Slava! (1977) (1918 – 1990) (1927 – 2007) was one of the greatest cellists of the 20th century. The first part of his life was spent in the Soviet Union where he studied both cello and at the Moscow Conservatory. Prokofiev and Shostakovich wrote several major works for the cellist who won several prestigious international awards as well as the top Soviet award, the Stalin Prize, at the age of 23. Rostropovich was extremely outspoken about freedom of speech, democratic processes and the idea of art transcending borders. He spent much of his time touring outside of the Soviet Union and working with Western musicians. This kept him in constant conflict with the Soviet government which culminated in his leaving the Soviet Union in 1974 and moving to the United States with his family. The Soviet Union revoked his citizenship and he did not return until 1990. Bernstein (the son of a Russian immigrant) and Rostropovich met and became friends in the 1950s, sharing not only their musical talents but their political views. Slava (a typical Russian nickname for men whose first name ends with “slav” and the Russian word for glory) was named the music director of the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington D.C. beginning in 1977. The second week of his inaugural concerts featured a program of works by Bernstein. Bernstein wrote three new pieces for this concert including Slava! A Political Overture. Slava! utilizes two themes from his unsuccessful musical of the previous year 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, “The Grand Old Party” and “Rehearse!” Near the end of the piece, the trombones play an altered version of the “Slava Chorus” theme from the coronation scene of Mussorgsky’s opera Boris Godunov. The performance also features flamboyant political oratory (always relevant before an election) recorded by Bernstein which accounts for the original title Slava! A Political Overture. Near the end of the overture, the orchestra shouted the name “Pooks” in memory of Slava’s pet dog. After the first performances, “Pooks” was changed to “Slava.” Rostropovich thought that Bernstein was a brilliant theater composer but: “When Lenny tried to become a deep composer, like Mahler, or, for example, like Beethoven, then it was perhaps not so successful for his composition.” There is no doubt that Slava! falls into the theater category. After the premiere, Paul Hume wrote in The Washington Post: “This is a wonderfully noisy, jazz satirical piece…Its razzmatazz opening led straight into the kind of rouse-‘em-up march you might have heard at a rally for William Jennings Bran. And suddenly, from a tape somewhere back in the orchestra, came a booming voice saying: ‘If I am elected to this high office…the people are sick and tired of…give you the next President of the U….’ At another noisy moment, the whole orchestra shouted "Pooks," which Rostropovich not only joined but which he led looking and sounding as if he had been raised in Rapid City, S.D.”

Egmont Overture Op. 84 (1810) Ludwig van Beethoven (1770 – 1827) Beethoven was a supporter of the ideals of the Enlightenment, a time and philosophy that was summed up in the United States Declaration of Independence’s unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Napoleon’s wars (1803 – 1815) were seen as an affront to Enlightenment. Beethoven was not just intellectually opposed to the wars but actually was caught in a bombardment of Vienna by the French. When the opportunity was offered to write incidental music for the play Egmont by Johann von Goethe (1749 -1832) Beethoven took up a project that was close to his heart. Even though the two men had clashing personalities (“Beethoven is an utterly untamed personality.” “Goethe delights far too much in the court atmosphere.”), their enthusiasm for the ideals of Enlightenment made them brothers-in-arms. The story of Egmont, based on a historical event, was the perfect tale for Austrian and German audiences of this time. The Netherlands was occupied in 1567 by an oppressive Spanish government which terrorized the Dutch through the Inquisition. The Dutch resistance leader, Count Egmont, was captured and sentenced to death. In the play, the night before his execution his dead wife, who committed suicide after failing to free him, appears to him in a dream as the goddess of freedom and assures him that his death will inspire his countrymen to rebellion and to liberty. This allows Egmont to approach his execution with courage and dignity. Beethoven’s overture was also played at the end of the play as Egmont ascended the scaffold. Goethe told Beethoven that he wanted the play to end not with a lament but with a “Victory Symphony.” The music of the overture fit the bill. Beethoven also wrote some songs and scene change music as well. The overture begins in F minor with the oppressive rhythm of a slow, Spanish sarabande, depicting the mood of the Netherlands under the rule of the Spanish Hapsburgs. It then changes to a more exciting, yet still conflicted, fast section. At the end, Egmont delivers an inspiring speech before being beheaded. The music responds to this call to resistance with a major key outburst of uninhibited triumph.

Celestial Dance (1995) Henry Mollicone (b. 1946) This performance of Celestial Dance is a celebration of Mollicone’s 70th birthday. There is also a personal connection to another piece on this program. In 1976 Mollicone was given the job to work on Bernstein’s show 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, later used by Bernstein to write Slava!. As pianist and composer, Mollicone collaborated with the choreographer to make dance arrangements, played for rehearsals, and worked directly with Leonard Bernstein. He said of Bernstein: “His deep passion for music was a great inspiration.” Mollicone first came to the San Jose area as a guest conductor of the San Jose Civic Light Opera in 1980. He moved to the area as a teacher at Santa Clara University in 1985 where he taught, because of his theater experience as both composer and conductor, in both the music and theater departments. Since then, he has been a vital part of the musical community in the bay area as a composer and guest conductor. Celestial Dance was first performed by the Long Beach Symphony in April 1995 conducted by JoAnn Falletta, a former conductor of the Santa Cruz Symphony. Celestial Dance sings of the ongoing miracle of creation and change in the universe. The concept of the Hindu god Shiva’s dance as the mystical primal event in the world is the underlying image of the work. The pictures and sculptures of Shiva as the Lord of the Dance (Nataraja) show him performing his divine cosmic dance (Tandavam) to destroy a weary universe and prepare for its renewal by the god Brahma who starts the process of creation. Typical elements of these images include Shiva balancing on one leg over a demon (Mulyalaka) who symbolizes ignorance. There are two common forms of Shiva’s dance: the gentle form of dance associated with the creation of the world (Lasya) and the violent dance associated with the destruction of weary worldviews and lifestyles (Tandava).

Symphony No. 5 in D Minor, Op. 47 (1937) (1906 – 1975) The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, a brutal and paranoid dictator who ruled from 1927 until his death in 1953, was often an oppressive place to live. During his infamous “Reign of Terror” (1936-37) people were encouraged to denounce neighbors and family, often resulting in the “disappearance” of individuals, sometimes for imaginary crimes. All aspects of life were subject to close scrutiny and, when someone was perceived as acting against the interests of the state, action against them would be taken immediately and decisively. The arts were subjected to this same treatment. Authors, composers, visual artists – anyone contributing to the cultural life of the Soviet Union – were closely watched and regulated by government organizations such as the Union of Soviet Composers founded under Stalin in 1932. Any composer hoping to receive financial assistance from the government had to belong to the Union and all requests for publication had to be approved by the organization. The basic tenant that guided all of their decisions was called social realism: art should convey the struggles and triumphs of the proletariat. Music was considered so powerful that Stalin himself would sometimes write articles, under a pseudonym, praising or criticizing new compositions. His disfavor would have dire consequences on the composer’s life. It was in this environment that Shostakovich wrote the majority of his works. Shostakovich first came in conflict with the government in the 1930s when some of his music was criticized for its “avant-garde forms, brash harmonies, and sarcastic idioms.” The piece that led to his most serious censure was the opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (1934), one of the great operas of the 20th century. It was enthusiastically received by audiences around the world, bringing Shostakovich international acclamation. Then Stalin attended a performance in 1936. A critique, Muddle Instead of Music, was immediately published in Pravda which denounced the opera as “coarse, primitive and vulgar.” Shostakovich was warned that “things could end very badly” unless he changed his avant-garde style. When asked if he accepted the criticism, Shostakovich replied that he “accepts most of it, but has not fully comprehended it all.” Shostakovich did attempt to mitigate the pressure being put upon him by writing: “We are taught vigilance every day and every hour by our Party and by our supreme leader of genius – Stalin. His name is uttered by the toilers of the whole glove with immense affection and joy, as a symbol of new and beautiful life. With the banner of Stalin our country is vigorously and confidently striding from victory to victory.” In spite of his attempts to placate the government, Shostakovich’s name almost completely disappeared from all publications for 20 months. Continued criticism of his music led Shostakovich to fear for his life. He actually kept a small suitcase packed with essentials so, if the secret police came for him in the middle of the night, he would have his things readily at hand. People on the street avoided him. His uncle, mother-in- law and brother-in-law all were taken into custody. His most influential and powerful friend in the military was arrested and executed. Shostakovich was actually summoned for interrogation but was spared a second session when the interrogator was arrested. Shostakovich never wrote another opera. Shostakovich was working on his Symphony No. 4 when the article appeared in Pravda. He was rehearsing the symphony when he realized that it could not be performed without causing more trouble. He revealed in a 1973 interview: “I didn’t like the situation. Fear was all around. So I withdrew it.” It wasn’t performed until 1961. He then wrote Symphony No. 5 in 5 months in 1937 with the intention of putting himself back into the good graces of the government. He simplified his style and made a conscious effort to write music that would be seen as an example of social realism. He would not, however, say a word about the music during rehearsals for the premiere, even with conductor Yevgeny Mravinsky. The brief program note called it “a lengthy spiritual battle, crowned by victory.” At the same time, he managed to include elements that still displayed his satirical and pessimistic side. This symphony was enthusiastically received by Soviet audiences. People wept during the third movement, a response that was considered by the government to be an un-Soviet sign of weakness. Many in the audience stood during the last moments of the symphony. This huge outpouring of public support signaled his rehabilitation even though officials were uncomfortable with the demonstration following the performance and expressed the nagging feeling that he had somehow put something past them. They eventually accepted it as “an optimistic tragedy.” Shostakovich kept total silence on his personal feelings about the symphony until 1938: “I wanted to convey in the symphony how, through a series of tragic conflicts of great inner spiritual turmoil, optimism asserts itself as a world-view.” Shostakovich’s true feelings about this symphony and the message it was created to convey have been subjected to a number of opinions. On the surface, we see the repentant composer as evidenced by the subtitle of the symphony A Soviet Artist's Response to Just Criticism, which appeared in an essay by Shostakovich several months after the premiere. The symphony includes Russian folk music, a quote from Bizet’s opera Carmen, ironic music in the style of film scores, a section that would be associated with the Russian Orthodox Church and a reference in the last movement to Mussorgsky’s opera Boris Godunov. Several of these elements would have been greatly appreciated by his audiences but, with the exception of the folk music, questioned by the authorities. The complexities and meanings of these different quotations have fostered numerous conversations and disagreements. One of the more controversial statements concerning Symphony No. 5 comes from the book Testimony (1979) by Solomon Volkov. Volkov claimed that the book contained memoirs of Shostakovich collected during a series of interviews 1971-74. Volkov also used the book to criticize the Soviet government. The legitimacy of the book’s content was immediately called to question by many including the Soviets and Shostakovich’s family. In the book, Shostakovich is reported to have told Volkov: “I think it's clear to everyone what happens in the Fifth. The rejoicing is forced, created under a threat, as in Boris Godunov. It’s as if someone were beating you with a stick end saying: ‘Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing’, and you rise, shakily, and go off muttering, ‘Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing.’” This statement was in reference to the last movement. One of the reasons for the controversy as to its real meaning is a function of conductors’ choices of tempo for the last section of the symphony. The original tempo indication for the end of this movement was slow, making the music more tormented. Some conductors, however, enjoyed the positive energy created by a tempo that was twice as fast. Even Shostakovich was undecided which tempo he preferred. He loved Leonard Bernstein’s fast interpretation but, when asked by conductor , Shostakovich indicated that the slower tempo was correct. The most compelling evidence of Shostakovich’s true feelings appears in the last movement. The Boris Godunov section comes from a scene in the opera where the monk Pimen chronicles the crimes of tyrants and the sufferings of ordinary people. Shostakovich then follows with a melody from a song that he had recently written after being censured but had kept completely to himself titled Rebirth. The opening notes of this melody (setting the words “artist- barbarian”) are also used in the first theme of this movement. The text is by the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin. Under the circumstances, the poem appears to be used by Shostakovich as a direct reference to Stalin and the damage he was doing to the composer’s beloved Russia: “An artist-barbarian with his lazy brush Blackens the painting of a genius And senselessly he covers it with His own illegitimate drawing.

But with the passing years, the alien colors Fall off like threadbare scales; The creation of the genius emerges before us in its former beauty.

Thus vanish the illusions From my tormented soul And in it appear visions Of original and innocent times.” The song cycle containing Rebirth was first performed in 1940. The relationship of this song to the symphony did not create any repercussions in the Soviet Union. It is now considered by many to be a crucial element to understanding Shostakovich’s true intentions with Symphony No. 5. Throughout all of the difficulties and triumphs of his life, it is important to remember that Shostakovich was a loyal citizen of the Soviet Union: “There is nothing more honorable for a composer than to create works for and with the people. The composer who forgets about this high obligation loses the right to this high calling. The attention to music on the part of our government and all the Soviet people instills in me the confidence that I will be able to give everything that is in my power.”