Kovacic 1
Dustin Kovacic
Shostakovich, Stalin, and Subversion: Piano Quintet in G Minor, Op. 57 as a Stage for Irony and
Sarcasm
“You ask if I would have been different without ‘Party guidance’? Yes, almost
certainly…I would have displayed more brilliance, used more sarcasm, I could have
revealed my ideas openly instead of having to resort to camouflage.”1
Throughout history, oppressive political regimes were no strangers to dissident movements. Soviet Russia during the 20th Century saw many forms of subversion develop as a counter to the controlling nature of the regime. Defined as:
The undermining or detachment of the loyalties of significant political and social groups
within the victimized state, and their transference, under ideal conditions, to the symbols
and institutions of the aggressor,2 subversion took many forms in the USSR. Subversion was prevalent in Russia throughout the
19th century, with groups such as the Decemberists and the Petrashevsky Circle that pushed a democratic agenda through underground political movements. When Joseph Stalin became the
Premier of the Soviet Union in 1941, these underground subversive movements became incrementally more dangerous. With Stalin placing numerous dissidents in prison and labor camps, subversion became extremely risky and in many cases, life threatening.
In the height of Soviet rule, a young composer by the name of Dmitri Shostakovich was
1 Elizabeth Wilson, Shostakovich: A Life Remembered (1994), 425-6. 2 Paul W. Blackstock, The Strategy of Subversion: Manipulating the Politics of Other Nations( Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964), 56.
Kovacic 2 trying to gain a name and earn money for his family. Shostakovich was born in Saint Petersburg in 1906 and had spent most of his life trying to gain success through allegiance to the
Communist Party. Throughout his compositional development, money remained a sort of “idée fixe” in Shostakovich’s thinking.3 Growing up hearing about his grandfather’s involvement in the Polish Uprising and firsthand experience in the Bolshevik Revolution, the young
Shostakovich was in the midst of many subversive political movements.
As his compositions began gaining notoriety, Shostakovich formed a connection with
Soviet leaders, in particular, Joseph Stalin. While his first symphonies seemed to comply with
Stalin’s strict restrictions on composition, Shostakovich did not always enjoy a positive relationship with the Communist leader and was denounced from the Party on different occasions. Nonetheless, Shostakovich’s growing relationship with the Communist Party led to his heightened visibility as a composer. At a time when he was in favor with the Party,
Shostakovich wrote his second opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, which suffered harsh criticisms as “muddle instead of music” in the Russian newspaper Pravda, leading many to suspect that Stalin himself wrote the article.4 The result was a major setback in Shostakovich’s success as a composer.5 To regain party favor, Shostakovich spent the next few years writing film music, and eventually composed his Symphony No. 5 – a markedly conservative work that became a Soviet anthem.
Symphony No. 5 became one of Shostakovich’s most widely acclaimed works, due not only to its appeasing nature to the Communists and Stalin’s Russian ideals, but to its
3 Solomon Volkov, Shostakovich and Stalin: The Extraordinary Relationship Between the Great Composer and the Brutal Dictator (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 58. 4 “Muddle Instead of Music,” Pravda, January 28, 1936.
5 Brian Morton, Shostakovich: His Life and Music (London: Haus, 2006), 44. Kovacic 3 compositional mastery. Thematically based on a motive found in Mahler’s Fourth Symphony,
Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5 avoided the eccentricities of his previous works, which were sometimes criticized for chaotic arrangements and melodic lines.6 As a result of the negative press he received in the Pravda, Shostakovich wrote an inscription to the symphony stating it was a “practical creative reply of a Soviet musician to just criticism.”7 In borrowing from
Mahler, Shostakovich began a trend of employing quotations, which would extend to later works and become one of his signature compositional techniques. Continuous themes of Soviet allegiance found his Symphony No. 5, Shostakovich’s later symphonies address themes including war as well as principle Communist ideologies. Although initially these may appear to be written only to serve as a Soviet didactic of socialism, there appears to be meaning beyond such themes. In fact, later in his life, Shostakovich shared that “the majority of [these] symphonies are tombstones.”8 Throughout my research, I have found it challenging to distinguish whether Shostakovich meant this literally, as a commemoration of those who lost their lives in wars or purges, or as a representation of the death of freedom inherent in Soviet rule.
Only at age fifty, after a lifetime of falling in and out of favor with the Communist Party, did Shostakovich finally join the Communist Party in 1960 after being offered a post as General
Secretary of the Composers’ Union. While marking a significant turning point in Shostakovich’s life both financially and politically, this decision was one of the hardest he had ever made, as relayed by those closest to him. In many ways, this moment represented a period of “moral
6 “Muddle Instead of Music,” Pravda.
7 Dmitri Shostakovich, Piano Quintet in G Minor, Op. 57,
8 Solomon Volkov, tr. Antonina W. Bouis, Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich (New York; Harper & Row, 1979), 156. Kovacic 4 death” in Shostakovich’s life,9 which stated by his friend Isaak Glikman, led to the contemplation of suicide.10
With such distressing thoughts swirling in his mind, Shostakovich was driven to compose his String Quartet No. 8 that same year. The work begins with a motive on D, E-flat, C, and B, which spells DSCH using German notation and represents the composer’s initials and is perhaps that best example of Shostakovich’s recurrent use of a musical signature. The motive takes shape throughout the movements in each instrument, indicative of Shostakovich’s passion for recurrent themes. Interpretations of the meaning of this work vary among scholars, with many believing the work represents an epitaph to the composer - a recognition that a part of him died when he was forced to join the Party. In a symposium in 1992, Shostakovich’s son, Maxim, highlighted the work’s personal nature, stating one can hear “the knocks on the door by the KGB.”11
A question that arises when studying the life and music of Dmitri Shostakovich is whether he, by tailoring his compositions to Stalin’s restrictions, was “the most loyal son of the
Soviet regime” or a subtle subversive.12 Although much research has been presented to suggest that the former was not the case, many look to Shostakovich’s music for hints that would express the real intentions behind his compositions. Any blatant disregard for the Communist Party could have put Shostakovich in danger. As a result of Soviet censorship and secret police, there is
9 Wilson, Life Remembered, 162.
10 Isaak Glikman’s commentary to an exchange he had with Shostakovich in Story of A Friendship; The Letters of Dmitry Shostakovich to Isaak Glikman 1941-1975 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 92.
11 Harlow Robinson, “And Art Made Tongue-Tied By Authority: The Dialogue Between Shostakovich and Shakespeare” (paper presented at the Brown Symposium XVII, Southwestern University, February 23, 1995).
12 Richard Taruskin, “A Martyred Opera Reflects Its Abominable Time,” New York Times, November 6, 1994. Kovacic 5 limited evidence in his actions or conversations with confidants or journalists that would concretely answer the question of true loyalty.
Whether or not Shostakovich was an “ardent patriot of his Motherland” remains a topic of high debate among scholars.13 One controversial book is Solomon Volkov’s Testimony: The
Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. The book is comprised of interviews that, according to the author, he had with the composer, in which Shostakovich shared his sincere feelings about colleagues, family, and life under Communist rule. The book’s controversy centers on the authenticity of the composer’s memoirs with regard to the interviews. Critics have concluded that Volkov added a copious amount of information to these interviews, which some question ever occurred at all.14 Discussion of the authenticity of Memoirs could be a research topic in itself, but credibility exists that may lead one to investigate Shostakovich’s allegiance to the
Communist Party.
Memoirs introduces themes within Shostakovich’s life and compositional style that reflect Russian cultural traditions. One tradition is found through the use of “vranyo,” (meaning
“lies” or “fibs” in Russian) which experienced heightened use in the Soviet era. “Vranyo” often emerged as overstated sarcasm, almost to the extent of “ridiculousness,” and became “a favorite
13Veniamin Basner et al., “Pitiful Forgery. Concerning the So-called ‘Memoirs’ of D.D. Shostakovich,” Literaturnaya Gazeta, November 16, 1979, 8. (pg. 60 of Recon. )
14In Taruskin’s response to Testimony, (“The Opera and the Dictator,” New Republic, 200/12, March 20, 1989, 34) he states that, “any proper scholar could plainly see, the book was a fraud. Yet even those who could did not want to see.”
Kovacic 6
Russian rhetorical device.”15 Shostakovich manifested this sarcasm throughout his compositions, which I will address later in regard to the work I am performing tonight.
“Vranyo,” also widespread in Soviet theatre and art, became a way for authors and composers to stay within the confines of Soviet censorship, while poking fun at the overstated happiness and uniformity of the regime. This idealist nature of the Communist Party began to manifest itself in art as Stalin pioneered the idea of a unified people, happy to work hard and not be burdened by the disparity of social classes. Through this stemmed a movement called
Socialist Realism, which glorified the unified social class in a pleasing, satisfying manner.
Scenes of Socialist Realism represented everyday life while glorifying Communism. Socialist
Realism became a platform on which Stalin could guide artists and musicians who would ultimately show allegiance to and glorification of the Communist Party. These themes became a focal point in Shostakovich’s appeasement to Stalin in his attempts to regain favor in the Party.
In accordance with Socialist Realism, Symphony No. 5 was not jarring. Melodies and harmonies in the symphony were pleasant and did not disrupt the ebb and flow of the regime.
Within the research on Shostakovich, there exist a number of writings defining his role within the Communist Party. Much of this research, however, focuses upon his symphonies and string quartets as source material. As a pianist, I found little focus within this research on works incorporating the piano and thus was interested to explore the composer’s Communist allegiance through this lens. My passion for chamber music brought me to Shostakovich’s Piano Quintet in
G Minor, Op. 57. Written in 1940, shortly after Symphony No. 5, the Quintet came at a point in
Shostakovich’s life when pleasing the Communist Party was a top priority. As I will detail in the
15 Morton, Life and Music, 35. Kovacic 7 following discussion, the Quintet did exactly this. Not disagreeable musically or politically, the
Quintet became a huge success, receiving the Stalin Prize in 1941. Through a structural analysis and focus on sarcastic and ironic elements within each movement, I will provide plausible insight to Shostakovich’s veiled subversion under Stalinism.
Piano Quintet in G Minor, Op. 57 is comprised of five movements; a Prelude, Fugue,
Scherzo, Intermezzo, and Finale.
I- Prelude
The first movement of Shostakovich’s Piano Quintet is traditional in the sense that it introduces the major thematic material found throughout the later movements. A dramatic piano solo summons the listener’s attention at the start of the Prelude, beginning with a dramatic G minor block chord that solidifies both the tonality and temperament of the movement.
Shostakovich’s trend of revisiting structural patterns of previous musical eras became a recurring compositional technique throughout the Quintet. Modal use (which was the guideline for music in the church throughout early music history) can be found throughout the Quintet, with particular recurrence in the Prelude. Contributing to the simplistic nature of the Prelude, the use of the Phrygian mode provides the final cadence of the movement.
With music of the 20th century expanding the realm of dissonant harmonies and experimental rhythms, Shostakovich’s Prelude takes a somewhat conservative approach to harmony, setting the tone for the rest of the work. The opening piano solo resides within the confines of G natural minor, with only brief excursions from this tonal center. While the maintenance of tonal harmony drives the movement, it is hard to predict what comes next in the Kovacic 8 harmonic progression. Throughout the Prelude, there are dramatic ritardandos that foster great anticipation of the proceeding melody. While the opening is notably dramatic with its pesante style, yet espressivo melodies, the mood of the Prelude shifts considerably with the piano and viola exchange at the Poco piu mosso (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Taking the structure of a triple meter dance, the Poco piu mosso segment provides a sense of hope following a rather stormy introduction. Harmonically conventional, the melodic motive does not shock the listener. This placement of this phrase after the dramatic introduction instills in the listener a sense of unpredictability that becomes a defining factor in the Quintet.
II- Fugue
Following the driving conclusion of the Prelude, one might suspect that a fugue of a similar disposition would follow. Shostakovich, however, presents a fugue that is extremely somber and reflective, requiring a demanding sense of controlled focus to perform. Structurally, the form is traditional, with the first violin introducing a subject that is sequentially presented in each of the instruments, ultimately becoming a complex five-part fugue. Kovacic 9
The structure of both the Prelude and the Fugue illustrate Shostakovich’s tendencies in
Neo-Classical and Neo-Baroque composition. The Quintet was not his only work to revisit the forms of previous eras. His collection of 24 Preludes and Fugues closely model Chopin’s Op. 28
Preludes, but make references to Bach’s collection of fugues. The last fugue in the collection,
No. 24, makes a direct quotation to The Art of the Fugue.
Maintaining his relatively conservative approach to the Quintet, Shostakovich opens the fugue diatonically, with chromaticism introduced only after fourteen measures. While diatonic harmonies continue throughout the fugue, clashing harmonies are not absent. Minor seconds, sevenths, and ninths evolve into the texture and add a sense of uneasiness to the movement.
What proves to be the most unsettling aspect of the fugue is the consistently conservative dynamic range. The entire opening is to be played pianissimo and remains well into the introduction of every instrument. Coupled with this dynamic stability is the consistent tempo, never fluctuating from the introductory material presented by the violin.
Musical irony is exemplified by the movement’s many unexpected turns. Following the introduction of episodic material, there is a point in which the strings play a chromatic leading motive to a rest – complete silence. This rest is followed by an octave G in the piano, which might lead the listener to expect a return of the G minor chord found in the first measure of the
Quintet. Instead, Shostakovich plays on the listener’s expectations by imposing an A-flat minor chord above an octave G (Figure 2). This instance perhaps exemplifies the Russian model of
“vranyo” - an overstated quotation of previous melodic material in a way that surprises the listener. The satirical nature of this technique includes “[replacing] one or more of the object’s Kovacic 10 characteristic components,” a method Esti Sheinberg presents as one of three main devices of musical satire.16
Figure 2
The concluding measures of the fugue are not absent of this dramatic irony. After an E- flat descending motive in the piano, the phrase ends with an unexpected low C-sharp in the piano followed by minor chords in the strings (Figure 3).
Figure 3
16 Esti Sheinberg, Irony, Satire, Parody and the Grotesque in the Music of Shostakovich (England: Ashgate, 2000), 82. Kovacic 11
III- Scherzo
It is not surprising that the Scherzo, a term meaning “joke” in Italian, would be a stage for sarcasm and irony in the Piano Quintet. Set in B Major, the Scherzo follows a traditional progression between the tonic and dominant. The Quintet’s first fast-tempo movement, the
Scherzo has a driving force underlain by constant repetition. Through this repetition, there occurs another method of musical sarcasm. By introducing the theme numerous times in a similar fashion, its importance becomes somewhat diminished.
Although repetition provides a structural lens through which to view the movement, there is still a sense of unpredictability with the constant thematic shifts without significant cadences.
This progression through multiple themes that share little relation to each other, and could stand alone, is a technique that is not unique to Shostakovich. Although Testimony portrays
Shostakovich’s sense of ambivalence towards Sergei Prokofiev, there is congruence between this
Scherzo movement and many of Prokofiev’s piano works. Prokofiev’s Sarcasms, Op. 17, for example, made use of dissonant harmonies and unexpected harmonic shifts and was ultimately criticized for its breach of compositional norms at the time. While the Scherzo in Shostakovich’s
Piano Quintet is not as experimental as Sarcasms, it nonetheless substantiates certain tendencies in 20th-Century Russia to represent sarcasm in music.
Contributing to this satirical unexpectedness is the irregularity of phrase lengths. The distinction between phrases essentially becomes blurred, as phrases spanning numerous measures are juxtaposed with those one-to-two measures in length. The opening phrase itself is around fifteen measures, while the repetitious phrase at rehearsal 49 lasts double the length and has an ambiguous conclusion.
Dance rhythms permeate this movement, reintroducing the triple meter dance style found Kovacic 12 in the Prelude. The style here, however, takes on a lighter, more folk-like approach, with staccato rhythms in the piano and the solo violin and viola.
Throughout the movement, the instrumental texture is extremely complex, with clashing harmonies and syncopated rhythms. At Figure 4, however, the texture of the ensemble becomes extremely thin, almost skeletal. Again, among the complex structure, this section provides an unexpected, somewhat confusing contrast to the previous material. This texture shift represents a structural distortion, a common satirical technique in Shostakovich’s music.17
Figure 4
IV- Intermezzo
The title of this movement would imply a work emerging from the midst of a dramatic setting, or between two dramatic movements. Shostakovich again plays with the expectations of
17 Sheinberg, Irony, Satire, Parody, 82. Kovacic 13 the listener in regard to this title. Instead of a departure from the drama of the previous movements, the Intermezzo becomes one of, if not the most, dramatic movements in the Quintet.
The texture is very simple and the harmonies not novel, but dramatic elements are abundant within this movement.
Following the steady cello and violin duet comes subtle, yet dramatic dissonance in the viola, which is quickly resolved by the following measure. The entrance of the piano after the string motive proves to be one of the most dramatic moments in the entire quintet. Atop a steady pulse in the left hand, the right hand plays an extremely light melody in the highest register of the piano and creates a small fughetta between the piano voices. This passage is a mere chromatic side note, but becomes an unsettling motive in the midst of a diatonic string introduction (Figure 5).
Figure 5
The progression towards the Appassionato section reverses the roles of the instruments, with the piano taking the original cello beat and satirizing this structural distortion. The melody in the Appassionato becomes a passionate restatement of the simple melody in the beginning of the movement, almost to steer focus to this melodic material.
The wide-ranging moods inherent in this movement may offer an analogy to
Shostakovich’s experience under Communism. There were times at which Shostakovich was considered the most important Soviet composer – the right hand man to Stalin, but there were Kovacic 14 also numerous shifts in the Party’s attitude towards the composer, with outrage ensuing from music that did not follow Soviet guidelines.
V- Finale
Although the opening tempo of this movement is decidedly unsteady, it is soon established and becomes the predominant driving force throughout the finale, perhaps analogous to the drive at the heart of Communism.
Ironic elements find their way into this final movement, as Shostakovich shifts from completely restating previous material by introducing unexpected harmonic change. This is manifested throughout the movement through chromaticism and unconventional harmonies such as minor seconds and ninths. What was previously an optimistic theme then becomes ironically dark and sinister.
The phrase markings in the opening piano passage are juxtaposed against the non legato passage at rehearsal 90, where repetition provides sarcastic energy. As this progression develops further, the repetition becomes textually complex and propels the same repeated notes until the powerful piano motive at rehearsal 95. Through the pounding energy of the left hand and abrasive harmonies, this is one of the few points in the Quintet that seems to represent a source of Shostakovich’s anger (Figure 6). This drive is short-lived, however, with the reintroduction of the simple, melodious theme of the finale introduction.
Figure 6 Kovacic 15
What becomes the most harrowing aspect of the finale is its simple and light conclusion.
The complex harmonies and rhythms found in the first movement of the Quintet are nowhere to be found in these last measures of the finale. The piano is almost entirely reduced to a tonic- dominant ostinato bass. In comparison to the complexity of the preceding material, the simplicity of the finale’s conclusion is striking. This ending could easily be seen as a method of Socialist
Realism in which endings to stories are happy and hopeful. Leaving the audience with a sense of confusion or anger would not fit this model, ultimately upsetting the ebb and flow of art under
Stalinism. The irony in Shostakovich’s finale, however, is exemplified in the duality of this conclusion. Although the melodies are light and simplistic, the ending only does more to confuse the listener, who wonders from where this seemingly misplaced string melody arises.
Shostakovich, Stalin, and Subversion
Shostakovich had options as a composer. If he wanted to compose freely and not feel the restrictions of the Communist Party, he could have done so. Unfortunately, it is easy to see how he would never have achieved a level of notoriety as high as he ultimately did if he had traveled that road. Sustaining a living as a composer would have been nearly impossible without the stamp of Soviet approval. Therefore, Shostakovich had few options for garnering success.
Through subversion, composing to his satisfaction was not an impossible feat. As a subversive,
Shostakovich would have been presented with a few options. He could openly go against the wills of Stalin and receive a denouncement from the party or imprisonment, or could prescribe to these wills in a manner that would allow for subtle sarcasm and irony. Through the Piano Kovacic 16
Quintet, one can see how small examples of musical irony and sarcasm could serve as a method of subversion within the rigor of Soviet Communism. While the Soviet ideals were clear,
Shostakovich’s repetition of these ideals in the Quintet could be viewed as a method of demeaning the structural restrictions on music. It is this veiled sense of subversion that becomes a recurring compositional technique defining Shostakovich.
It is clear that Shostakovich lived a life full of highs and lows, but his experience with and thoughts on Communism has become among the most contested issues among his researchers. An analytical approach to the Piano Quintet in G Minor, Op. 57 could provide clues to the questions of loyalty in Shostakovich’s life.
Learning to perform this piece has proved to be one of the most challenging tasks in my research. A trivial look at the music might not lend any outstanding discoveries, but through numerous rehearsals and ensemble analysis of each measure, I have learned far more about
Shostakovich’s insight than any other source of information. What has proved to be the most difficult aspect of performing this piece is the exceptional amount of control necessary. At many times, the ensemble feels as if it is suppressing a need to express or create dramatic elements within the music that simply are not there. There were numerous times in which my coaches assisting with this project would tell me to be less emotive with my phrases - a comment a musician hardly ever encounters.
While scholars debate over the label of Shostakovich as the “most loyal son” of
Communism, this work provides a basis for plausible questions to this contention. Would the most loyal son create a stage for sarcasm and irony that would possibly poke fun at the restrictive ideas of Communism? Without any other options as a composer so tied to Stalin’s reign,
Shostakovich provided ways in which the listener or performer could see into his mind. Dmitri Kovacic 17
Shostakovich could not separate himself from Soviet Communism in his lifetime, but a retrospective look at his music could provide a clue to understand his true sentiments. He himself stated that, “there can be no music without ideology.”18 The question becomes whether or not he was a true “son” of this ideology or created an ideology of his own through his compositions.
This project stemmed from an observation that little research had been done on the Piano
Quintet. Much of the scholarly work done on Shostakovich has been focused upon the string quartets and symphonies, with little mention of the Piano Quintet. As the controversy of Soviet loyalty still exists, I felt as if the Piano Quintet could provide further evidence in the search for an answer. Through irony and sarcasm in the Piano Quintet, one can see how camouflage became Shostakovich’s vehicle for expression, as he, himself, broadly suggested in the quotation offered at the beginning of this paper.19 Through an analysis of the Quintet, it was my intention to provide a possible resource to question the assumptions long made about Dmitri Shostakovich.
I wanted to discover if music, by itself, could be a means of subversion. As relayed in Testimony,
“Can music attack evil? Can it make man stop and think?”20
18 Rose Lee, “Dimitri Szostakovitch,” New York Times, December 20, 1931, X8.
19 Wilson, A Life Remembered, 425.
20 Volkov, Memoirs, 234. Kovacic 18
Bibliography
Basner,Veniamin, Kara Karayev, Karen Khachaturian, Yury Levitin, Boris Tishchenko, and Moisey Vainberg. “Pitiful Forgery. Concerning the So-called ‘Memoirs’ of D.D. Shostakovich.” Literaturnaya Gazeta. November 16, 1979. Blackstock, Paul W. The Strategy of Subversion: Manipulating the Politics of Other Nations. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964.
Lee, Rose. “Dimitri Szostakovitch.” New York Times. December 20, 1931. Morton, Brian. Shostakovich: His Life and Music. London: Haus, 2006. “Muddle Instead of Music.” Pravda. January 28, 1936. Robinson, Harlow . “And Art Made Tongue-Tied By Authority: The Dialogue Between Shostakovich and Shakespeare.” Paper presented at the Brown Symposium XVII, Southwestern University, February 23, 1995. Sheinberg, Esti. Irony, Satire, Parody and the Grotesque in the Music of Shostakovich. England: Ashgate, 2000. Shostakovich, Dmitri. Piano Quintet in G Minor, Op. 57. New York: International Music Company. Story of A Friendship; The Letters of Dmitry Shostakovich to Isaak Glikman 1941-1975. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Taruskin, Richard. “A Martyred Opera Reflects Its Abominable Time.” New York Times. November 6, 1994. Taruskin, Richard.“The Opera and the Dictator.” New Republic. 200/12. March 20, 1989. Volkov, Solomon. Shostakovich and Stalin: The Extraordinary Relationship Between the Great Composer and the Brutal Dictator. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.
Volkov, Solomon. , Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. Translated by Antonina W. Bouis. New York; Harper & Row, 1979. Wilson, Elizabeth. Shostakovich: A Life Remembered. Princeton: Princeton University Press.,1994.