Shostakovich is often, in musical circles, called the greatest composer of the twentieth century. Yet the quality of his music is so uneven that, while a third of it is the brain-bombing work of a divine genius, another third is almost...
[more]Shostakovich is often, in musical circles, called the greatest composer of the twentieth century. Yet the
quality of his music is so uneven that, while a third of it is the brain-bombing work of a divine genius, another
third is almost worthless, and another third scares young violinists into abandoning contemporary music. These wild discrepancies can be explained very simply: open a history book to witness the political tribulations that occurred in the composer's native Soviet Russia during his lifetime. Whether or not he sympathized with the revolutionary government is, to this day, a hotly debated issue (among Shostakovich scholars, that is). Most music historians, however, tend to view him as an antirevolutionary.When Shostakovich's "First Symphony" premiered in 1926, the Soviet government saw an opportunity. The 19-year-old was pinpointed as a cultural ambassador, and was instructed to behave as such
in any interviews with Westerners. Shostakovich complied. This occurred just a year after his education at the Leningrad Conservatory had been interrupted by his mother's battle with malaria, his stint as a cinema pianist
(to support his mother and sister), and his own slow recovery from tuberculosis. His second symphony (1927) was
entitled "To October," and ostensibly honored the Soviet Revolution. However, the tragic feeling that fills the
work lends credence to the theory that it was written as a funeral song: in 1917, Shostakovich had seen a
policeman beat to death a small boy accused of stealing bread. The Soviet regime seemed to believe that they were
better off having Shostakovich on their side -- at least for a little while.
In 1936, two anonymous articles in
Pravda denounced the composer's current (and successful) performances: an opera, "Lady Macbeth of the Mtensk
District," and a ballet, "The Limpid Stream." The articles' author was and is commonly believed to have been
Stalin himself. The dictator had also bestirred himself to establish specifications and criteria as to what music
would pass as "Soviet": such music would never be dissonant, would use themes from Russian folksongs, and would
always end on an uplifting and "revolutionary" note. Anything else would be "formalist" -- a condemnation of the worst order.
Soon enough, Shostakovich was called before a panel of Party members who told him in no uncertain terms that his
music was dangerously formalist, and that he must apologize immediately and alter his style. He did so, then went
home to his pregnant wife and waited for the midnight knock on the door. It never came. When Shostakovich was
again reprimanded, in 1948, the accusations were much worse. Along with the three other greats of Soviet music,
Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, and Khachaturian, Shostakovich was told that his music was unfit for performance, and that
all recordings and scores would be destroyed. Luckily, this did not occur, and this century retained its musical
master. There is no music that can describe the great World Wars like that of Shostakovich; none whose every note
is so infused with the suffering and tragedy of millions of human beings; none that takes horror and hope and
alchemizes them into a string quartet -- four musicians seemingly possessed, sounding notes that seem to
originate not in their instruments, but in every soul who hears.
[show less]
