainty prevailing in 1930, Shostakovich determined to initiate a new opera program based on the novel Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, and this great masterpiece had its première two years later. It easily became a hit that Soviet people were all satisfied and subdued to its disharmony and seduction, while on the other hand, its usage of novel dissonant chords, discord stage configuration, and brutal “intimate contact” scenes also drew opposing statements.
This laid the groundwork for his subsequent experiences: when on 28th Jan 1936, Stalin first had a rendezvous with this show, he left the government box without any explanation, with the anonymous condemnation on the Pravda, which buried his prospect in Soviet Russia, where Stalin’s volition dominated everything. Assumptions had it that he left because of body discomfort independent from the opera itself, which could be a result of his daily high work pressure of negotiating the new Constitution and power arrangement. Nevertheless, the second day Shostakovich’s works were forced to be concealed and censored, and in other words, his reputation and status quo were denied since he was branded as nothing but an enemy of the people. The outcome of this incident was the anonymous article Muddle instead of Music on the next day’s Pravda, whose author remains unknown but impactive, reconsidering the masterpiece as “coarse, primitive and vulgar. The music quacks, grunts, and growls, and suffocates itself in order to express the love scenes as naturalistically as possible. ……” on its headline. Immediately, from the biggest figure of Russian music, Shostakovich turned into a public enemy of the Soviet Union, and no theatre dared to conduct his opus again.
His other work was also attacked by controversy. For example, his earlier Ballet, The Limpid Stream, was accepted by proletarians but mercilessly taunted on the Pravda and Izvestiya, and the choreographer and co-librettist of the ballet, Lobukhov, was groundlessly executed in Gulag.
“One must have the courage not only to kill one’s work, but to defend them. As it would be futile and impossible to do the latter, I am taking no steps in this direction. …… Will I have enough in store to last for long, I wonder? But if you ever learn that I have ‘disassociated’ myself from Lady Macbeth, you will know that I have done so 100 percent.”
From this letter to composer Balanchivadze, a compromise is evident as a method for Shostakovich to survive the pressure. Correspondingly, cherishing his brainchildren, Shostakovich refused to withdraw this grand opera, but he also refused to defend it. The atmosphere and others’ fate were a deterrent to Shostakovich. At least, it is certain that such an event greatly frustrated Shostakovich that he remained introverted until his death. He had since needed to reconsider his following work’s techniques, lyrics and themes. This turning point forced him to figure out a way to survive, influencing the major element inside his music and heart and giving rise to sarcasm.
Compromise of rebellious Fourth Symphony, inextricable D-S-C-H motif and the loyal Fifth Symphony
Shostakovich’s later countermeasures, his concession in cliché Fifth Symphony, along with his previous refusal of Fourth Symphony’s premiére, was not only effective in refuting controversial opposition for suiting the need of authorities and hiding their own thoughts but also significant for musicians by providing a strategy of composing to survive from the purge.
In return for his sudden decline in social status, Shostakovich had to give up his arrangement of his Fourth Symphony‘s premiére, as it may be considered formalistic, and even worse, it can be another evidence for potential punishment. Since the original score was hidden and then lost in the siege of Leningrad during WWII, the duo-piano version score and the incomplete orchestration arrangement were adapted. The same year, this opus finally had its premiére after Stalin’s death for years.
What also shouldn’t be ignored is that this three-movement piece was a technical progress in his skills and a turning point that Shostakovich started to imply his self-presence in his works. By design, he resorted to four continuous notes, D-bE-C-B, in a strong lifting cadence played out by wind instruments in the first movement as an initial motif. Such a discovery has been a breakthrough in his studies. It had widely been considered that the first usage of this pattern was late in his infamous Tenth Symphony, but this new analysis proved that such a practice date back to an earlier censored piece.
For his later works, most of this motif’s appearance is more of an opposition to the Soviet Union Government or Communist Party than a symbol of himself. Thus, his attempt to hide this work, a rudiment and prototype of his rebellious way, can also be regarded as a sign that he avoided exhibiting his personality under the control of the Soviet Union. During 1934-37, he produced nothing but only movie soundtracks and the first Jazz suites for a living; hence, from this new perspective, his state of mind can be recognized. In his conversation with other composers, he described film music as ‘unpleasant’ work, which needed to be ‘done only in the event of extreme poverty.’ The disdainful attitude towards film music was simply because the composer would lose decision on the overall emotional progression and be limited to adding splendid skills to the piece. His grievance was evident for being exiled from the top tier of art masters.
People from other fields also made a plea for his benefits. It was evidenced that in 1936 the prestigious writer Gorky, the founder of Socialism Realism, wrote a letter to persuade Stalin to treat this composer better. “The attitude to him, as expressed in ‘Pravda,’ cannot be termed ‘caring’, whereas he deserves a ‘caring’ attitude as one of the most talented contemporary Soviet musicians.” Shostakovich also requested that one of his best friends, Red Army General Mikhail Tukhachevsky, should write to Stalin and ease the suspicion off him. “From the first day we met, Tukhachevsky demanded that I play my compositions for him. He praised them and criticized some. …… So Tukhachevsky probably did like my music.” These attempts, however, yielded almost no return. In the same year June, Gorky died of illness, while Tukhachevsky was accused of treason and collusion with Trotsky’s rival factions and sentenced to death.According to critic Mikhail Lifshits’ memory, “The 1930s was a time of profound contradictions ……It would be unjust to consign to oblivion other features of this epoch that was rich with inner contradictions.” It was then that Shostakovich realized that he was at the periphery and had to depend all on himself, and the best way to handle the situation was to compose a big opus of patriotism with less personality and more praise. In 1937, he managed to acquire a position in Leningrad Conservatory for a living and began to work on his Fifth Symphony.
This opus, Fifth Symphony, was aimed at emphasizing Socialist Realism. The artist exhibited his innocence rather than showing skills. As a result, the real personality was almost gone inside this opus. Nevertheless, some will still regard such a grand piece as an embodiment of his personality and are persuaded that it reflects his state of mind. On 21st Nov 1937, along with LPO emerging conductor Yevgeny Mravinsky, Shostakovich conducted the premiére, which successfully harvested unanimous praise in and out of the Party. As in 1938, Fifth Symphony was conducted in America and France, and its international influence was certified, and almost for the first time, the boundary between Western Democratic Nations and the Soviet Union blurred in the art fields. This context also explained why Shostakovich was widely sought after during WWII and his visits to America despite local hostility to the Soviet Union. After this experience, Shostakovich also gained a strong friendship with Mravinsky, an important person in his studies, and decided to confide in him. The friendship offered clue to Shostakovich’s many hidden attitudes towards events and figures.
And as conductor Boris Khaikin recalled, in a conversation in 1937, “Shostakovich told me: ‘I finished the Fifth Symphony in the major and fortissimo …. It would be interesting to know what would have been said if I finished it pianissimo and in the minor?’ Only later did I understand the full significance of these words ……But in 1937, nobody knew the Fourth Symphony.” No matter how the symphony was performed, what’s certain was that more consideration was given to this piece in the early editions. This opus needed to be reconsidered for another aspect: the glorious end movement, which was at a speed of 188 eighth notes per minute in the premiére. Among all the details conductors needed to pay attention to, the speed was the most debated one. It was greatly decelerated, even halved as a deduction of Mravinsky, since the speed on the score was 188-quarter-notes per minute. The editions of Alexander Gauk, his son Maxim Shostakovich, and Kirill Kondrashin also reported this abnormal phenomenon and chose to play slower due to Mravinsky’s successful premiére. For following listeners, the speed of the coda turned out to be a standard for recording this piece, but the debate kept growing. An assumption was the error of Shostakovich’s metronome, which broke a leg, but this doesn’t make sense since this problem emerged in his Tenth, too, and he had already abandoned that metronome at that time. When performed in Moscow, American conductor Leonard Bernstein exhibited his understanding by maintaining extreme speed, but Shostakovich was so infuriated that he described Bernstein as a fool who knew nothing about his playing (and praised this decision in confidence later, blurring the issue).
Mravinsky’s interpretation was that he was determined to reflect his understanding of Shostakovich’s sarcasm: “It wouldn’t lead to a glory end but somehow weird.” It was recorded that when Yakov Milkis asked Mravinsky about the tempo of the codas in Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony, which he took exception to the metronome indication. He suddenly jumped from his chair, blushed, and in a suppressed whisper said, “This coda is the Master’s victory over the ’round ones’. When I mentioned this to Dimitri Dimitrievich once, he thanked me and allowed me to conduct as I feel, adding, ‘Let them think they have defeated me’……” Seen from the information above, it’s still open to question whether speed should be considered when analyzing the temporal state of mind.
Though this piece was impressive and magnificent in that it “won the approval of officials” and was perceived as a redefinition of the sound of the Soviet Union, it was a compromise for Shostakovich. Most composers, take celebrated Sergei Prokofiev for example, saw this symphony as an ordinary work that, as quoted, “Many parts of the symphony I liked very much, but it is clear that it is being praised not for what really deserves praise: what really needs to be praised is probably not being noticed.” However, the success of this work and its recognition by officials set a precedent for thousands of untamed contemporary musicians to prevent themselves from being executed. Composer Nikolai Myaskovsky’s transitioned from his early experimental genre to patriotic works such as the Salutation Overture, which straightly hailed Stalin. Composer Alexander Molosov’s turned to Turkmen and Kyrgyz folk orchestration rather than previous pioneer works like his Iron Foundry after his Gulag imprisonment. This strategy remained practical for the disciples in Leningrad Conservatory and Moscow Conservatory, and the Great Purge’s effect on music institutes was greatly relieved then. Progressive composers were indignant about these efforts but they were effective in keeping their lives. So, to some extent, this proved that though Shostakovich had to restrain himself toward the Soviet Government, he set a good example for other musicians to find balance and survive, which can be esteemed as heroic by artists in the field.
In conclusion, even in the most passive and celebrated patriotic works, Shostakovich was dedicated to creating a better atmosphere for companions to survive rather than informing the Party of their secrets for his survival. Suppose he was just a patriotic musician who thoroughly takes orders, it wouldn’t explain his his drive for his music creation. By applying the abstractness of music, his individual will outmaneuvered the administration of the Party. What shouldn’t be forgotten is that he found a representation of his self-identity — the D-S-C-H sign motif— this four-noted cadence will be an eternal clue for historians and musicologists to trace his existence in Soviet history and music.
Post-WWII Depression: Zhdanovshchina and the second criticism to Shostakovich
Suppose all the struggles made by Shostakovich were only out of capitulation and rejection. In that case, he cannot be judged to be the archetypal exemplar of artists who dare to deny the Communist Party under Stalin’s reign. In fact, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many post-WWII opuses he hid were shown, and most were deemed as attacks on the Soviet Government carrying sarcasm.
Despite the USSR nominally claiming the citizens were treated equally, most officers, artists, and intellectuals did not know about plague and starvation until the harsh warfare descended. Such a cruel environment further honed the flesh and will of the artists. Additionally, the censorship during the war loosened from “being formalist for the people” to “at least non-betrayal”. Important was that, after getting out of the Siege of Leningrad, Shostakovich’s fame was even uplifted due to his worldwide famous Seventh Symphony, which turned out to be “the prophetic affirmation……of our faith in the eventual triumph of humanity and light” said the famous Violinist David Oistrakh. Though it and the Fifth were alike, this symphony was totally of his own will and embraced a larger popularity among the Allied Powers temporally. When the last Soviet tank in Berlin turned off the radio, a new kind of peace finally emerged in the ruins of Europe. Nevertheless, for Shostakovich and millions of artists, the situation of cultural creation was worse. After the war, the world was immediately divided into two ideological-confronting fractions, and it was an immutable proposition for every leader to control their culture and prevent infiltration.
Under this heating circumstance, early in 1946, Zhdanovism was invented and introduced to the Party. Besides manipulating Eastern Europe, Andrei Zhdanov, the nominated leader of the Central Committee Propaganda Department, also raised the infamous thesis that “The only conflict possible in Soviet culture is the conflict between good and best”. Under his dominance, persecution of artists became acute and deadly. In January 1948, Zhdanov held a meeting among celebrated composers in the Kremlin “in order to rebuke the brutality and dissonance inside their pieces”. During this three-day lecture, he stated “It is clear that a serious spring-cleaning is needed, a fresh wind to purify the air in the composers’ and musicians’ organization, so that a normal atmosphere may be established for the development of creative work”, which seemed to be a dangerous implication of a second round of Great Purge. Pieces by emerging composers, especially Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, and Khachaturian, were then mercilessly referred to as “the substitution of a music which is false, vulgar and often purely pathological, for natural, beautiful, human music”. Though Zhdanovshchina did not have as much impact as the notorious Lysenkoism in the Science field, Shostakovich’s work was criticized and even prohibited from being shown. He yielded and apologized in public and promised to compose more legitimate music. Nevertheless, he lost his position in Leningrad and Moscow Conserv. It plagued him until his first visit to America.
Such historical background prompted Shostakovich to blame the authorities and administrators with an ironic piece. Isaak Glikman, a critic who maintained a close relationship with Shostakovich, secretly witnessed the manuscript of an unreleased and unnumbered opus and its “premiére” played by Shostakovich himself. In 1989, the formal premiére of the complete version was conducted in D.C., with the sarcastic name Antiformalist Rayok. Hereinafter Rayok, this song was created for piano (or orchestra), SATB mixed choir, and a bassist who acted as four characters. Regardless of the narrator character, other three characters, with nicknames Yedinitsyn, Dvoiki, Troikin (three bad scores in Russian standard tests) on the score, respectively representing Stalin, Zhdanov, and Dimitri Shpilov. (Some believe the Head of the PDCC alluded to Kaganovich).
During this interactive show, three leaders were portrayed to attend a dull conference where they must lecture. While pleasant and entertaining, Yedinitsyn’s theme motif in the music was a Georgian folk song, Suliko, which is believed to be the favorite of Stalin, who’s from Georgia. Likewise, this tone was used once again in his First Cello Concerto in a twisted, wicked and shrieking piccolo, as a representation of discording evil and Stalin. Additionally, his presentation in Rayok was intentionally filled with a serious tone but lacked logic inside the words that can be recognized as a humor of Stalin. In contrast, Dvoiki’s speech contained embarrassing punchlines and metaphors that forced the choir to laugh, and it is easy to find quotations from Zhdanov’s Kremlin lecture in 1948. Troikin’s lyrics included many wrong emphasis of words by design, indicating his ignorance and arrogance. Besides these daring satires, this song included an invisible but identical element: the D-S-C-H motif. As this paper has confirmed, most scores that contained this name motif are certainly of atonality and reflecting own state of mind. It is thus proof of his fistful of opposing minds toward the Soviet Government’s intervention and censorship of Art fields. This unfinished piece also foreshadowed his following rebellious works like Tenth and Eleventh Symphony and Eighth String Quartet against the Authoritarians in sarcasm and black humor.
“NO” in silence: First visit to America and attendance at World Peace Council
Another evidence of Shostakovich’s compromises was his attendance at the World Peace Council in 1949 in New York, during his first visit to America. Order No.17 was substituted for this visit by Order No. 3179, better showing Shostakovich as a Soviet delegate. The whole meeting, though not out of Shostakovich’s own will, was utilized by the Soviet Government to export the authoritarian ideology that every representation from the delegation should be of the will of the Communist Party. “Under the baiting of U.S. reporters, they ducked embarrassing questions (‘That leads away from the question of peace’), or shrugged them off. They seemed content to show themselves, prove that Russians were not monsters, and declare their devotion to peace.” For this reason, American people gathered to parade and protest. Since Shostakovich gained popularity in America as a freedom fighter and war hero, their movement slogans also contained words that engaged Shostakovich. Slogans like”Niet Tovarish!”(latinization of Russian “No, Comrade!”) “Shostakovich! Jump Thru the Window!” “Soviet Pitiful Slaves!” “Communists Are Not Welcome Here! We Don’t Want You, Get Out!” “All Hail to Shosty!” immediately filled the streets around their hotel. The nickname”Shosty”, mainly thanks to the name’s complicated pronunciation, was a sign of Shostakovich’s identity as a peacemaker, a rebel against tyranny. No evidence was shown that he had considered their crazy suggestions, but as this moment was mentioned many times in his memory, it may have a deep impression on him. Quoted from Testimony, he said, “I wouldn’t have gone at all if it hadn’t been for intense pressure from administrative figures of all ranks and colors, from Stalin down. ……That was the smile of a condemned man. I felt like a dead man. I answered all the idiotic questions in a daze, and thought, when I get back it’s over or me.” Though this book was questioned in the Shostakovich war for times, all scholars agree that his first visit was a great compromise. Worse still, the depression forced the concert to be canceled.
Then, in his speech on 26th March, he was forced to demonstrate the superiority of Soviet policies in culture, the contrast between Realism and Formalism, and his apology for the Formalistic part of his pieces. An important issue was that contrary to his convictions, he reprimanded the famous Russo-American composer Igor Stravinsky, who he had respected and even saluted in opuses for his “betrayal” of Russia as an aristocrat of the Empire. Prokofiev was also assaulted for his anti-popular formalism tendency, which was regarded as a sign of “disloyalty to the Party”. This abnormal attack was explained in the conversation between Shostakovich and Mravinsky. He described that moment as the “worst moment in his life”. Russo-American composer Nicolas Nabokov kept presenting sharp, embarrassing questions and attacked in the conversation that Shostakovich had no means to answer by heart. Nabokov insisted that he was not a free man but “a turnbuckle of Soviet Union’s propaganda machine.” In Nabokov’s memoir Bagázh: Memoirs of a Russian Cosmopolitan, however, he realized the circumstances of the delegate that “They were tortured, innocent creatures saying things they did not mean and could not believe”.
Famous scholar Laurel Fay’s biography of Shostakovich stated her fears: “We can be sure that the politically deficient Shostakovich was not entrusted with writing the speech delivered in his name there. That the speeches and published writings……that touched even remotely on matters of state policy or image were closely monitored and regulated by appropriate levels of the Party apparatus.” Suffice it to say that through this event, the inhumanity of the Soviet Government was completely exposed, which further indicated Shostakovich’s unwillingness to deal with political issues.
The situation didn’t end even after the power shifted. As the greatest musician on this twenty-million-square-acre Eurasia land, Shostakovich represented the art field of the whole of Russia, no matter how he detested or appreciated the plan. This incident was proof of Shostakovich’s compromise before the Soviet Government, even though he may be unwilling to do so. Yet, such an experience didn’t challenge his identity as a freedom fighter in America or Western Europe, and his social prestige was still upheld. For instance, his third American trip was not requested by government but for receiving his prize from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, as a nominated honorary doctorate of fine arts.
Sarcasm and resistance: deafening silent revolting
For more well-known opuses in the following stage of Shostakovich’s career, he exhibited social concern and revolting mind against the Soviet authority from different aspects, including his Tenth Symphony against tyranny and censorship, Eleventh Symphony against invasion, and Eighth String Quartet against the Party system.
Altogether, the Rayok set a precedent of Shoatakovich’s rebellion against the Soviet Union with his music. Still, from the Soviet Government and Communist Party’s perspective, Shostakovich could not revolt or neglect their pressure, so the stress on his shoulders was even harder.
Fortunately, Zhdanov perished on 31st August 1948. It was a promising start to freedom. After his last famous hymn, Song of the Forests, hailed by Stalin, Shostakovich immersed himself in his theories and waited. As Glikman recalled in his collection of Shostakovich’s letters,”……For Shostakovich, the hunting down and persecuting of innocent people, ……provoked not only his acute sympathy on a personal level but a welling up of rage. It took all his incredible powers of self-control to contain this rage, and the vein of grim irony exemplified in this letter was an expressive outlet for it. ……” For such a sharp man, there was no reason to give up rebelling but to wait.
As the progression to the Cold War continued, the last terror of autocracy vanished: Joseph Stalin disgracefully left the world on 5th Mar 1953. At least, Shostakovich gripped at a straw of hope when everyone was shocked. Subsequently, successor Nikita Khrushchev’s attempts to deconstruct Stalin’s reputation led to the period of Khrushchev Thaw, an era when artists were somehow liberated, thanks to Khrushchev’s indifference to the arts. Later, on the 17th of the same year, Shostakovich’s Tenth Symphony soared to frighten the audience and provoked controversy. In the first movement of the expatiatory movement, the motif D-S-C-H was introduced to the public as a significant clue to trace Shostakovich’s thoughts through melodies. Picturing the harshness of Stalin’s horrible reign and substituting it with a grand theme and his sign, this piece marked the honorable comeback of the composer against tyranny.
If the Tenth can be regarded as Shostakovich’s reply to his experience, then his next work reached a new altitude of social concern. On October 13, 1956, a democratic movement against Hungary’s Communist Party began in Budapest, addressing de-Stalinization issues. However, the Soviet Union intervened, sending troops on November 1st and tanks on November 4th. The resistance collapsed by November 11th, resulting in around 3,000 Hungarian deaths and over 20,000 wounded, half of them workers.
The incident inspired Shostakovich’s brainchild when he planned to compose another Symphony with the topic of Bloody Sunday and the Russian Revolution of 1905, two significant events just before his birth that ignited Russia’s anger and changed the rest of his life. However, he determined to depict the cruelness of the Soviet Army in Hungary, which consequently led to an imperishable chef-d’oeuvre of all times. Published in 1957, Shostakovich’s Eleventh Symphony “The year 1905” chronologically narrated a year of revolution with four uninterrupted movements, as if it were a movie soundtrack of his early life but without a movie as his poet friend Anna Akhmatova glorified it as “white birds flying against a terrible black sky”. In order to narrate the history objectively (as he explained to Rakhlin), he deliberately hid his presence by not using his name, but many folk song tunes were put in to describe the image of the frozen palace square, protesting people, Tsar and his troops. For example, themes from his previous work, 10 Poems in the Second Movement, representing revolution, and themes from Warszawianka, a world-announced revolutionary song from Poland, are easy to spot in the opus (which also indicated his family’s Polish origin).
The first movement depicted a frozen scene of the palace square where the conflict was about to happen. The music was generally cold and faint, while it often appeared to have a subtle revolutionary melody to imply the progression. When it shifted into the second session, image conjured up of the morning of 9th January, when the priest gathered the hungry mobs and tried negotiating with the tsar. Nevertheless, his troops laid siege to the people and pushed the forces back again and again until the order from the impatient, brutal tsar of massacre was given. In a minute, the piercing sounds of guns, screams, steps, roaring storms, and explosions blast into a crazy Sunday of the holocaust, squeezing out any hope for survial. The famous but controversial interview of Solomon Volkov, Testimony, detailed the bloodshed: “In 1905, they were carting a mound of murdered children on a sleigh. The boys had been sitting in the trees, looking at the soldiers, and the soldiers shot them, just like that, for fun…… and the dead children were smiling. They had been killed so suddenly that they hadn’t time to be frightened.” It is imaginable that as the survivors from that bloody massacre remained fearful, it may well have left an impact on Shostakovich’s childhood, though he never experienced it. As every sound was depressed, it was a gray silence of death and mourning, which lasted until the Fourth movement. The powerful song from people’s mouths and Toscin flooded……The whole symphony ended in a climax, without telling the end of the history by design, leaving only a turbid dissonance hint of chime.
This piece’s skills and techniques have been widely considered a breakthrough in orchestration that can serve as another proof of the enlargement Shostakovich’s freedom of composing since Stalin’s death.
As it is known to all, the revolution failed but turned out to be the prophesy of Russia Empire’s collapse. This opus can also be a description of the revolution in Hungary, where the Russian Army also shot innocent people who protested for a better life.
This “whimsical” explanation isn’t illogical, as for most of Shostakovich’s adaptation or orchestration of other’s literature works, he selected the texts which he agreed most or believed to be a good expression of his inner mind. Such a “shift of context” was also found in his late period’s greatest chorus piece, The Execution of Stepan Razin, with the same topic indicating a failed rebellion against the tyrant, packaged with the tale of Cossack chief Stepan Razin, who pursued freedom for his people but disgracefully defeated. There is no doubt that such a work that Shostakovich’s musicologist friend Sabinina described as “being the culmination of an epic series in the work of Shostakovich……(the chorus piece) that significantly fertilized the composer’s thinking” could also be nourished in his opposing attitude towards Soviet Government. For unknown reasons he considered to compose it as the real Thirteenth Symphony before Babi Yar‘s birth, an opus which was also derived from poems of Y.Yevtushenko. For five movements with chorus, Shostakovich powerfully fustigated the antisemitism after WWII, and taunted the malformed economy of Soviet Union through Yevtushenko’s lyrics.
Scholar Semyon Bychkov, after conducting a good study on this symphony and performing it in 1988, stated that “events such as those in 1905 have happened elsewhere… Uprisings tend to be similar: people are killed, there’s a requiem to be written”. Likewise, musicologist Lev Lebedinsky claimed that this music was a retrospective work and a representation of modern terror. He guessed that its major theme was also anti-Stalinism since this brute depiction can be related to the regime of Stalin. He also agreed on the theory of it being an indication of the Hungary Revolution, though there is still insufficient proof.
When we look back at the elements, there’s a confusing point that can be used to prove the Hungary Revolution’s influence on this piece: why in the “fear” part, where people were afraid to confront weaponized army, Shostakovich purposefully used snare drum to simulate the sound of machine gun, cellos and contrabass to tanks, and powerful trombone to nosedive of German Stuka, all of which didn’t exist before WWI? The official answer was that these sounds were what he and most people had experienced in the Siege of Leningrad. Those alarming music proved most efficient resonating with people’s tensions. Sounds of these horrific slaughter machines were also present in the killing week in Budapest. This indication made sense and corresponded to his empathy and anti-imperialism of the Soviet Union without triggering the redline. Surprisingly enough, two revolutions were then both attempts for democracy. If Shostakovich really expressed his sympathy (for no matter which event), then persuasively, he also had a democratic dream and disapproved of the recent state of autocratic socialism. Reminding that Shostakovich was a teenager in 1917, he may have had an appreciation of Alexander Kerensky’s interim government due to his family’s early longing for democracy. This conclusion is bold but rational, while some scholars will not take this possible historical context into consideration. Take Fay for example, who first queried Testimony, she avoided analyzing its relationship with the Hungary Revolution (but compared it with the Cambodia Carnage). And as Taruskin, renowned pro-Fay scholar, cast his interpretation in the debate towards Testimony, “……Officially dedicated to the memory of the suppressed Russian Revolution of 1905, [the Eleventh Symphony] was privately interpreted as a protest against the crushing by the Soviets of the Hungarian revolt. Whenever asked, Shostakovich denied it; but that made no difference. His audience never asked……”, directly indicating his belief of Shostakovich’s remonstration on imperialism.
Needless to mention, this brave attempt of this work was of great significance in the music field, which helped Shostakovich win the Lenin Prize. In a nutshell, the Eleventh Symphony is an important work and represent his humanity and rebellion against the Soviet Government.
The last piece under discussion ishis Eighth String Quartet. After his success and achievement been guaranteed, Shostakovich was invited to join the Party to show loyalty for several times. However, it was not until he finished his First Cello Concerto did he realize that if he didn’t take a seat of power, then others who were pitifully undeserving will take it and leave a worse situation. Therefore he was determined to “sacrifice” himself and join the Party, then from 4th to 7th Apr 1960, the First Founding Congress of the RSFSR Union of Composers was held in Moscow, where he was elected to be the first secretary of the board of directors. Later from 12th to 14th July 1960, his response toward these events was an easy but spooky work. This furious work consisted of straight quotations from his First Symphony, Second Piano Trio (where his Jew motif first appear and which was used to present his identity), First Cello Concerto, Eleventh Symphony, and the Russian folk song Exhausted by The Hardships of Prison. Most importantly, the essential name of motif D-S-C-H echoed for 160 times. Many scholars now tend to consider this piece as his “declaration of suicide”, for his desperate longing for death at that time. This viewpoint explained why he kept repeating old motifs for theme. It was probably that this opus was a letter left to review the greatest turning points of his lives. As for the genre, it returned to his former atonalitic skills to create tension: for each part of this very piece, it reflected the dying mind of the composer, and this tension reminded the audience of his two experiences that were misjudged — spiritual exiles and major rebellions.
His letter to Glikman on July 19th, 1960 demonstrated that: “I composed my Eighth Quartet. ……I started thinking that if some day I die, nobody is likely to write a work in memory of me, so I’d better write one myself. The title page could carry the dedication: ‘To the memory of the composer of this quartet’. The basic theme of the quartet is the four notes……that is, my initials, D-S-C-H. …… But here you may detect a touch of self-glorification, which no doubt will soon pass and leave in its place the usual self-critical hangover.”
Based on the information provided, it’s not difficult to imagine his disdain for the Soviet Government, which stifled his sense of liberation and showed different attitudes toward him. In essence, this easy but dissonant excerpt, for the length of just 20 minutes, served as a reflection of the true Shostakovich, who embraced liberty of mind.
By evaluating these major blockbuster pieces above, conclusion can be reached that playing as the complementary of other actions, Shostakovich’s music pieces expressed his revolting attitude and social concern in an abstract way to dodge examination. Also, the motif D-S-C-H was widely considered to emerge in these three opuses, which marked this period of his life as the most rebellious as he finally started to assault the government, leader, or any presentation of authoritarian power. Now, the image of an anti-totalitarian hero was built worldwide, which added to his fame. Through all these pivotal events in his life, pieces can be found corresponding to them and thus analyzed to reveal his mind and ideology behind music.
Debate over ideology of Shostakovich
By analyzing all major works and actions of Shostakovich, it is reasonable to identify his ideology as Democratic-Socialism according to multiple issues it represented: socialism with democracy, humanism, egalitarianism, and freedom of speech.
“I scribble on paper in one burst;
I hear with an accustomed ear the catcalls;
then I torment the ears of the whole world;
then I get into print; and it’s straight into oblivion — poof!”
Derived from poet Pushkin’s words, this humorous text was the lyric of his humorous self-introduction work Preface to the Complete Collection of My Works and Thoughts written in 1966, which seemed to spill his own thoughts. For safety, Shostakovich seldom demonstrated his attitudes towards social events and his faith. Instead, he resorted to disguise to handle dangerous conversations. When composer Mieczysław Weinberg was interviewed, he stated that “……Shostakovich’s personality is a very enigmatic one. There wasn’t a single person, to whom he would bare his soul, there wasn’t……(but) He was always totally honest when composing his music. Regardless of the content, theme or genre. …… Doing that for a prisoner accused of anti-Soviet activity was an incredibly dangerous step……”. Besides his music, some real efforts he made had also driven people to explore his ideology. He supported communism, yet, for some moments he suggested other structures of nation and government.
Debate surrounding Shostakovich’s affairs have remained unabated, many pieces of evidence remain shrouded in uncertainty, leaving room for varied interpretations and assumptions regarding the composer’s true ideological stance. On the other hand, illustrious figures in the Shostakovich debate mainly held divergent opinions over two issues: the reliability of Testimony‘s facts and attitudes and the extent to which Shostakovich’s oeuvre was intertwined with politics against Stalin (so as to prove claims of his anti-leftism).
Opinions have been divided into two opposing camps. For instance, Fay and Taruskin cast doubt on the reliability of Testimony, and respectively suggested “not all of his works are of sarcasm” and “all of his works contain such motivation to compose”. In a nutshell, they deemed it not enough support for such an extensive biographical piece. Other researchers like Ian MacDonald were dedicated to drawing relationship between Shostakovich’s work and politics and ideology, and acknowledged a strong reliance on Testimony. Such a debate lasted for years and usually in the form of books, journal articles and reviews. Major debate works included DSCH journal filled with researches and new interpretations of the composer and important figures around him; Review of the Music. The Melos even set a unique space for these scholars to combat and discuss. The conflict between pan-Fay clique and pan-Volkov clique (or pan-MacDonald clique)lasted for twenty years until the publication of the book The Noise of Time by novelist Julian Barnes in 2016. The book was probably the only fictional work on Shostakovich after his death.
Russian composer Rodion Shchedrin pointed out in his conversation with musicologist David Fanning, “You in the West sometimes have a very naive view. You think in black and white. ….. I remember playing in a performance of Prokofiev’s Zdravitsa [cum Hail to Stalin], for instance. But wouldn’t you compromise if you had to save your family?” Most scholars take a non-communist position, and they may not realize that Communism and Socialism are not a consistent unity but descendants of Leftist philosophies which contain discordant ideologies, like Leninism and Stalinism. Though these theories share leftist tendencies, they have different opinions toward social structures and certain events.
Shostakovich’s identity and attitude toward music and politics have also been a focus of debate. Renowned British Trotskyist bugler Alan Woods, though less influential than other historian in Shostakovich debate, held a different yet impressive view on Shostakovich’s ideology and insisted that Stalinism a betrayal of original Marxism and Leninism. On 16 Dec, 2006, his article Shostakovich, the Musical Conscience of the Russian Revolution was published on Trotskyist websites, where he argued the tendency of simply classifying Shostakovich as a strong con-or-pro Communist or even worse, as obedient servant of Soviet Union’s propaganda machine. Moreover, he pointed out Stalin had revised Lenin’s theory by introducing the Great Purge, was obsessive about collective production and absolute autocratic sovereign: “Yes, Shostakovich was indeed a communist. But what people like Norris cannot understand is that to be a communist is not to be a Stalinist, and that the two things are mutually incompatible.”
Regrettably, Woods seemed to have failed in adequately detailing and ascertaining Shostakovich’s own perspective on politics, leaving a notable gap in his analysis. It’s also a pity that Shostakovich Society and Shostakovich Association, two strong organizations focusing on the composer’s life and works, refused to study on this topic. Krzysztof Meyer, another historian who successfully told Socialism from Communism, claimed in his interview with the DSCH journal that”[Shostakovich] was never like the Communists. But of course I must remind you that his family came from generations with strong socialist backgrounds — of course, Communism and Socialism are quite different phenomena. Soviet Communism was synonymous with tyranny.” And when interviewed by Bruce Duffie, Shostakovich’s son Maxim suggested that being not all political, music can be politicized in composition and performance, “Especially in Shostakovich music, he doesn’t show politics like it is; he shows human beings in the world in all circumstances — under pressure, happy, unhappy, everything. First is suffering, and all feelings of human beings are in music, I think.” He basically suggested that it was his father’s own ideology (more than personality) that drove him to rebel and compose.
Some music fans and even dominant culture creators have surmised that Shostakovich was an advocate for Anarcho-Communism, but evidence was not enough to substantiate this claim. As above, all of them have attempted but never managed to identify Shostakovich’s real ideology, yet their efforts have laid the foundation for studying the composer.
It is essential to make clear that democratic socialism can be defined as a variation of Socialism that upholds democratic elections and political pluralism. Its major difference from Stalinism (or authoritarian socialism) is that it advocates non-autocratic leadership and elections, diversity in arts fields and freedom of speech, anti-imperialism, and social equality. On the other side, proletarian vanguard and dictatorship are not supported, but the collective production and no class distinction are ensured. These characters also mark their difference from Social-Democrat and Liberal-Socialism.
Shostakovich’s decision not to escape from the Soviet Union was multifaceted and deeply nuanced. While the threat to his family weighed heavily on his mind, his choice was also influenced by a profound sense of patriotism towards the Soviet Union, despite his disdain for Stalin’s regime. This patriotism, rooted in his love for his homeland and its people, eventually outweighed the fear of Stalinism and compelled him to contribute to the efforts during the Siege of Leningrad. Amidst a global war, the most effective strategy to achieve this objective entails leveraging all available resources against the nationalist foes. This approach granted artists the freedom to create works without constraints to save art from Nazis, provided they contribute to the elimination of Nazi adversaries. Despite the immense danger and hardship, Shostakovich stayed in Leningrad and completed his Seventh Symphony, a work infused with themes of patriotism and resistance against fascism. His decision to join the firefighter brigade of the Leningrad Conserv. further exemplified his commitment to his country and its people during their darkest hour.
It’s important to note that Shostakovich’s struggle was not solely driven by fear of Stalin’s regime. Unlike other composers including Prokofiev and Stravinsky, who found refuge outside of the USSR, Shostakovich stuck his allegiance to the Soviet Union at the risk of his life. While he may have harbored criticisms of the Communist Party and its leadership, his attachment to the ideals of Soviet Russia and his desire to contribute to its cultural and patriotic narrative was a fundamental drive behind his decision. Some policies that Socialist countries share, like collective production and access to liberal arts for proletarians, are favored by Shostakovich, which can be seen in his letters to Mravinsky and Glikman. What he hated was only the omnipresent Stalin’s regulation and his tyranny purge, like his supervision over themes of arts.
On the other hand, Shostakovich revealed his internationalism, doctrine of equality, and pacifism. As Glikman recalled,”(Shostakovich) was heir to a noble tradition of artistic and social thought — one that abhorred injustice and political repression, but valued social commitment, participation in one’s community, and solidarity with people. Shostakovich’s mature idea of art……was based not on alienation but on service”, which corresponded to his philanthropism. From an internationalist perspective, Shostakovich’s letter to Glikman on December 10, 1957, recounted an incident from the 1952 Helsinki Olympics where Yugoslavia defeated the Soviet Union’s football team. A player, Bobrov, criticized his teammate Bashashkin as “Tito’s stooge” due to his poor defense. As a passionate football fan, Shostakovich celebrated the Soviet team’s loss with Glikman over brandy, seeing it as a victory against imperialism. This nuanced attitude reflected his complex views on international relations and socialism rather than a simple adherence to Soviet orthodoxy despite both nations being socialist regimes.
As for pacifism, besides his firefighter service in Leningrad, Shostakovich’s Seventh and Eighth symphonies were a strong representation of his willingness for peace and anti-fascism. During WWII, the Allied powers also attached importance to his works: America didn’t spare any effort to transport the microfilm of his Seventh’s score from Leningrad to Teheran, Cairo, and New York City, which led to a fight for its performance among conductors of its American premiére. The reason it attracted such attention was that this piece represented the effort of the Soviet people to strike back against the Nazis and their hope for peace, which was inspiring for the American and Asian soldiers who were fighting with Japanese imperialists in the Pacific. Accordingly, this long but strong battle cry motivated the whole counter-striking by the world of the Allies. From these two symphonies, it’s easy to tell that Shostakovich encouraged many pacifist movements as a wordless activist. As it was said, “It’s a huge ant hill in which we all crawl. In the majority of cases, our destinies are bad. …… And as soon as someone crawls a little higher, he’s ready to torture and humiliate others.” Plus, though he was unwilling to attend the World Peace Council as a Soviet Union delegate, he still tried to win peace for the whole world. For example, around the 50s, he and the famous American African sociologist, historian, and activist W.E.B. Du Bois communicated with a letter that shared their thoughts about delivering peace through international assistance and resisting policies of injustice, like the Smith Act.
It is a shame that Shostakovich had almost no chance to indicate his attitude towards Democracy. Nevertheless, as previous discussion on the Eleventh Symphony showed, this piece may contain Shostakovich’s pity for one or two democratic revolutions that gathered furious people to overthrow a tyranny. Additionally, he admired many Western composers abroad, such as Stravinsky, Gustav Mahler, Aaron Copland, and Benjamin Britten, and he had delightful relationships with most of them. Some of them, obviously, also preferred democracy and managed to spread this thought in their pieces. For instance, Fanfare for the Common Man from Copland, Advance Democracy by Britten, and First and Eighth Symphony “A Thousand” by Mahler. These works expressed the themes of love and spirit beyond death and time, as Fredrich Nietzsche did, the greatness of hoi polloi, and democracy. Their influence on Shostakovich included a wider range of music genres, themes, and techniques. It provided Shostakovich with a notion of freedom of creating, which further led to the spirit of liberty and democracy (which was also behind the popularity of his works in the free Western world, where Shostakovich was even regarded as a potential America since he shared many notions and manners of American). Because they were friends, their contact mostly lasted a long period, and their influence was experienced in a profound time span; thus, it is more visible in his pieces of work.
After the Fifth Symphony, Shostakovich’s composition skills reached new heights with innovative chord usage, unusual orchestration, and a significant motif, marking a clear distinction from his earlier works. The Fourth Symphony showcased his youthful talents and inner turmoil, while the Fifth reflected deep anguish from societal injustices, indicating his evolution through personal suffering. Despite this torment, Shostakovich’s music doesn’t evoke self-pity; instead, it transcends into the tragedy of an individual, highlighting the plight of those oppressed by the Soviet regime. This shift can also be seen as an impact of democratic and liberal philosophies on his mind. Also, Maxim mentioned in an interview that his father sometimes did secret research on multi-party systems, which could serve to support this assumption.
Additionally, Shostakovich, as an artist, shared a comprehensive and pluralism for his philosophy. His concept of “common good” believed in actions or creations aimed to benefit society or individuals serving their intended purpose. In this field, Shostakovich’s viewpoint was confusing. On one hand, in a nation he held in esteem, artistic works should be encouraged to be composed, while their audience can be everyone in the nation. In this utilitarianism anticipation, everyone can share entertainment, so in return, the nation can be powerful. On the other hand, artists shouldn’t be forced to do so, since their own willingness should be considered. In other words, the theme of their works doesn’t need to be monopolized by governments, and such works can be artists’ own way to output their ideas, even political views. But such Utopian illustration, just like most of the mistakes intelligentsia has made in their illusions, has an impossible demand that people from all walks of life should maintain a high level of aesthetic standards, like manners or moral level. As one of the great musicians throughout the Soviet Union, Shostakovich contributed a lot to the common good in the field of entertainment and accomplished complicated and avant-garde works in the academic fields; thus, he can be considered to be a well-tempered artist who fulfills these ultimate expectations of himself. These concepts, seemingly, fit the ideas of social democrats and democratic socialists. As British democratic-socialist writer George Orwell claimed, “……no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude,” confirming that every art piece must and inevitably contain political views. Hence, the will of the writer shouldn’t be limited, and they must be free to write and reach democracy. Without a doubt, writers and intelligentsia should also be stimulated to write pro-democratic and pro-socialism articles to promote such ideologies.
Also, to reach a democratic atmosphere in the art field itself, there shouldn’t be any discrimination. That is, democratic socialists believe that people should have the right to have equal access to every kind of art, which is not the useless plaything of the bourgeois. So long as they completely generalize an overview of certain artwork, they have the right and obligation to make commentary. This concept, originated by Hermann Cohen, who created the prototype of democratic socialism, revealed the relationship between power and the art’s discourse hegemony. He pointed out that once the theme of the artworks denies the continuity of power and the unity of people, the art can indicate heroism and then further hierarchy rather than the morality and virtue of people.
Likewise, a pioneer of Democratic-Socialism in early Germany, Rosa Luxemburg held a even more radical idea of art. Her legacy on art conception influenced the new pan-leftism culture. Most famous was her debate with Lenin, which directly determined the overall policies of future Soviet Union. Practices motivated by her thoughts include Democratic-Socialist Party of Germany’s democratic theatre in Berlin. Seemingly, they were alike the concept of Socialism Realism that Shostakovich detested, while they shared thoughts that were not compatible. They regarded art as a strong weapon against ideological enemies, which corresponded to Soviet Union’s theory. They didn’t think it suggests forcing artists to be “Government’s Mouth”.
While Shostakovich and activists and revolutionist who held Democratic-Socialism are put into contrast, it is easy to find that Shostakovich seldom expressed his support for democratic elective system, but as mentioned this was reasonable since the oppression from authoritarian government on his freedom of speech. Most of democratic-socialists especially these activists above disagreed on Stalin’s bureaucracy in fields of leader election, attitude toward arts, freedom of speech and diplomatic posture, and internationalism that are essential for Communism.
Shostakovich’s perspective aligns well with democratic socialist values such as patriotism, internationalism, pacifism, pro-democracy, egalitarianism, and free artistic expression. His life and work reflected these ideals despite the rarity and limited success of democratic socialism globally. Shostakovich’s struggle exemplified a leftist fight against totalitarian oppression, influencing modern leftists and artists to pursue change through art rather than violence. Additionally, moderate compromising political movements like strikes, demonstrations, and parades are now seeking art as an auxiliary means so they can get more attention. For example, easy march songs, humorous comics, and fliers can now be replaced by (or take effect along with) sarcastic plays, installation art, or performance art.
Thus, in every aspect, Shostakovich guided millions of new-generation artists and activists in applying new ways such as sarcasm to confronting totalitarian, authoritarian, and autocrat. Those methods can avoid bloodshed, outmaneuver the government and force it to revise. Thus Shostakovich set the last milestone of classical music and bridged it with new music, deserving to be a distinguished paragraph of fine arts.
Conclusion
By challenging the dominance of the authoritarian ideology of Soviet Union liberal arts, especially in the field of music, Shostakovich stuck to his ideology of Democratic-Socialism and adapted to the harsh Soviet environment oppressing intellectuals and artists. He inspired tens of thousands of talented composers to survive from the pressure, and influenced new leftists for decades until now.
“The Russian composer Dimitri Shostakovich, whose music is known and played throughout the world, continues to acquire new and ever more fervent admirers. He epitomizes the most noble traditions and values of our civilization.
“The personality of Shostakovich proved a powerful moral influence on his contemporaries. During the hard and cruel era of Stalinism, he had the courage to express in his music the misery of his people by means of an extraordinary dramatic feeling, and to denounce the hidden forces which were then eliminating millions of human lives. His music became a moral support for all who were persecuted. Belief in the final victory of justice, instilled through his works, transformed his music into a powerful stimulus to the spirit of resistance and freedom.
“The inner power of his music, always of great vividness, enriches the many thousands of new listeners who discover it with eagerness and pleasure. Thus, even after his death, Dimitri Shostakovich continues to lead the world towards light and reason. His work, of universal value, is recognized by all.”
Since the founding of Soviet Russia, special leftist arts that emerged on this frozen land have impressed generations, and the avant-garde artists, who dare to explore and rebel against all conservative power, deserved to be respected. In fact, to control the stability, Communist Party was intentionally depressing advanced or abstract arts and advocating Socialism Realism, in case the anti-communism were wrapped inside the lyrics-and-rhythms and gained tracks among Proletarians. For such a unique circumstance, artists, especially musicians, must manage to find the balance, and Shostakovich was absolutely a master of compromises and survival. The great debate, or Shostakovich war, are now reaching a consensus. Celebrated English composer and conductor J.Horowitz, as expected, considered that “The Soviet pressure cooker shattered Shostakovich’s nerves and, undoubtedly, shortened his life. But Stalinism may be said to have more inflamed than suppressed his creative gift. With its mournful austerity, its vicious ferocity, its programmatic clues, Shostakovich’s music conveyed his own denunciations of state tyranny, of the persecution of Jews, of the suppression of the human spirit. He suffered and testified…… Shostakovich was a moral bulwark or scourge…… Only belatedly did he emerge as the century’s great political subversive among composers, a voice of conscience.”
Not a supporter of the absolutism of Stalin, but still patriotic and already embracing leftism, Shostakovich harbored a complex attitude toward Soviet Union. On one side, this unity was the most leftist of nations that time, which fitted his long-term expectation of a collective Proletarian political system. However, Stalin’s poor view of art, brute way of political struggle, and imperialism detested him. As a literary and artistic practitioner, he then suffered a lot depression under Stalin’s control. Still, he responsively composed Rayok, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh Symphony, and Eighth String Quartet as sarcasm to criticize the absolutism Stalin plugged into the Communist Party. By digging into the core of these pieces, it is easy to tell his intolerance of tyranny. On the other side, he also composed the Seventh Symphony and Eighth Symphony in WWII that signaled a sound from the USSR of defense and Allied power, which also gained a global reputation. To please Stalin and stay alive, he compromised to write the Fifth Symphony, Song of the Forests, and many movie soundtracks that adulated Stalin’s sovereignty.
Furthermore, from his letters to friends like Mravinsky, Weinberg, and Glikman, an analysis of his ideology can be made: Democratic-Socialism, which is a sophisticated leftist practical ideology embracing democracy and greatly disagreed with authoritarian policies. This fact makes sense when putting his opuses, attitudes, and respective historical context under consideration and can explain Shostakovich’s invisible hostility to Stalin.
The recent discovery in Shostakovich’s research shed light on key questions about his life and work, such as the accuracy of the controversial claims in “Testimony” about his anti-leftism, which some argue were influenced by Volkov’s ideology. This new information allows for a deeper understanding of Shostakovich’s relationship with Soviet power and his motivations. It contributes significantly to studies of Shostakovich, Soviet musicology, and the broader history of the Soviet Union and its ideologies, highlighting a democratic-socialist perspective on maintaining the music field amidst the Soviet Union’s rise, decline, and eventual degeneration.