thesisskeleton.PDF

i

The University of Dublin, Trinity College
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
School of Languages, Literatures and Cultural Sciences
Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies

The Music of Rebellion: Dmitri Shostakovich Under the Stalin Regime

Catherine Fiona Clancy
11100532
RUS902
Undergraduate Thesis for the fulfillment of the TSM Pattern B (Major – Russian; Minor – English
Literature) B.A. degree
Supervisor: Dr. Justin Doherty
May 2016

Dmitri Shostakovich receiving an Honorary Doctorate in Music from TCD, 1972
© http://www.tcd.ie/Library/manuscripts/blog/2014/03/shostakovich-at-trinity/

ii

Declaration

I declare that this thesis, either in whole or in part, has not been submitted as an
exercise for a degree at this or any other university.
I declare that this thesis is entirely my own work except where duly acknowledged. I
further declare that any materials directly cited as quotations/extracts from other
works have been fully referenced in the text of the work and that all sources used in
the preparation of this work have been listed in the Bibliography.
I have read and I understand the plagiarism provisions in the General Regulations of
the University Calendar for the current year, found
at http://www.tcd.ie/calendar.
I have also completed the Online Tutorial on avoiding plagiarism ‘Ready Steady
Write’, located at http://tcd-ie.libguides.com/plagiarism/ready-steady-write.

Signed: _____________________________________

Date: 22.04.16

iii

Permission to Lend and/or Copy

I agree that the library of the Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies may lend
or copy this thesis upon request. I agree that Trinity College Library Dublin may
lend or copy this thesis upon request.

Signed: _____________________________________

Date: 22.04.16

iv

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my parents, Gerald and Elizabeth Clancy, for being the wind gusts under
my wings and for always helping to make my dreams become reality.
Thank you to Justin Doherty, for his expert guidance on this thesis and throughout my
four years in the Russian Department. Thank you also to Sarah Smyth and the entire
Russian Department for the wonderful instruction and tutelage during my time at
TCD.
Thank you to all of my friends, now family, for making Dublin not just a fun and
magical place, but a forever home.
Thank you to the Concord Community Music School in Concord, NH for entertaining
the entreaties of a little girl who insisted on playing the flute at five years old, and for
instilling a life-long love of music.
Наконец, спасибо Дмитрий Дмитриевич за прекрасную музыку.

– C. Fiona Clancy

v

For Papa
Because music was our thing.

vi

The Music of Rebellion: Dmitri Shostakovich Under the Stalin Regime
Catherine Fiona Clancy
D. D. Shostakovich receiving his MusD from Trinity College Dublin, 1972
Picture hanging in Room 5051, Arts Block, Trinity College Dublin
Shostakovich’s musical signature: DSCH in German musical notation, followed by ‘with best wishes’ in Russian and his signature
© Moshevich, Sofia. Dmitri Shostakovich, Pianist. London: McGill-Queens University Press, 2004.

vii

Table of Contents

Situating the Landscape of Socialist Realism: An Introduction............................... 1
Jazz and the Spark of Rebellion.......................................................................................... 5
The 'Muddle' in Macbeth and a Symphonic “Apology” .............................................14
Of Hunger and Harmony.....................................................................................................25
Out of Hiding: Zhdanov’s Criticism, Stalin's Death, and the Tenth Symphony .33
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................41
Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................43

1
Situating the Landscape of Socialist Realism: An Introduction

The music of Dmitri Dmitriyevich Shostakovich has touched and inspired generations across the
globe. A comprehensive analysis of his life and entire musical repertoire would fill volumes,
therefore this dissertation will focus on Shostakovich’s precarious relationship with Stalin and the
political climate of the time. Two factors impacted this relationship: First, the pressures that the
Soviet regime and its genre of Socialist Realism enacted upon artists like Shostakovich, who
constantly lived in fear of government interference, arrest, imprisonment, or even execution; and
reciprocally, the dissenting and rebellious pieces that Shostakovich dared to write that compelled
Stalin and his regime to deliver severe criticism on the composer.
Did the unforgiving rigidity of the Party’s cultural agenda affect Shostakovich’s music, or did he
write solely for his own artistic impulses and for the Russian people? I will attempt to answer this
question and determine whether Shostakovich’s motivation for writing his compositions was
entirely his own or if he felt it a necessity to adhere to Party lines. The impetus for writing the
Seventh Symphony (frequently referred to as the Leningrad Symphony) will be a particular focus
of this dissertation. Other compositions by Shostakovich examined in this work include The
Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Symphonies, Lady Macbeth of the Mtensk District, and the Jazz Suite No. 2.1
To understand the delicate landscape of artistic freedom of expression in the Soviet Union, it is
necessary to include an introduction to the genre of Socialist Realism and explore its historical
implications. Socialist Realism was defined in full at the 1934 First Congress of the Union of Soviet
Writers. The Congress was predicated upon Stalin’s order that a state-run Union of Soviet Writers

1 In my research for this dissertation, I made a conscious choice to not use Solomon Volkov’s Testimony, as so much
controversy surrounds this publication. Testimony is Volkov’s record of Shostakovich’s memoirs, as told to him by the
composer. Many Shostakovich critics take umbrage with the publication, with doubts of its legitimacy and
authenticity. A prominent Shostakovich scholar, Laurel Fay, wrote an exposing essay entitled “Shostakovich versus
Volkov: Whose Testimony?”. In it, she investigates the true authorship of the memoirs. For the reasons she outlined
and its continually debated status as a reliable source, I have not consulted Volkov’s book.

2
be formed from independent writers’ groups, which were now outlawed. 2 Andrey Zhdanov, then
secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the man in
charge of controlling socialist art and culture under Stalin’s regime, proclaimed in his speech at
the First Congress that Soviet art exists to glorify the state and the state’s accomplishments. His
speech became the basis of Socialist Realism, reminding writers that art should reflect working
heroes and the mighty proletariat, and revel in State triumphs like Stalin’s 5 Year Plans. He
remarked, “Our Soviet literature is strong by virtue of the fact that it is serving a new cause – the
cause of socialist construction […] to depict [life] truthfully in works of art [is] to depict reality in
its revolutionary development.” 3
The aesthetic of Socialist Realism left no room for interpretation. Those that did take creative
license were often punished through exile or imprisonment, or their work, social status, or
financial stability were affected severely. Socialist Realism was not just confined to literature and
verse, however. Stalin’s high officials made sure that Soviet film presented utopian scenes with
cheerful workers who glorified the great leader; painters and sculptors immortalized Stalin and
his cult of personality; and Soviet music played the tune of loyalty, solidarity, and political
contentedness. Socialist Realism is an important aesthetic to acknowledge when critically
examining the works of Shostakovich, as it was dominant during his working years and permeated
not just literature, but music and other art forms as well. Socialist Realism, the culture under
Stalin, was prescribed, constructed, and unrealistic. Zhdanov mentioned in his 1934 address to the
Writers’ Union that Stalin called artists “Engineers of the human soul.”4 But how much direction
did Stalin and his officials give to these so-called “engineers?” And what happened to the artists,
like Shostakovich, who were not always swayed to adhere to party lines?

2 Clark, Katerina. “Socialist Realism in Soviet Literature.” p 174.
3 Zhdanov, Andrey. "Soviet Literature - The Richest in Ideas. The Most Advanced Literature." p. 20
4 Ibid.

3
The Soviet government under Stalin monitored and controlled as much of Soviet society, politics,
and culture as possible. 1936 reached a dark turning point for the Soviet people living under the
Stalin regime. This was the start of what is commonly referred to as the Stalinist Great Terror. 5
People were questioned without warning, arrested without reason, and executed without
remorse. Show trials commenced in order to make a mockery of the people convicted and to serve
as a warning to all those silently questioning the decisions of the regime. Tim Kirby’s BBC
Documentary The Orchestra that Defied Hitler states that tens of thousands of people were sent to
Gulags, or prison camps, often on forged charges or for inconsequential crimes. According to an
estimate published by Radio Free Europe, more than 1 million people were executed, most during
the 1936-38 period. 6 People made ‘confessions’ under the duress of torture, and ratted out there
neighbours to the NKVD (the Bureau of Internal Affairs and more informally the Secret Police) in
order to have more room in their communal flats for their own families.7 The Great Terror
descended upon the Soviet Union in 1936, but for its people – especially composers, film directors,
and writers – the fear created under the Great Terror never quite abated until Stalin’s death in
1953.
Born in 1906 in Leningrad, Dmitri Shostakovich grew up in revolutionary turmoil and came of age
as an emerging artist amidst the political paranoia and subsequent vigilant surveillance of the
1930s. He had friends and family sent away to the Gulag or tortured and executed. One of his
friends ended up in a Moscow landfill after being murdered. 8 This was Shostakovich’s experience
during the Great Terror. He may have had some privilege due to his status as an internationally
acclaimed composer, especially after his Seventh Symphony, but he still felt the pain and fear of
the Terror just like any ordinary Soviet citizen. His experiences informed his writing and his

5 Kirby, Tim, dir. Leningrad & the Orchestra that Defied Hitler, 8:25
6 “Sentenced To Death In Stalin’s Great Purge.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
7 Moynahan, Brian. Leningrad: Siege and Symphony, pp. 8, 27.
8 Ibid. p. 10.

4
compositions. In a letter to a colleague and fellow pianist Lev Oborin, Shostakovich wrote,
“sometimes I just want to shout…to cry out in terror. Doubts and problems. All this darkness
suffocates me.” 9 There is no doubt, then, that Shostakovich’s music reflects his attitudes towards
the oppression that the Stalinist regime inflicted on its people.

9 Ibid. p. 25.

5
Jazz and the Spark of Rebellion

Shostakovich enrolled at the Leningrad Conservatory in 1919, at the early age of thirteen. His
sister Zoya said of his propensity for music: “he wrote out his music in full score straight away and
then took his scores to lessons without even having played them.” 10 While at the conservatory, he
studied under some of Russia’s greats like Maximilian Steinberg and Alexander Glazunov, the then
director of the school, who deeply influenced Shostakovich.11 At nineteen, he graduated and his
career as a symphonic composer began, having written his First Symphony for his graduation
piece. 12
Shostakovich was brought up musically in the folk tradition. Leningrad, where Shostakovich
received his musical education, was the epicenter for nationalist-leaning composers and
musicians. These musicians, some of whom (like Glazunov) would have taught Shostakovich in the
Conservatory, imparted upon him one of the pillars of the nationalist tradition: the importance of
folk themes in classical music. Moscow’s music circle was considered European and pro-
Western.13 However, Shostakovich revered Mahler, and was frequently influenced by him in his
own compositions. 14 Shostakovich also cited Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and other Westerners as
some of his favourite composers. 15 Because of his adoration of these Western composers who
influenced his work, Shostakovich also incorporated Western musical concepts into his music. I
will examine these concepts in the next chapter.

10 Ibid. p. 17.
11 Fay, Laurel E. Shostakovich and His World. p. 34.
12 Moynahan, Brian. Leningrad: Siege and Symphony p. 16.
13 Stevens, Bernard. “The Soviet Union.” p. 223.
14 Salzman, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music, p. 78.
15 Fay, Laurel E. Shostakovich and His World. p. 32.

6
Just as a Union of Soviet Writers had been created to establish the aims and goals of Soviet
Socialist Realist writing, a Union of Soviet Composers was created in 1932 to promote Socialist
Realism in Soviet music. The Union was the national platform that allowed Socialist Realism to
permeate the work of all Soviet composers. The Union looked to uphold Lenin’s ideas of art:
Art belongs to the people. Its deepest roots must lie among the very thick of the working
masses. It must be such that these masses will understand and love it. It must voice the
feelings, thoughts, and will of these masses, must uplift them. 16
In partnership with promoting Socialist Realism, the Union of Soviet Composers also aimed to
abolish any formalism in Soviet music. Formalism was the enemy of Socialist Realism. Stalin,
Zhdanov, and culture officials used the formalist label liberally during the period of 1934-1953.
Music was usually “formalist” if it contained complex structures and intricate musical techniques
and themes associated with the West. Anything modern, meaning anything that was not in line
with the aesthetic of Socialist Realism, was considered formalism. Formalism was very loosely
defined by the fact that it was anything that was the negation of Socialist Realism and/or was
deemed in any way threatening or subversive to the ideals of Stalin and the Soviet government.
Much of Shostakovich’s work throughout his career was considered by Stalin and his officials to be
formalist, 17 particularly Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth.
Russian folk sounds, incorporated into orchestral music, were much more desirable to the Stalin
regime than abstruse modernist techniques. Folk music was a medium of propaganda for the
State, and Stalin and Zhdanov wanted its simple sound to reverberate in place of the abstruse,
dissonant sounds of formalist music. They also greatly promoted the use of folk themes in
symphonic and orchestral music because traditional Russian folk music focused on the sounds of

17 Yakubov, Manashir. “The Golden Age: the true story of the premiere.” p. 190.

7
the Soviet worker, the living, toiling, nucleus of the Soviet Union itself. The idea of the superiority
of Russian folk music, and its importance in political propaganda, became known as
“Folklorism.”18 Folklorism was important, as music scholar Richard Stites discusses, because it
permeated all areas of culture and put the peasantry and the Soviet people in a celebratory and
glorified position in society.19 The State wanted artists to produce songs that were easy to
understand, with a clearly identifiable melody and harmony, 20 that the people would enjoy and
that would remind them of the glories of the State.
Richard Stites cites Juri Jelagin’s (a former concertmaster in the State Jazz Band) assertion that
Proletarian composers, those who subscribed to Socialist Realism, believed in the “pre-eminence
of vocal over instrumental music, simplicity of form, clarity of harmony, hatred of Western
modernism and the importance of folklore.” 21 Some composers even believed in the superiority
of the sounds of industry – that is machinery, assembly line rhythm, etc. – over Western musical
greats like Bach and Chopin. 22 Phillip Deery, a Shostakovich scholar, quotes an anonymous source
from the Report on the Communist “Peace” Offensive that “[Shostakovich did not compose music
that] workers can beat time and hum as they try to accelerate production.” 23 Despite this
criticism, Shostakovich wrote many compositions that moved the Soviet people, but none more so
than the Leningrad Symphony composed and premiered during the siege of Leningrad.
Music of the 20th century followed the same shifts indicative of modernism in all other aspects of
culture and art. Ezra Pound’s “make it new” rings true for the changing landscape of classical
music in the 20th century. Musicologist Eric Salzman believes that the modernist movement in

18 Stites, Richard. Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin, p. 25.
19 Ibid.
20 Deery, Phillip. “Shostakovich, the Waldorf Conference and the Cold War,” p. 166.
22 Ibid.
23 Deery, Phillip. “Shostakovich, the Waldorf Conference and the Cold War,” p. 166 (footnote 25).

8
music was concerned with creating new musical structures that allowed for freer expression.24
This is consistent with the characteristics of modernism in its literary, poetic, and artistic forms as
well.
Shostakovich was influenced by Neo-Classism, a modernist trend in Western music that rose to
prominence during the 1930s and 1940s. 25 Neo-Classicism was a movement based upon
deconstructing the previously rigid definitions of “functional tonality” of major and minor tones
and creating a neo-tonality. 26 Tone in music is the pitch of the note itself. Tonality, then, refers to
tones in a scale, and how these tones relate to each other in order to form harmonic progression.
For example, patterns of tones played together signal to the listener instability or stability in a
piece of music, and tones establish dissonance (the need for harmonic progression) and
consonance (resolved harmonic sound) in music. 27, 28 Tonality is the backbone of music, and
determines structure.
By deconstructing functional tonality, artists incorporated chromatic sequences and atonality into
their work. This atonality introduced dissonance, unstable tonality, and chromaticism. Salzman
defines chromaticism as “harmonic and melodic freedom.”29 Chromaticism lends itself directly to
“atonality,” the more liberal sound pattern that had replaced the functional tonality of the 19th
century. 30 As an admirer of Western composers who embraced the neo-Classicist movement and
the modernist trends of the 20th century, Shostakovich composed music with these same neo-
Classical tendencies, even at the risk of being targeted as a “formalist” by Stalin.

26 Ibid. p. 3.
28 Harnsberger, Lindsey. “Consonance”, “tone”, “resolution.” pp. 36, 133, 108.
29 Salzman, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music. p. 3.
30 Ibid. pp. 4-5.

9
Shostakovich also used counterpoint in his musical works. Counterpoint, in very general terms, is
creating two or more melodies that are played simultaneously in a composition.31 Counterpoint
creates polyphony, or numerous voices, within a single composition. With the addition of
harmonies (two different tones played simultaneously) to the multiple voices of melodies,
counterpoint produces a very complex piece of music. 32 Counterpoint deals with the vertical and
the horizontal aspects in music. The relationship between the instrumentation lines in music make
up the vertical aspect, or the harmony in a musical composition. The horizontal aspect of
counterpoint is the independence of the tones in the melody, and their relationship with one
another. 33 Shostakovich utilized counterpoint in his Piano Sonata No.1, 34 his Fifth Symphony, 35
and his Eighth and Tenth Symphonies,36 among others.

31 Harnsberger, Lindsey. “Counterpoint.” Essential Dictionary of Music. p. 37.
32 It is important to bring to the readers’ attention that I will not delve too deeply into abstruse musical theory in this
dissertation. This work will focus on the intricate relationship between the impetus behind Shostakovich’s
compositions and the socio-political scene of the Stalinist era. Although some elements of musical theory will be
discussed in order to properly analyze parts of compositions, the theory will be applied only to further illuminate the
larger, political (mis)conceptions behind the music.
33 Jackson, Roland John. “Counterpoint.”
34 Fay, Laurel. Shostakovich: A Life. p. 38.
35 Johnson, Stephen. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 5. 6:18
36 Kholopov, Yuri. “Form in Shostakovich’s instrumental works.” p. 70.

10

An example of polyharmony, a type of counterpoint, in the first movement of Shostakovich’s Tenth
Symphony. Taken from Yuriy Kholopov’s essay “Form in Shostakovich’s instrumental works” in
David Fanning, Shostakovich Studies. p. 71.
The existence of jazz music was a product of Western cultural diffusion in the Soviet Union.
However, it was not received well. Maxim Gorky, a prominent writer who was pro Socialist
Realism and for the preservation of Soviet culture untainted by Western influences, believed that
jazz was linked to homosexuality, drugs, and the bourgeoisie. 37 However, from 1932-1936 jazz
was re-established in some Soviet cities. This was known as the 'red jazz age.' 38 In 1936,
corresponding to the start of the Stalinist Purges (or the Great Terror), jazz was once again a
target of Stalinist repression. Given jazz music's new, debased status in Soviet society in the late
1930s, it was incredibly risky of Shostakovich to write his second Suite for Jazz Orchestra in
1938.39 He wrote this piece for the State Jazz Orchestra, which mostly played, in Stites' opinion,

38 Ibid. p. 25.
39 N.B.: Shostakovich wrote Suite for Jazz Orchestra No. 1 in 1934, and Suite for Jazz Orchestra No. 2 in 1938. The
Suite for Variety Stage Orchestra was probably written in the 1950s, and is a collection of film and stage scores that
Gerard McBurney suggests other composers compiled. (McBurney, Gerard. “Shostakovich, Dmitri: Suite for Variety
Orchestra”). The Suite for Variety Stage Orchestra is commonly, albeit erroneously, referred to as the Jazz Suite No. 2
given that the actual score of the Jazz Suite No. 2 was lost until the late 1990s. When the score was discovered, Irina

11
very “smoothed-out ‘jazz’” that really carried none of the improvisatory nature of true jazz music.
Stites suggests that the founding of a government-approved jazz orchestra was “far from being a
victory for jazz, in fact represented its temporary death.” 40
Jazz Suite No. 2 has a big, brassy, swinging sound. In the premiere, the BBC Symphony Orchestra
used 5 saxophonists. The brass section is large, and there are no flutes, clarinets, oboes, or
bassoons. A xylophone and banjos are also some of stranger instruments used in this piece. The
first scherzo movement opens with double basses using the pizzicato technique (plucking instead
of bowing on a stringed instrument). This opening, along with the swing of the melody and heavy
use of saxophone, situate the Jazz Suite No. 2 as more authentic than the “smoothed-out ‘jazz’” that
Stites reports characterized the State jazz Orchestra. Not much is known as to how the score
originally got lost, but perhaps Shostakovich was worried as to how Stalin would react to hearing
the piece as jazz became more aggressively targeted by the Stalin regime.
Stites believes that Shostakovich was one of the “‘serious’ composers” who did not build popular
music and motifs into his symphonic and classical works. Stites may be overlooking some
important facts. Shostakovich did incorporate songs and popular music in his work. Stevens
argues that using themes from popular music or mimicking other composers illuminates
Shostakovich’s creativity rather than making him seem common and trite. 41 Musical quotations
and references to other composers weave into the fabric of Shostakovich’s original sound, and his
adept skill at incorporating these themes so naturally makes him an artist of immense talent and
individuality. Shostakovich’s style follows Mahler in many of his works, mostly in regard to drawn-

Shostakovich, the composer’s widow, asked British composer Gerard McBurney to take the instrumental parts that
were discovered and arrange it for symphonic orchestra. It was premiered by the BBC Symphony Orchestra at the
Last Night of the Proms 2000 under the baton of Sir Colin Davis. (Suite for Jazz Orchestra No. 2 – Dmitri Shostakovich).
41 Stevens, Bernard. “The Soviet Union.” p. 248

12
out spacing and length, use of repetition, and harmonic strength. 42 He also worked extensively
with Russian folk and Russian popular music, given the Socialist Realist doctrine that emphasized
hearkening back to national sounds.
In his First Symphony, the scherzo movement is dominated by Russian folk song themes 43, played
by the clarinet first and picked up by the strings, the brass section, and the flute. In his song cycle
Rayok, 44 a lesser-known piece, melodies from popular songs like ‘Suliko’ ‘Kamarinskaya’ and
‘Kalinka’ are used. 45 Also, his Jazz Suites 1, 2, and the Suite for Variety Stage Orchestra seem to be
very influenced by Russian folk sounds, but incorporated with jazz rhythms and instruments. The
second movement of his Piano Concerto No. 1 mimics the sounds of Russian dance-hall music. 46 In
the first movement of his Fifteenth Symphony, the trumpet plays the melody from Rossini’s
William Tell Overture. Shostakovich used many influences from “popular” music at the time, even
if the genres were not popular with the State, potentially putting his career in jeopardy.
Shostakovich also employed Jewish folk themes in some of his compositions. These themes show
up most notably in his Thirteenth Symphony, Piano Trio op. 67, and his song cycle From Jewish
Folk Poetry op. 79. Judith Kuhn points out that contemporary analysis of Shostakovich’s political
views as resistance are supported by his use of Jewish themes, as he was vehemently against
Soviet anti-Semitism. 47 To comment on a movement supported by the Soviet regime in a negative
way was potentially very dangerous. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism was something Shostakovich felt
very strongly should be abolished, and he had many Jewish friends, like the actor Solomon

44 Rayok, frequently coined “anti-formalist Rayok” was a satirical piece about the ludicrous nature of the 1948
Zhdanov conference and the Regime’s subsequent assault on “formalist” music. Rayok is characterised by scholars as a
song-cycle. Shostakovich wrote many of these, including Poems by Pushkin Op. 46, and From Jewish Folk Poetry, Op.
79. His song cycles usually were poems set to music, or in the case of Rayok, the original text of speeches given by
Zhdanov, Stalin, and other officials. Rayok was composed in 1948, in secret. (Hulme Derek C. Dmitri Shostakovich: A
Catalogue, Bibliography, and Discography. “Rayok.” pp 319-320).
45 Hulme Derek C. Dmitri Shostakovich: A Catalogue, Bibliography, and Discography. “Rayok.” pp 319-320.
47 Kuhn, Judith. Shostakovich in Dialogue, p. 47.

13
Mikhoels. 48 His passion for the dissolution of anti-semitism and for showing solidarity for his
Jewish friends are the main reasons why he used Jewish themes in some his compositions.
In the words of Boris Schwarz, a soviet musicologist, Shostakovich “belonged to all, and to none.”49
Defining him, as Gerard McBurney details in his essay “Whose Shostakovich?” as either a musical
maverick or an admirer of Party dicta is a tricky business.50 He wrote music in counterpoint,
complex with Mahlerian themes and indicative of Western musical forms. He dared to write jazz in
an era where jazz was the enemy of the State.
What is so intriguing about Shostakovich, then, is his ability to create music that balances
rebellious and Socialist Realist forms and themes. He uses Russian folk sounds in his symphonies.
He wrote patriotic song-cycles like Songs of the Forests (1949) and The Sun Shines over our
Motherland (1952), as well as satirical song-cycles like Satires (Pictures of the Past) (1960) and
Rayok (1948). Even as a composer in his early stages, Dmitri Shostakovich was experimenting
with the delicate balancing act of appeasing the State and remaining loyal to his own freedom of
creative expression. Sometimes, he even used Socialist Realist forms in a subversive way, like in
his Fifth Symphony, which will be discussed in detail in chapter three. What is undisputed,
whether critics see him as a rebel or a loyalist, is his raw talent for composing. Nikolai
Myaskovsky, a fellow composer, wrote of Shostakovich’s Second Symphony: 'I don't much like his
music. But he touches something live…I spat at the rehearsals… but at the concert the thing simply
astounded me. Everything is so strong, everything in the right place.” 51
Shostakovich was just getting started.

49 Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia 1917-1970. p. 120.
50 McBurney, Gerard. “Whose Shostakovich? BBC Proms Lecture 2000.”
51 Ibid.

14
The 'Muddle' in Macbeth and a Symphonic “Apology”

In the beginning of January, 1936, Dmitri Shostakovich was enjoying his notoriety. He graduated
from the Leningrad conservatory, and his First Symphony in 1925 (his graduation piece),
launched him into international fame, with some critics even claiming this remains his best work.
52 By 1936, he had already written three symphonies, a jazz suite, a ballet, and two operas. Adding
to Shostakovich’s massive popularity was his Song of the Counterplan, written for a film in 1932.
This was apparently one of Stalin’s favourite pieces. 53
One of Shostakovich’s operas, Lady Macbeth of Mtensk, premiered in January 1934 in Leningrad
and Moscow (almost on the same day),54 and became an instant favourite with audiences. It was
broadcast on the radio five times during the first five months it ran. In the first year alone, it had
49 performances.55 Boris Schwartz asserts that initially, Lady Macbeth was seen as an achievement
for art in the Soviet era. 56 This means that initially, critics as well as the Soviet audiences found
favour with Lady Macbeth. It was only until Stalin saw the opera that the opinion on Lady Macbeth
became hostile. Stalin and his culture officials turned all positive opinions of Lady Macbeth into an
onslaught of critical vilification with one article in Pravda.
Lady Macbeth of Mtensk was Shostakovich’s second opera, following The Nose (1928), based on the
Gogol short story. It had almost 200 performances in Russia alone, and was also performed in New
York, London, Prague, Zurich, Stockholm, Ljubljana, and Copenhagen. 57 Although overwhelmingly
popular, Lady Macbeth was criticized by a New York Times reporter when the piece came to
America. The reporter called Shostakovich “without doubt the foremost composer of

52 Salzman, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music, p. p 78.
54 Fay, Laurel E. “From Lady Macbeth to Katarina: Shostakovich’s versions and revisions.” p. 160
55 McSmith, Andy. Fear and the Muse Kept Watch. p. 172
56 Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia 1917-1970. p. 119
57 Ferenc, Anna. “Music in the Socialist State.” p. 14

15
pornographic music in the history of opera.” 58 If the liberal, permissive West found fault with the
pornographic elements of Lady Macbeth, then Stalin would certainly think the opera was
inappropriate.
On January 26, 1936 Stalin went to the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow to see Lady Macbeth, two years
after the opera first opened. He disliked it so much that he walked out, staying only for the first
act.59 On January 28th, 1936, the infamous article on Lady Macbeth, “Muddle Instead of Music,”
appeared in Pravda. 60 It was vicious libel, and attacked Shostakovich from beginning to end. A
paragraph at the beginning of the piece summarizes Stalin’s listening experience:
From the first minute, the listener is shocked by deliberate dissonance, by a confused
stream of sound. Snatches of melody, the beginnings of a musical phrase, are drowned,
emerge again, and disappear in a grinding and squealing roar. To follow this "music" is
most difficult; to remember it, impossible…The power of good music to infect the masses
has been sacrificed to a petty-bourgeois, "formalist" attempt to create originality through
cheap clowning. It is a game of clever ingenuity that may end very badly. 61
Many scholars believe Stalin himself wrote the article, although he is technically not named as the
author. 62 “[This] may end very badly” was a direct threat to Shostakovich to reform his
“formalistic” tendencies. For Shostakovich, this article, and specifically the threat, must have
caused a great amount of stress for his career and his safety.

59 Kirby, Tim, dir. Leningrad & the Orchestra that Defied Hitler, 16:53. NB: Brian Moynahan cites that Stalin walked out
after the third act. Whatever the case, Stalin did not wait to see the entire performance.
61 Schalks, Arnold. “Muddle instead of Music.” Lady Macbeth of the Mtensk District.
62 Shostakovich scholars unanimously agree that Stalin would have forced Pravda to publish this article, but the article
was most likely written by David Zaslavsky, a journalist for Pravda at the time. This is not, however, a confirmed fact.
Certainly, though, Stalin would have demanded the article to be written and articulated specific criticisms to the
author. (Fay, Shostakovich: A Life, p. 304n67).

16
Lady Macbeth’s heroine, Katya, kills three people and cheats on her husband. Immediately, Stalin
would have disapproved of these illicit themes because they are most definitely not part of the
doctrine of utopian Socialist Realism. The text of the opera is rife with sexual imagery, for example
“the foal runs after the filly, the tom-cat seeks the female, the dove hastens to his mate….”63 The
Pravda article attacks Shostakovich for the "’love’ [that] is smeared all over the opera in the most
vulgar manner.” Arguably the most shocking part of the plot was the sex scene at the end of Act I.
64 Katya and her lover are just off-stage, 65 but the scene is highly suggestive and it is quite obvious
to the audience what they are doing. Shostakovich’s music for this scene enhances the sexual
suggestiveness, by including a larger brass section and, as David Fanning describes, an “orgasmic
trombone glissandi.”66
Lady Macbeth was set in tsarist Russia. Just the setting alone was an extremely risky choice for
Shostakovich because of the mandatory aesthetic of socialist realism that had been decreed only
recently before this opera. By setting the opera in the tsarist era, Shostakovich exposed, whether
consciously or sub-consciously, the similarities between tsarist Russia and the Soviet regime
under Stalin. Lady Macbeth heavily satirized all of Soviet society, not just the bourgeoisie of the
frivolous, tsarist past, and this satirisation of modern-day life is what so angered Stalin.67 In 1934,
when Lady Macbeth premiered, the frightening totalitarian reign of Stalin was climaxing to the
1936 Great Terror. Shostakovich dared to write, publish, and premiere Lady Macbeth in this
politically unstable environment, and it was extraordinarily daring.
Because of the controversy that Lady Macbeth stirred, Shostakovich’s music endured a sharp
decrease in performances. He had received an average of 10,000-12,000 rubles a month, but after

63 Kirby, Tim, dir. Leningrad & the Orchestra that Defied Hitler, 15:00 – 16:05
64 Schalks, Arnold. “Muddle instead of Music.” Lady Macbeth of the Mtensk District.
65 McSmith, Andy. Fear and the Muse Kept Watch. p. 172.
66 Fanning, David. “Leitmotif in Lady Macbeth.” p. 137.

17
Pravda released the articles, Shostakovich had to live on 2,000-3,000 rubles a month. 68 Apart
from the financial difficulties and frequently running into debt, his wife was also pregnant, and he
felt his career was in serious danger.69 His wife’s pregnancy and the family’s financial situation
most likely influenced his decision to withdraw his Fourth Symphony. The year of 1936 would go
down as one of the worst for Shostakovich.
Shostakovich’s son, Maksim, interviewed for the BBC documentary The Orchestra that Defied
Hitler, remembers that after the Pravda article, Shostakovich’s compositions were banned. If
Shostakovich saw his friends in public, they would walk the other way or cross the street to avoid
him. Maksim said, “[my father] became an outlaw.” 70 He had a suitcase packed for his arrest, just
in case, and sometimes slept in the stairwell out of fear. 71 It turns out he had a good reason for
this behaviour.
In 1937, a multitude of friends and family members of Shostakovich were targeted by the NKVD.
His brother-in-law was arrested, his sister-in-law was sent to a labor camp, his sister was exiled,
and one of his friends was arrested and executed. 72 In May 1937, Shostakovich received
information that he was to report to the NKVD headquarters in Leningrad. His acquaintance
Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, was subject to investigation over a plot to assassinate Stalin.
Shostakovich went to the Bolshoi Dom (Big House) headquarters and was interrogated over
Marshal Tukhachevsky and his political leanings and opinions on Stalin. Shostakovich was told to
return again, because the confession Shostakovich gave was not condemning enough. Maksim
remembers that his father said goodbye to his mother, thinking that it would be the last time he
saw her. He waited several hours at the Bolshoi Dom for his interrogator, only to be told by

68 Fay, Laurel. Shostakovich: A Life. p. 94
69 Burton-Hill, Clemency. “Shostakovich: The composer who was almost purged.”

18
another member of staff that the man interrogating him had already been shot. 73 This was the
kind of pervasive terror that gripped the Soviet Union during the Stalin years.
In 1963, Lady Macbeth was reborn as Katerina Izmaylova, premiering in Moscow to critical
acclaim. Shostakovich even gave the piece a new Opus number, Op. 114, so as to underscore that
Katerina was significantly different to the original Lady Macbeth. Indeed, the libretto of the opera
was changed significantly but much of the music stayed as it was. 74 This indicates that
Shostakovich did not respect the criticism that the music of Lady Macbeth was “formalist” and
incomprehensible, and thus waited to release Katerina until after Stalin was dead.
Shostakovich remained loyal to Lady Macbeth throughout his career. He wrote, “Lady Macbeth, for
all her enormous flaws, is for me the kind of work that I could never stab in the back. “75 The
criticism Shostakovich received seemed to stir in him a kind of unquenchable rebellion. In the
collection of Isaak Glikman’s correspondence with Shostakovich, Letters to a Friend, Shostakovich
writes, “If they cut off both hands, I will compose music anyway holding the pen in my teeth.” 76 In
his own words, Shostakovich wrote the Fourth Symphony as an angry response to the criticism he
received over Lady Macbeth. His Fifth Symphony was an “apologetic” response to this criticism. He
writes of his decision to write the Fourth Symphony: “After ‘Muddle Instead of Music’ the
authorities tried to persuade me to repent and expiate my sin. But I refused to repent. What
helped me then was my youth and physical strength. Instead of repenting, I wrote my Fourth
Symphony.” 77

74 Fay, Laurel E. “From Lady Macbeth to Katarina: Shostakovich’s versions and revisions.” p. 160
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid.

19
When the Pravda affair occurred, the Fourth Symphony was in rehearsals for its premiere. 78 The
premiere was scheduled for December 11, 1936. 79 It is then remarkable that Shostakovich not
only continued to work on it the Fourth Symphony, but also hoped to give it a performance, given
his status with the Party after Lady Macbeth. 80 The Fourth Symphony was incredibly modernist,
which is exactly what Stalin was criticising Shostakovich for in Lady Macbeth. After acquiescing to
party pressure and abandoning the Fourth (at lease for the time being) Shostakovich wrote the
Fifth as a response to the criticism of Lady Macbeth, however he never believed the criticism was
just.81 His response to the Lady Macbeth criticism in the Fifth Symphony, although it was perceived
as respectful, was somewhat subversive in itself.
Symphony No. 4 in C Minor is almost cacophonous. There is no logical progression, and a lot of
atonality and dissonance. It opens with woodwinds trilling and a xylophone mimicking their
theme. The xylophone is heard quite prominently throughout the first theme in the first
movement. The xylophone was a relatively modern instrument and would have been too
progressive and bourgeois for Stalin’s regime.
The influence of Mahler in the Fourth Symphony is prevalent, especially in the length of the piece,
which has a “sprawling nature” indicative of Mahler’s works. 82 Mahler also influences
Shostakovich’s Fourth by giving weight to the composition through repetition and very stark
contrasts in both rhythm and tonality. 83 These Mahlerian characteristics give the work a complex
nature. Stalin and Zhdanov would have identified the long repeating phrases, the contrast, and the
tonal weight of the Fourth as formalist. It was therefore advantageous for Shostakovich to heed
the Union’s advice and withdraw the Fourth Symphony.

83 Salzman, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music, p. 79

20
Although Shostakovich filed the Fourth away until it was safe to premiere (it was first performed
in 1961), he did not even pretend to destroy the work. Instead, he called his next symphony the
Fifth Symphony, in a defiant motion to alert Stalin to the fact that he would not give up on his
Fourth Symphony, only wait for an appropriate time to reintroduce it. This was a bold maneuver
on Shostakovich’s part, because the winter of 1936-37 was the start of the Great Terror. Coupled
with the fact that Lady Macbeth was such a disaster in the eyes of the Soviet State, Shostakovich
was taking a great risk in keeping his Fourth to give it a future premiere.
The Fourth Symphony was withdrawn in December of 1936.84 An official from the Party and the
Secretary from the Union of Soviet Composers held a meeting with Shostakovich during a
rehearsal. He went into the office alone, and was speaking with them for a long time. After this
suspicious encounter, Shostakovich announced that the Fourth would be canceled. 85 He then
began working on the Fifth, which was composed in April 1937. The pressure of composing
Symphony No. 5 must have been suffocating for Shostakovich. He had no choice but to compose a
symphony that would win him back into the favour of Stalin and his Party. Shostakovich knew the
Fifth had to be a shining example of Socialist Realism in order to negate the damage of Lady
Macbeth and the Fourth Symphony. He knew that the threat in the Pravda article, “[this] may end
very badly,” was not empty. However, he still created a piece of music with subversive themes.
Symphony No. 5 is in the key of D minor. The minor key choice makes sense as a repenting
apology, however, this piece was supposed to be a quintessential example of Socialist Realism,
given the formalist” music of Lady Macbeth. Socialist Realism is supposed to be depicting the
utopia of the Soviet Future, and a minor key seems like a strange choice to make to represent a
utopia. 86 The two part imitative counterpoint, where the base leads and the treble follows with an

84 Moynahan, Brian. Leningrad: Siege and Symphony. p. 34.

21
imitation,87 in the first movement resembles parts of Bach’s arias. 88 Bach would have been a
quintessential example of a formalist composer for Stalin: he was from a different era and thus
was not a progressive Marxist or communist, and he was of the European beaurgoisie. The fact
that Shostakovich used counterpoint that alluded to his work was dangerous, if Stalin had heard
the reference or noticed a similarity.
Symphony 5 is heavily influenced by Mahler and thus Mahlerian themes. Howard Goodell
observes that Shostakovich’s Fifth is “part of an ongoing tradition of symphonic work.” 89 The Fifth
Symphony fits into a tradition, and it therefore is just another well-formed piece in the 20th
century music puzzle. This was exactly what Shostakovich intended, after such backlash from Lady
Macbeth of Mtensk and his apprehension of completing and debuting the modernist Fourth
Symphony. However, Shostakovich’s insistence of following Mahler and other western
contemporaries technically and thematically suggests Shostakovich’s reverence for western art,
something Stalin could potentially have frowned upon.
Only a few months before Fifth Symphony debuted, Shostakovich published his song-cycle Poems
by Pushkin Op. 46 (1937). The first song of the cycle has a very obvious allusion to Stalin’s cultural
attack. One stanza says:
An artist-barbarian, with a casual brush
Blackens a genius’s picture,
And his lawless drawing
Scrawls meaninglessly over it. 90
Shostakovich actually quotes a theme from Four Romances on Texts of Pushkin in the finale of the
Fifth Symphony.91 Although this song-cycle was relatively unknown, this was a subversive and

87 Ibid. 6:18
88 Ibid. 6:55
89 Goodall, Howard. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 7 ‘Leningrad.’ 0:20
90 Redepenning, Dorothea. “Shostakovich’s song-cycles.” p. 205

22
dissident action by Shostakovich. In the first movement of the Fifth, Shostakovich also includes an
allusion to the Habenera of Bizet’s Carmen. The first lines of the movement are: “Love is a
rebellious bird, that nobody can tame, and you can call him but it’s quite in vain, because it suits
him not to come.”92 This encapsulates the Shostakovich’s rebellious musical spirit, which is the
reason he was writing the Fifth as an ‘apology.’ However, it was an apology full of rebellious
references.
Despite the rebellious gestures in the music, the support of critics and State officials for the Fifth
Symphony was strong, and the success of the Fifth Symphony brought Shostakovich back into the
favour of the State. The Conductor Yevgeniy Mravinsky, presented the work to the Composers’
Union, who asked enthusiastic questions. 93 It was clear to Shostakovich’s compatriots that he had
consciously made an effort to change his “formalist” ways since the days of Lady Macbeth.
Audiences loved the work, because Shostakovich was such a popular composer, and no one
wanted to see him sent off to a Gulag. It was no secret, even to the general public, that
Shostakovich was in trouble and the Fifth Symphony would decide his fate. At the premiere on
November 21, 1937, audience members cried during the largo movement and also stood up before
the finale had even finished, waiting to give a raucous round of applause. Lyubov Shaporina, an
audience member at the premiere, described Shostakovich, coming out to take a bow after the
performance, as “white as a sheet…I think he was close to tears.”94 The deafening roar of the
applause must have been the sweetest sounds of relief for
The subtitle of the Fifth Symphony, “A Soviet Artist’s Response to Just Criticism,” was not a title
Shostakovich wrote himself, yet he did not refute it when it critics attributed it to the Fifth. 95

91 Ibid. p. 206
95 Ferenc, Anna. “Music in the Socialist State.” p. 14.

23
Shostakovich was conscious of needing to make amends, so he composed the Fifth with the
audience in mind. Most of his other symphonies, like the Seventh, are programmatic and
composed to tell a story as opposed to please an audience. However, the Fifth Symphony is non-
programmatic. It has no formal introduction as to the story the music tells, the symphonic vision,
or the impetus behind writing the piece. The only information was given on a program note,
describing the symphony as “a lengthy spiritual battle, crowned by victory.” 96 Shostakovich only
spoke about the music later, once the reception of the Fifth was complimentary. He explained that
his symphony was “ the suffering of man, and all-conquering optimism.” He goes on to clarify that
“the finale of the symphony resolves the tragically tense moments of the opening…in a life-
affirming, optimistic plan.” 97
He created a formulaic Socialist Realist symphony, with optimism and a happy ending, which he
had not done yet in his career. It caught the ears of critics and composer. Vladimir Shcherbachov, a
fellow composer, noted that the Fifth was “remarkable, but sickeningly depressing.” 98He also saw
that Shostakovich gave strict attention to detail and to simple, emotional progression in the piece.
Shostakovich knew that the Fifth had to be received well, otherwise his entire career, and perhaps
his life and the safety of his family, could disintegrate. The Fifth has four movements and is in an
“accessible” style, as Fay points out, so to really follow the Socialist Realism doctrine and make
sure the piece was “accessible to the masses.” 99
Boris Khaikin, a friend of Shostakovich and a conductor, remembers Shostakovich highlighting a
fundamental difference between the Fourth and Fifth Symphonies. At a performance of the Fifth,
Shostakovich mentioned that because he finished the Fifth in the major key and in fortissimo (ff),
people view the symphony as optimistic and hopeful of what is to come. This, of course, is exactly

97 Ibid. p. 102
98 Ibid. p. 99.
99 Ibid.

24
the results Stalin wanted out of socialist realism art. Shostakovich asked Khaikin “I wonder, what
would they be saying if I had finished it pianissimo and in the minor?” 100 He was, most likely
ironically, referring to his Fourth Symphony, which does in fact end in pianissimo and in the minor
key. Shostakovich knew that Socialist Realism music was loud, celebratory, and happy. He knew he
had to create at least the shell of a Socialist Realist work, and that meant major key and fortissimo.
The musical themes he poured into the Fifth Symphony, however, were slightly less Socialist
Realist at first listen.
The Fifth Symphony was a slightly dissident work disguised expertly as an apology, because it had
references to modern and subversive workss. Shostakovich knew his career, even his life, was in
jeopardy, and still he could not commit to total subordination to the Soviet regime. His references
to his own Pushkin song-cycle with the subversive lyrics, the use of two part counterpoint that
seems to allude to formalist music of a time gone by, and the key in D minor with an overall feeling
of tragedy all helped to make the Fifth Symphony less of an apology than Soviet officials naively
imagined.

100 Ibid. p. 103.

25
Of Hunger and Harmony

“My life and work are bound up in Leningrad. It is my country, my native city and my home.”
– D. Shostakovich 101

Symphony No. 7 in C Major, Op. 60 was written in 1941. Shostakovich began writing this
symphony a few months before the Nazi siege started officially on 14 September 1941, as the
Germans began approaching the city of Leningrad after turning against the Soviet Union.102 He
dedicated the Symphony to the people of his native Leningrad, enduring a siege that lasted 872
days and claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. 250,000 people died in Leningrad within just
three months (winter of 1941-1942), most from hunger and hypothermia, the rest from German
guns. People sawed limbs from corpses to cook up and eat. An orchestra member’s neighbor came
to live with her because her husband was trying to eat her. 103 All the while, Stalin’s purges
continued. Leningrad was truly the depiction of Hell on Earth.
Howard Goodall, a contemporary British composer, views the Leningrad Symphony as a
quintessential example of classical music interacting with a changing society and of the interplay
between modernity and classical music. The 20th century, he asserts, was an age dominated by
“mass market [and] mass audiences, ” and composers faced a challenge in interacting with these
new societal changes. 104 Shostakovich was a composer who experimented with modernism and
neo-classicism, and engaged with the changing face of classical music. But when the war struck,

101 Radio interview as quoted in Moynahan, Brian. Leningrad: Siege and Symphony. p. 10
103 Moynahan, Brian. Leningrad: Siege and Symphony. pp 2-3.

26
Shostakovich realized his most important challenge was make his music relatable to the besieged
and hopeless people of Leningrad. 105 His music now had a humanitarian purpose.
Although this humanitarian purpose fell under the doctrine of Socialist Realism – that is, to make
music relatable to the masses – it is important to note that Shostakovich’s purpose in writing the
Seventh Symphony was simply for the people, and not to appease Socialist Realism. The fact that
the Seventh Symphony was patriotic and thus pleased Stalin was purely advantageous for
Shostakovich.
The score was flown to the West to be performed. It had almost 100 performances abroad within a
year, the most notable in London and New York City. 106 On 9 August 1942, after being flown
behind enemy lines, and after it had been performed in Moscow and the West, the Leningrad
Symphony was finally performed in Leningrad. 107 It was a powerful moment for the city. The
Russians ceased fire, having bombed the Germans earlier in the day in preparation for the concert,
so as to ensure there would be silence during the performance. 108 Loudspeakers broadcasted the
performance throughout the city, and to the Germans as well, as an act of defiance. 109
The only orchestra that remained in Leningrad during the siege was the Leningrad Radio
Orchestra, which, with the help of additions directly from the trenches to substitute for dead
orchestra members, triumphantly performed the symphony to a crowded Philharmonia Hall. At
the beginning, the Leningrad Radio Orchestra was in dire straits. Orchestra records prove it:
“Rehearsal did not take place. Srabian is dead. Petrov is sick. Borishev is dead. Orchestra not
working."110 The state of the orchestra was a reflection of the struggles of all of Leningrad’s
citizens. The bread rations were meager and everyone was starving. One of the trumpet player’s

105 Ibid. 2:20
108 Service, Tom. Proms Music Guide: Shostakovich Symphony No. 7. 1:09
109 Caffrey, Jason. “Shostakovich’s symphony played by a starving orchestra.”

27
could not even blow a single note at the first rehearsal. An oboe player paid for her oboe repair
with a cat for the repairman to eat. 111
The score required 105 musicians, but only 80 performed at the premiere. 27 had been rehearsing
but died before the performance. 112 These musicians were on the same rations as everyone else:
less than a slice of bread per day. At the first rehearsal, there were only 15 players, down from
100. 113 Some fell over during rehearsals, some died before the premiere. Karl Eliasberg, the
conductor, did not allow any excuses among his musicians. One member was late to rehearsal in
order to bury his wife, and Eliasberg cut his bread ration.114 The orchestra had only played
through the Symphony once before the actual performance, three days before, because of the
physical demands of the piece. 115
For an orchestra that was starving and traumatized, the technicalities of this music, the
progression of the dynamics that signify the approaching German attack, 116 and the emotional
response this piece stirred in the musicians would have left them utterly exhausted. The invasion
theme, which starts with the snare drum in movement one, repeats for 340 bars.117 The entire
piece was an hour and twenty minutes long, which is simply unheard of. Eliasberg saw the score
and immediately thought the orchestra would not be able to perform it.118 By some miracle, they
did.
The iconic melody of the first movement, known as the invasion theme, is drawn out like an
agonizing death by starvation and hypothermia. The musicologist Marina Frolova-Walker

112 Moynahan, Brian. Leningrad: Siege and Symphony. pp. 481-482.
113 Ibid. pp. 2-3
114 Ibid. p 3.
116 The snare drum enters at ppp (pianississimo), and the flute and violins are at pp dynamic marking. As successive
instruments enter into the melody, the dynamic markings grow louder, until the dynamics reach fff (fortississimo) at
the end of the movement (Shostakovich, Dmitri. Symphony No. 7 & Symphony No. 8. pp. 16 – 46).

28
suggests that the repetition of this theme is grotesque because in its simplicity and repetition, it
shows that any ordinary thing can become terrifying. Stalin and Hitler were relatively ordinary,
but their dictatorships gave rise to true horror.119 The invasion theme is also reminiscent of a
theme taken from Lady Macbeth. 120 This was risky for Shostakovich because of the controversy
Lady Macbeth caused only a few years before. But, Shostakovich was not concerned with what
Stalin and his counterparts thought of the work. In fact, Isaak Glikman remembers Shostakovich
saying “I don’t know what the fate of this piece will be…I suppose that critics with nothing better
to do will damn me for copying Ravel’s Bolero. Well, let them. That is how I hear war.” 121
Shastakovich really, truly did not care what the authorities thought of his Seventh.
The beginning of the first movement is joyful and playful, with the staccato of the oboe, the strong
violin melody, and the idyllic passages of the flute. In an article titled “The Days of Leningrad’s
Defense” in Советское Исскуство (Soviet Art), Shostakovich writes, “the exposition of the first
movement speaks of the people living a peaceful, happy life…the simple, peaceful life which,
before the war, was enjoyed by the thousands of Leningrad civil guardsmen, by the entire city, by
the country as a whole.” 122
This peaceful passage in the first movement ends with the sad straining of the first violin, a
decrescendo, fading into the distinct rattles of the snare drum. Although all played very softly at
ppp dynamic marking, the fading of the gentle violin into the snare drum is sharp and violent. This
is an unconventional technique, and one that Shostakovich would have employed simply to
enhance the programmatic elements of his symphony, not for its musicality. He writes in his
article about programme music, published in 1951 in Советская Музыка (Sovetskaya Muzyka):
“The definite aims dictated by a programme may lead to certain modifications of a traditional

120 Service, Tom. Proms Music Guide: Shostakovich Symphony No. 7. 2:18
122 Shostakovich, Dmitri. Symphony No. 7 & Symphony No. 8. Editors Note (English)

29
form…I used…some purely illustrative devices in the ‘invasion’ episode in keeping with the
programme.” 123

The beginning of the iconic melody in the first movement of Symphony No. 7, with
the snare drum signifying the approach of the Nazi soldiers. Photo from the score of
the Seventh Symphony, State Publishers “Music”, 1981, p. 17
Shostakovich was well and truly entrenched in the everyday sufferings and hardships. He shows
his solidarity with the city by writing different movements in the symphony that correlate to the
different stages of suffering. In addition to writing his symphony, Shostakovich also worked as a
firefighter, digging trenches and giving aid to his fellow comrades in need.124 The Seventh
Symphony was a tribute to the suffering and defiance of a city that Shostakovich not only
observed, but lived through.
Unlike his Fifth Symphony, Shostakovich gave No. 7 a direct and unambiguous programme:
“Посвящается городу Ленинграду” (“Dedicated to the city of Leningrad”). There is absolutely no
question that Symphony No. 7 is fully and totally for Leningrad, and as an extension, for the Soviet
people under the terrors of war. In fact, Shostakovich was going to name the four movements of
the symphony individually to further enhance his programme of Leningrad under siege. The first

123 Ibid.

30
movement was going to be called “War,” and then “Memories,” “Our Country’s Wide Spaces,” and
“Victory” respectively.125 When the Seventh was written, there was no victory in sight. But
Shostakovich wanted to give his people hope in the final movement, and it ends triumphantly and
victoriously with a horn theme.
This music was a weapon that Shostakovich used to galvanize the people but also to dispel the
horrors of fascism and Hitler. Hitler described Leningrad as a city of untermenschen, or those of
lower class and social standing.126 This notion was exactly what Shostakovich sought to combat
with his Symphony, by proving that, despite all the destruction and hunger that surrounded them,
Leningraders still valued art and high culture. The hundreds of people who attended the
Leningrad premiere dressed in their finest for a night of fine music. Shostakovich wanted to prove
to Hitler, who tried to deprive Leningraders of their humanity and degrade them to something
sub-human, that he would rejuvenate their soul.
In his article “How Music is Born” published in Литературная Газета (Literaturnaya Gazeta) in
1965 Shostakovich describes why he wrote his symphony so fast. He writes, “I wrote my Seventh,
Leningrad, Symphony fast. That was the least I could do. The war was raging all round. I had to be
together with the people, I wanted to create the image of our country at war, to give it a musical
expression.” 127 This, in the composer’s own words (as quoted in the Editor’s Note prefacing the
score of Symphony No. 7 of the State Publishing House “Music” Moscow publication), gives
absolutely no indication that Shostakovich had Stalin in mind when writing the Seventh
Symphony. If he had been thinking of the implications of State criticism, Shostakovich would have,

125
Shostakovich, Dmitri. Symphony No. 7 & Symphony No. 8. Editors Note (English)
126 Ibid. 20:19
127 Shostakovich, Dmitri. Symphony No. 7 & Symphony No. 8. Editors Note (English)

31
undoubtedly, taken more time to write his symphony. The symphony was fully completed in two
months, with most of it completed in a month’s time (September 1941). 128
Although Shostakovich and his family were evacuated out of the city by October 1941, given his
status as a prominent and illustrious Soviet citizen, it is important to note that Shostakovich wrote
most of this symphony while physically in Leningrad. He wrote the vast majority of this work (the
first three of four movements)129 in Leningrad, where he was drawing from pure inspiration of the
tragedies that engulfed him. Laurel Fay suggests Shostakovich was a “reluctant evacuee” of
Leningrad, because he wanted to stay with his people.130 Shostakovich described that the reason
war was waged against the fascists was for the defense of all the wonderful parts of humanity,
culture, arts, and music included. He felt, as a Soviet artist, that he had to do his part to uphold
those values and contribute to the effort of preserving the humanity of Leningraders.
Olga Kvade, an 18-year-old in the audience on the fateful night of the premiere in Leningrad, said
of the event:
On the one hand I wanted to cry but at the same time there was a sense of pride. 'Damn
you, we have an orchestra! We're at the Philharmonic Hall so you Germans stay where you
are!' We were surrounded by Germans. They were shelling us, but there was this feeling of
superiority.
This was exactly the feeling that Shostakovich wanted to instill in his fellow citizens. The
Leningrad Symphony was Shostakovich’s contribution to the city’s defense.131 It may not have
protected them from Nazi air raids, but it gave Leningraders hope, which had been absent from
the city since the start of the siege in September 1941.

128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.

32
This symphony moved audiences around the globe, as a theme song to resistance of Nazi
repression. As the allies were all united in fighting a shared enemy – Nazi fascism – this symphony
struck a chord in the hearts of all people living in the allied countries. But nowhere did it strike
more profoundly than in the hearts of the people of Russia, and in particular the inhabitants of a
hungry, hopeless, besieged Leningrad. To mark his gratitude for Shostakovich’s symphony, Stalin
gave him and his family two large, connected apartments on the Mozhaiskoye Highway in Moscow.
This was premiere real estate, and Stalin even granted Shostakovich 60,000 rubles to furnish the
apartments. His children Maksim and Galina were able to have private lessons in the flat, and the
family had a car. 132 Shostakovich was prospering from the success of the Leningrad Symphony.
However, his luck was about to change.

132 McSmith, Andy. Fear and the Muse Kept Watch. pp. 263-264

33
Out of Hiding: Zhdanov’s Criticism, Stalin's Death, and the Tenth Symphony

After the success of his Fifth Symphony that won him the favour of both the Soviet people and –
more importantly – the Soviet government, and after his triumphant Leningrad Symphony that
was a pivotal wartime morale boost for the Soviet people, Shostakovich was reinstated as the
composer in the Soviet Union. However, 1948 brought his career once again under dangerous
scrutiny, and defamations of formalism and dissonance were attributed to his works. In order to
understand the importance of the Tenth Symphony, we need to examine the political climate
directly before Shostakovich penned this Symphony. It is through the events of 1948, and the
death of Stalin in 1953, that we understand the significance and meaning of Shostakovich’s Tenth.
It was most definitely no coincidence that a cultural crackdown in the Soviet Union followed
closely on the heels of the end of WWII, the beginning of the Cold War, and the ensuing tensions
with the West. Andrei Zhdanov, the infamous protector of Soviet art, literature, and music, was at
his most aggressive during the years of 1946-1948. These years of stringent policies and
repressive ideologies were referred to as Zhdanovschina, directly after the man himself. 133 Jazz
once again was targeted for its American roots, and saxophones were even confiscated.134
In January 1948, Zhdanov called a meeting with the Central Committee and premiere musicians of
the day to berate them for using too much formalism in their music. 135,136 The “big four”
composers of the era were present: Sergei Prokofiev, Aram Khachaturian, Nikolai Myaskovsky,
and of course, Dmitri Shostakovich. 137 Each man was criticized, but Shostakovich took the brunt.

134 Ibid.
135 Ibid.

34
He was the “highest-ranking composer” at the congress and therefore Zhdanov made him the
scapegoat.138 Zhdanov was not the only official (or fellow composer!) hurling fierce criticism at
Shostakovich. Phillip Deery quotes from Alaxander Werth’s Musical Uproar in Moscow that
Vladimir Zakharov, another composer, stood up and denounced Shostakovich by saying that
“nobody except foreign bandits and imperialists” listen to Shostakovich’s music.139 Shostakovich’s
Eighth and Ninth Symphonies were the main targets of Zhdanov’s attack, as they were seen as
“formalist.” 140 Zhdanov targeted him even though Shostakovich had just recently written a
symphony (the Leningrad Symphony) that uplifted the Russian people during the war. This was
the second time the government had accused Shostakovich of formalist music, the first being the
infamous Pravda article affair of 1936.
These types of conferences, where a high-ranking official delivered criticism and ordered new
cultural policies, were cleverly cloaked by the regime as “creative debates.” 141 In reality, these
conferences were an excuse for composers in the Union to embarrass their compatriots and
denounce their work as rubbish and inconsequential. This was done to save their own
professional careers, and in the case of the 1948 Conference, the composers were driven by the
fear of the recent 1938 Purges. The minutes of the 1948 conference are particularly vilifying. 142
Shostakovich spoke to the Committee twice. Apprehensive and fearful, Shostakovich addressed his
colleagues, saying,
In my work there have been many failures and serious setbacks…I always strive to make
my music accessible to the people. I have always listened to criticism addressed to me and

138 Deery, Phillip. “Shostakovich, the Waldorf Conference and the Cold War,” p. 166
139 Ibid.
141 Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-1970. p. 205.
142 Ibid. p. 206

35
have tried my best to work harder and better. I am listening now, too, and will listen in the
future. I will accept critical instruction. 143
The resolution that resulted in the January conference named six composers guilty of formalist
music, with Shostakovich being the first composer listed. 144 It was informally referred to as the
“anti-Formalism” Decree.145 Shostakovich again made a very reserved and remorseful statement,
saying: “…I again deviated in the direction of formalism, and began to speak a language
incomprehensible to the people…I know that the Party is right…I am deeply grateful….” 146
The 1948 Conference had huge consequences for Shostakovich’s career. The committee
deliberated on the fate of the ‘big four,’ and decided to ban most of their music. Zhdanov allowed
Shostakovich’s Fifth and Seventh Symphonies to be performed, but a large majority of concert
venues and conductors would not even entertain the thought of playing anything by Shostakovich
after his public humiliation. 147 After Shostakovich’s work was banned due to the Zhdanov Decree
in 1948, he was relieved from his responsibilities as a teacher in both the Leningrad and Moscow
conservatories, and forced to leave his post in the Organizational Committee of the Union of Soviet
Composers. 148 His professorships were reinstated in a year’s time,149 but Shostakovich still ran
into significant financial difficulty. He wasn’t teaching and his pieces were not being performed.
The family housekeeper had to use her own savings to feed the Shostakoviches, and the NKVD put
the family under surveillance.150
Musicologist Anna Ferenc believes that one of Shostakovich’s responses to this harsh criticism was
to voice his “clandestine expression” in compositions like the First Violin Concerto (1948), the

145 Deery, Phillip. “Shostakovich, the Waldorf Conference and the Cold War,” p. 167
146Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-1970. p. 244

36
Fourth String Quartet (1949), and the song cycle From Jewish Folk Poetry (1948). 151 These were
premiered after Zhdanov had lifted the ban on Shostakovich’s music. 152 Shostakovich also saw his
Tenth Symphony as a way to respond to the criticism of 1948. Schwarz confirms this view, citing
Shostakovich’s humiliation at being publicly denounced by composers who were “third-rate.” He
was a national hero because of the Leningrad Symphony, and he was being treated like a traitor.
His Tenth was, in the words of Schwarz, an “accumulation of sorrow that Shostakovich
experienced during that time [1948] [expressed through] elemental, explosive force.”153 It was a
liberated, unbridled response to criticism. The Tenth Symphony would be his first piece that he
could premiere freely, without needing to hide it in a desk drawer until paranoid State control of
Soviet culture abated. This was because the man behind it all, Joseph Stalin, was finally dead.
Joseph Stalin died on March 5, 1953. 154 Shostakovich composed the Tenth in the summer of that
year. 155 Stalin’s death no doubt influenced parts of Symphony No. 10. Shostakovich’s career, his
failings, and his triumphs were too closely tied to Stalin and Stalin’s regime for him not to mark
the leader’s death in a musical work. This was Shostakovich’s first major work since Stalin had
died, therefore it was anticipated greatly by critics, audiences, and fellow composers alike. 156

151 Ferenc, Anna. “Music in the Socialist State.” p. 17
152 To further complicate his predicament with the State, Shostakovich showed an interest in Jewish folk music,
demonstrated by his song-cycle From Jewish Folk Poetry, just when anti-Semitism became part State agenda. Fay
asserts that Shostakovich’s abhorrence of anti-Semitism was severe. From Jewish Folk Poetry is seen as a protest
against Stalin’s growing anti-Semitism (Fay, Laurel. Shostakovich: A Life. p. 169). In 1949, Stalin’s paranoia and bias
against the Jewish community reached an apex in his campaign against “rootless cosmopolitans” that later
materialized into the Doctor’s Plot. Thus, Shostakovich had to refrain from performing From Jewish Folk Poetry
publicly until after Stalin died. However, people in his circle of friends knew of it, and he performed it for them.
Students at the Moscow Conservatory were familiar with the work. He may not have announced its existence to the
State, but he certainly did not hide the fact he had written it (Fay, Laurel. Shostakovich: A Life. p. 168).
153 Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-1970. p. 246
154 So did Prokofiev. Prokofiev’s death and funeral were tragic. Although he was an influential member of Soviet
society, almost no one attended his funeral because they were all at Stalin’s. Prokofiev also had no flowers at his
funeral because all flowers were reserved for Stalin’s gravesite. (McSmith, Andy. Fear and the Muse Kept Watch. p.
275).
155 Fanning, David. The Breath of the Symphonist, p. 2.
156 The Composer’s Union was divided on the Tenth Symphony. Most composers supported the work, but others saw it
as going against the ideals of the 1948 Zhdanov Decree. (Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-
1970. p. 282).

37
Everyone, with or without a musical background, was curious to see how Shostakovich might
depict the great leader’s death.
The Tenth Symphony in E Minor (Op. 93) premiered in Leningrad in December 1953. As Bernard
Steven’s writes, the Tenth is “at once expansive and closely knit. The first movement is probably
his very greatest achievement in the beauty of its thematic ideas… all contained within an elastic
but unifying rhythmical momentum.” 157 Unlike the Leningrad Symphony and parts of the Fifth
Symphony, which demonstrated use of Mahlerian repetition and harmonic length,158 the Tenth
was succinct. Shostakovich wrote in Sovetskaya Musika in 1954, “I will say just one thing [about
this symphony]: In this work I wanted to convey human feelings and passions.” 159 He said very
little else about the programme of the Tenth, most likely because Stalin’s death and totalitarian
oppression were the inspirations for the composition, which he would not dare express publicly.
Andris Nelsons, who conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra for a recording of the Tenth
Symphony, describes it as a symphony made of “cold colors.” It is in a minor key, and is
reminiscent of the fear that terrorized the Russian people under Stalin. Nelsons writes,
You never knew what could happen next. And even though Stalin has died, that fear
remains. There is no immediate sense of joy or relief. With the frantic repetition of DSCH, I
hear Shostakovich saying to Stalin, with sarcasm and irony: ‘You are dead but I am still
alive! I’m still here!’ After the Tenth Symphony, Shostakovich was finally free to explore
other questions.160

158 Ibid.
160 Shostakovich Under Stalin’s Shadow: Symphony No. 10. Cond. Andris Nelsons. p. 5 (disc jacket)

38
David Fanning, a notable Shostakovich scholar, shares Nelsons’ belief that the Tenth Symphony
broke the mould of the “crass constrictions” of the Socialist Realist aesthetic. 161 Based on the raw
aggression and the structure of the second movement, Fanning confirms the statement made in
Volkov’s Testimony that the second movement was a musical depiction of Stalin. 162
“Aggressive” certainly is an apt description of the second movement. It opens with the relentless
sawing of violins, which foreshadows something dark with the minor key. The tempo is attacking,
and does not slow. A snare drum and timpani are used to make the movement sound march-like
and military-esque, and the minor key makes this allegro very fearsome and intimidating. The
conflict in this movement is never resolved, there is no slower section that shifts to the major key,
nor does the movement end with a succession of longer notes that signals a conclusion. In fact, the
piccolo and flutes end with a sextuplet semiquaver run, with a dynamic marking of sffff! This gives
the ending a biting quality, with the accented ffff on the semiquavers making it sharp and quick.
Fanning also discusses the dynamics in the allegro, noting that the movement starts at an ff
marking, and there are 50 crescendos with only one piano marking. He also notes that the tempo
never slows from its opening, attacking quality. 163 The movement is very short (approximately
four minutes long), but the violent musical progression never abates.
The DSCH motif, mentioned above in the Nelsons quote, appears in Symphony No. 10 and the
String Quartet No. 8. 164, 165 DSCH are Shostakovich’s initials in German spelling: D.

162 Ibid. p. 4.
163 Ibid. p 39.
164 Redepenning, Dorothea. “Shostakovich’s song-cycles.” p. 210.
165 Analysis on Shostakovich’s 8th string quartet (he composed 15) could be an entire dissertation alone. It is
important to briefly mention that the Eighth Quartet was, like all of Shostakovich’s compositions I have discussed
throughout this dissertation, influenced by the political agenda of the time and Shostakovich’s fame as a noted Soviet
citizen. The Eighth String Quartet Op. 110, 1960, was composed soon after Shostakovich begrudgingly joined the
Communist Party. This event was, as Dorothea Redepenning asserts, as much of a crisis for Shostakovich as the Lady
Macbeth situation was in 1936. (Redepenning, Dorothea. “Shostakovich’s song-cycles.” p. 208). Lev Lebedinsky, as
quoted in Redepenning’s essay, believes that Shostakovich viewed his induction into the Communist Party as
“synonymous with his death,” and he contemplated suicide just after he finished his Quartet No. 8. Lebedinsky truly

39
SCHostakowitsch. 166 They correlate to German musical notation: the note d, the note e flat
(pronounced like the letter ‘S’), the note c, and the note b (the b natural note is signified by the
letter h in German musical notation). 167 The DSCH motif was rebellious. Shostakovich was
personalizing his music, almost in an egotistical way by literally writing his name in note form. He
employed this motif throughout the third and fourth movements of the Tenth. 168 Robert Dearling
sees the use of DSCH in the Tenth as defiance. Shostakovich was using his DSCH motif as a
warning. 169 He had endured so much at the hands of the State for being a “formalist,” and now
that Stalin was gone, he was unwilling to accept more State control of his artistic expression. He
lets the DSCH motif ring out to deter any future Stalins from repressing his music.

The cello playing the DSCH motif in the third movement of Symphony No. 10. Taken from Robert
Dearling’s essay in Shostakovich: The Man and His Music. p. 73.
In 1954, a year after the death of Joseph Stalin, Shostakovich premiered his Tenth Symphony. The
Soviet system was somewhat less rigid at this time (in two years time, Krushchev would give his

believed the Eighth was not only autobiographical, but also the last piece Shostakovich planned to compose.
(Redepenning, Dorothea. “Shostakovich’s song-cycles.” p.210). In a letter to Isaak Glikman, Shostakovich discusses all
of his own themes from his other works that he used in Quartet No. 8. The Tenth Symphony was one of the reprised
themes. Shostakovich felt the need to leave a musical legacy behind in the notes of the Eighth, and also provide a
summation of– in his mind – his major works. (Redepenning, Dorothea. “Shostakovich’s song-cycles.” p. 210).
166 Dearling, Robert. “The First Twelve Symphonies.” p. 72.
167 “DSCH” – Shostakovich’s Motto. DSCH Journal. http://dschjournal.com/dsch-motif
168 Ibid.
169 Dearling, Robert. “The First Twelve Symphonies.” p. 72.

40
‘Secret Speech’ to the Party Congress that would officially start the Thaw Period). In a 1954 article
in Sovyetskaya Muzika, Shostakovich publicly stated his opinions of the value of freedom of
musical expression and the negative affects of oppressive aesthetics. It was a fresh, unadulterated
opinion from someone that for so long seemed to regurgitate the Party values for his own safety.
He writes,
I do not think that the Composers’ Union should discourage our composers from branching
out and treading the independent, unexplored pathways of art. It is not bold, creative
quests that we should fear, but superficiality, unimaginativeness and stereotypes…the
sooner we repudiate these leveling tendencies [of smoothing out sharp corners in art], the
better it will be for Soviet art. 170
In the year, Shostakovich published a seemingly ironic article about his Tenth Symphony. He is
mocking the Zhdanov conferences, where composers and party officials, who knew very little
about music, distributed harsh criticism and punishments. He writes that only after looking over
his work, did he realize that he “did not succeed in …writing a real symphonic allegro.” The irony,
as David Fanning points out, is that there actually is no slow movement in the entire Symphony. 171
Shostakovich would have known this, and known that his allegro actually was an allegro, and was
in no way slow or dragging in tempo. He makes several more very general statements, like “But
this movement is perhaps too short...apparently another movement is needed…it would be very
useful and valuable to hear comrades’ opinions on this count.” 172 He was ironically and
consciously writing comments, unhelpful and too vague, that mimicked the kind of criticism he
would have received at Union conferences.

170 Shostakovich About Himself and His Times. pp. 151-152.
172 Ibid. p 77.

41
Conclusion

Shostakovich’s career was prolific. He was even finishing his Viola Sonata Op. 147 (1975) just days
before he died on August 9, 1975. 173 His repertoire includes a wide array of varying forms of
compositions: 15 symphonies, 15 string quartets, six concertos, a piano quintet, two piano trios,
two string octets, two solo piano sonatas, three ballets, several operas, and numerous song cycles.
174 He also wrote many film scores, like his beautiful suite for The Gadfly (1955). Throughout this
expansive career, Shostakovich encountered searing criticism from the Stalin regime that led to
financial crises, unemployment, public humiliation, and worse, thoughts of ending his own life. In
fact, there were at least three instances when he contemplated suicide: After the Lady Macbeth
affair and subsequent humiliation (as remembered by his friend and composer Yuri Shaporin), 175
after writing his Eighth String Quartet, an autobiography of sorts, 176 and after the 1948 Zhdanov
Decree when he lost his professorships at the Moscow and Leningrad Conservatories.177
He defended his Lady Macbeth, at least in his inner circle of friends and family. He dared to write
satirical song cycles and celebrate Jewish heritage and culture during the height of Stalinist anti-
Semitism. He experimented with Jazz during the time that Zhdanov and Soviet culture was
condemning the genre. He defiantly kept the Fourth Symphony, and named the next symphony the
Fifth, instead of the Fourth, an obvious decision that was sure to send a message to Stalin that
Shostakovich could not be deterred entirely from writing the music he wanted. True to his nature,
he released the Fourth Symphony in 1961, after it was clear he would not find himself in trouble
with the authorities. He wrote his Symphony No. 7 for his people of Leningrad, and for them only.
Because the Seventh lifted Leningrad out of its darkness and desperation, at least for only the

173 Hulme, Derek C. Dmitri Shostakovich: A Catalogue, Bibliography, and Discography. p. 339.
176 Redepenning, Dorothea. “Shostakovich’s song-cycles.” p. 210

42
night of the premiere, Stalin and the regime rewarded him. This recognition by Stalin was
inconsequential for Shostakovich.
Shostakovich was as rebellious and dissident as an artist could have been during the Stalinist era
without being sent to a labour camp or being shot in the back of the head. 178He made patriotic
song-cycles and symphonic apologies just so that he could bring himself back into favour with the
Soviet government long enough to continue writing the compositions he desired. Even his
“apologies” were rife with satire and dissidence, like his Fifth Symphony. He openly disliked his
own patriotic song-cycle, Song of the Forests, written as a repentance after the 1948 Zhdanov
conference and to commemorate Stalin’s forestation programs. 179 His Tenth Symphony depicted
Stalin and the fear experienced under his regime. Shostakovich dared to write what other
composers could not, even if it meant dangerous encounters with the authorities from time to
time. In the symphony of Shostakovich’s life, his melody was rebellion, his harmony – satirical and
superficial obsequiousness to a totalitarian regime.

178 In Letters to a Friend, Isaak Glikman’s publication of his letters to Shostakovich, Shostakovich discusses how
strongly he resisted in joining the Communist Party. He had been through so much already as an artist under the heel
of the Soviet system, and joining would most likely have seemed like a betrayal of his experiences. He writes,
Pospelov tried to persuade me with all possible means to enter the Party, in which under Sergeyevich
[Khrushchov] it was now possible to breath freely and easily.…completely beside myself I tried as hard as I
could to refuse this honour…at the second meeting with Pospelov he again had me up against the wall. My
nerves couldn’t stand it, and I gave up. (Redepenning, Dorothea. “Shostakovich’s song-cycles.” pp. 210-211.)
He had managed to evade joining the Party until 1960, a testament to his unwavering will in the wake of Soviet
oppression.
179 McBurney, Gerard. “Shostakovich, Dmitri: The Song of the Forests.”

43
Bibliography

Burton-Hill, Clemency. "Shostakovich: The composer who was almost purged." BBC Culture. BBC, 7
Aug. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150807-
shostakovich-the-composer-who-was-almost-purged>.
Caffrey, Jason. "Shostakovich's symphony played by a starving orchestra." BBC Magazine. BBC, 2
Jan. 2016. Web. 1 May 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34292312>.
Clark, Katerina. "Socialist Realism in Soviet Literature." 1998. The Routledge Companion to Russian
Literature. Ed. Neil Cornwall. London: Routledge, 2001. 174-83. Print.
Dearling, Robert. "The First Twelve Symphonies." Shostakovich: The man and his music. Ed.
Christopher Norris. London: Lawrence And Wishart, 1982. 47-79. Print.
Deery, Phillip. "Shostakovich, the Waldorf Conference and the Cold War." American Communist
History 11.2 (2012): 161-80. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://eds.a.ebscohost.com>.
"“DSCH” – SHOSTAKOVICH’S MOTTO." DSCH Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2016.
<http://dschjournal.com/dsch-motif>.
Fanning, David. "Leitmotif in Lady Macbeth." Shostakovich Studies. Ed. Fanning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995. 137-59. Print.
Fay, Laurel E. "From Lady Macbeth to Katarina: Shostakovich's versions and revisions."
Shostakovich Studies. Ed. David Fanning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
160-88. Print.
- - -. Shostakovich: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
- - -. Shostakovich and His World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Print.
Ferenc, Anna. "Music in the Socialist State." Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin: The
Baton and Sickle. Ed. Neil Edmunds. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004. 8-18. Print.

44
Goodall, Howard. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 7 'Leningrad'. The Story of Music in Fifty Pieces. BBC
Radio 3, 21 Mar. 2014. Web. 1 May 2016.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01w12tm>.
Harnsberger, Lindsey C. "Counterpoint." Essential Dictionary of Music. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Alfred
Publishing Co., Inc., 1997. 37. Print.
Hulme, Derek C. Dmitri Shostakovich: A Catalogue, Bibliography, and Discography. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1991. Print.
Jackson, Roland John. "Counterpoint." Encyclopaedia Britannica. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online School Edition. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.britannica.com/art/counterpoint-music>.
Johnson, Stephen. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 5. BBC Radio 3. BBC, 8 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Apr.
2016. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qfhsp>.
Kholopov, Yuri. "Form in Shostakovich's instrumental works." Shostakovich Studies. Ed. David
Fanning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 57-75. Print.
Kirby, Tim, dir. Leningrad & the Orchestra that Defied Hitler - BBC Documentary 2016. Narr.
Amanda Vickery and Tom Service. Prod. Caroline Page. 2016. Youtube. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjLT2Lo1L8g>.
Kuhn, Judith. Shostakovich in Dialogue: Form, Imagery and Ideas in Quartets 1-7. Surrey: Ashgate,
2010. Print.
McBurney, Gerard. "Shostakovich, Dmitri: Suite for Variety Orchestra." Boosey & Hawkes. Boosey &
Hawkes, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. <http://www.boosey.com/cr/music/Dmitri-
Shostakovich-Suite-for-Variety-Orchestra/51578>.
- - -. "Shostakovich, Dmitri: The Song of the Forests." Boosey & Hawkes. Boosey & Hawkes, n.d.
Web. 1 May 2016. <http://www.boosey.com/cr/music/Dmitri-Shostakovich-The-Song-of-
the-Forests/4269>.

45
- - -. "Whose Shostakovich? BBC Proms Lecture 2000." Speaking of Shostakovich... N.p., n.d. Web. 27
Apr. 2016. <http://www.oocities.org/kuala_bear/articles/mcburney.html>.
McSmith, Andy. Fear and the Muse Kept Watch: The Russian Masters - from Akhmatova and
Pasternak to Shostakovich and Eisenstein - under Stalin. New York City: The New Press,
2015. Print.
Moynahan, Brian. Leningrad: Siege and Symphony. New York City: Grove Press, 2013. Print.
Redepenning, Dorothea. "Shostakovich's song-cycles." Shostakovich Studies. Ed. David Fanning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 205-28. Print.
Salzman, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music: An Introduction. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Print.
Schalks, Arnold. "Muddle instead of Music." Lady Macbeth of the Mtensk District. N.p., n.d. Web. 2
May 2016. <http://www.arnoldschalks.nl/tlte.main.html>.
Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-1970. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1972.
Print.
- - -. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-1970. London: Barrie & Jenkins Ltd., 1972. Print.
"Sentenced To Death In Stalin's Great Purge." Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. N.p., 5 Mar. 2013.
Web. 27 Apr. 2016. <http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/prisoners-gulag-stalin-
soviet/24903236.html>.
Service, Tom. Proms Music Guide: Shostakovich Symphony No. 7. BBC Proms Music Guides. BBC
Radio 3, 4 July 2014. Web. 1 May 2016. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0225b82>.
Shostakovich, Dmitri. Symphony No. 7 & Symphony No. 8. Collected Works in Forty-Two Volumes.
Vol. 4. 1941. Moscow: State Publishers "Music", 1981. Print.
Shostakovich Under Stalin's Shadow: Symphony No. 10. Cond. Andris Nelsons. Boston Symphony
Orchestra. Rec. Apr. 2015. Deutsche Grammophon. CD.

thesisskeleton.PDF

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

thesisskeleton.PDF