ia_2010_julie_c

=Evaluation of Sources (250-400 words) Tips]= = =

This article from Pravda gives a harsh critique from the Soviet Government of Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, the story of a ‘frustrated, lascivious and ultimately homicidal rural housewife and her working-class lover’   [1]    . In terms of purpose, the value of this source is the fact that it clearly expresses the opinion of Stalin’s government and party; the party was worried about the ‘petit bourgeois formalistic contractions’ [2], a ‘classic example of authoritarian cultural criticism’   [3]  . Nevertheless, this biased article was pure propaganda (Pravda was a communist newspaper and would only print pro-Soviet articles), an obvious limitation due to the fact that this opera had been collecting fame since its premiere in 1934. 
 * Source 1 – Muddle Instead of Music, January 28 1936, Pravda **
 * [Appendix A] **

//This is itself another limitation of this source; ‘ // Pravda’s unexpected interference after more than two years of growing triumph for the opera’ [4]. Furthermore, and more importantly, this article is unsigned, and over the years there have been numerous debates over whether Stalin himself had written this article. Shostakovich himself allegedly said in his Memoirs ‘It’s clear that this is a genuine pronouncement of our leader and teacher’ [5]. In reference to the origin however, value is to be also found, this article written in 1936 in a national newspaper, provides firsthand knowledge of all the negative facts of the opera, and also provides us with an insight into attitudes of Soviet Party who, far from being crude philistines, had severe pretensions to artistic talent and who realised how art could be used to mobilise the masses. Additionally, we can be certain that this article has not been censored, as it supports the ruthless and tyrannical rule that Stalin enforced on the Soviet People. In fact it was the opera which was modified by Shostakovich himself who feared for him and his family’s lives; he replaced the original score with a ‘pallid adaption called Katerina Ismailova, and never wrote another opera’ [6]. 



Word Count: 310

[1] 1994. MUSIC: Out, Damned Opera Director. TIME magazine, [internet] Monday, Nov.21. Available at: <__http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981843,00.html__> [Accessed 27 September 2009] [2] ‘Petit bourgeois formalistic contractions lead to a break with real art, real science and real literature’ (Muddle Instead of Music) [3] Volkov, Solomon. 2004. When Opera was a matter of life or death. Telegraph.co.uk [internet], March 8. Available at <__http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/3613515/When-opera-was-a-matter-of-life-or-death.html>__ [Accessed 27 September 2009]. [4] Volkov, Solomon., 2004. Shostakovich and Stalin. Great Britain: Little, Brown. [5] Volkov, Solomon., 1979. Testimony: The Memoirs of Shostakovich. Great Britain: Hamish Hamilton Ltd. [6] 1994. MUSIC: Out, Damned Opera Director. TIME magazine, [internet] Monday, Nov.21. Available at: <__http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981843,00.html__> [Accessed 27 September 2009]

** This extract is from the book ‘Testimony: The Memoirs of Shostakovich’ as Related to and Edited by Solomon Volkov, which was published in 1979, four years after the death of the Shostakovich. This book has created huge controversy over its authenticity; Shostakovich supposedly dictated to Volkov his memoirs between the years 1971 and 1974, then signed all the pages written by Volkov. Nevertheless, the notes which Volkov took during the meetings between himself and the composer, he claims, are lost.  Therefore, the obvious limitation of the origin of this source is the accuracy; the question is whether the narrator is Volkov or Shostakovich. The American Scholar Laurel Fay disputes these Memoirs by saying that Volkov’s fragmented notes were “divided up [and] combined as seemed appropriate” [1  ]. Although there is debate over the authenticity of the book, this has yet to be proven. The origin of Testimony also gives it great value; quoted from the person concerned in a one-to-one interview, this edited biography gives firsthand knowledge of Shostakovich’s views on the Soviet Union and on his music, as controversial as these views may be. The values considering the book's purpose are also convincing, Volkov wrote his book in order to portray Shostakovich’s reasons for writing, which, if Volkov is writing truthfully, give us the ‘truth’ of the long debated arguments over Shostakovich’s music. However, we do not know the inconvenient truths that Volkov may have left out to sell a more controversial book, ‘Volkov never answered [any of] these charges’ [2] over the authenticity and merely responded in the New York Times with ‘My advice would be: read the books, listen to the music, and then decide for yourself [3] //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-style: normal;">. // Word Count: 277
 * Source 2 – Extract From ‘Testimony: The Memoirs of Shostakovich,’ as Related to and Edited By Solomon Volkov [Appendix B]

[1] Hamrick Brown, Malcom. 2004. //A Shostakovich Casebook.// Indiana University Press. //[2]// //Alex Ross. 2004. Unauthorized: The final betrayal of Dmitri Shostakovich.// The New Yorker //[internet], 6 September. Available at:<__http://www;newyorker.com/archive/2004/09/06/040906crmu_music__> [Accessed on 27 September 2009]// [3] 2004. Just Listen: Solomon Volkov’s letter to the New York Times. //The New York Times// [internet] 11 April. Available at: <__http://www.geocities.com/kuala_bear/articles/svreply.html__> [Accessed on 27 September 2009].