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 - Dmitri Shostakovich 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.