{"title":"Nikolay Myaskovsky and the “Regimentation” of Soviet Composition: A Reassessment","authors":"P. Zuk","doi":"10.1525/JM.2014.31.3.354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Western studies of musical life in the USSR have typically placed great emphasis on the constraints to which composers were subject and often appear to have accepted as axiomatic the notion that the styles of Soviet composition of the Stalinist era were fundamentally conditioned by external pressures. One of the most influential formulations of this view is to be found in Boris Schwarz’s Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, which has remained a standard work of reference for over four decades. Schwarz considered the promulgation of the Communist Party’s resolution of 23 April 1932 “On the Reconstruction of Literary and Artistic Organisations” to represent a fateful turning point in the fortunes of Soviet music, marking the inauguration of a stultifying new era of “regimentation” and the demise of freedoms that had remained after the persecution of leading modernists by the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians. According to Schwarz “advanced composers turned conventional, and conventional composers turned commonplace.” In Schwarz’s view, the newly founded Composers’ Union, just as Goebbels’s Reichsmusikkammer, presided over an artistic wasteland. In this essay I question such generalizations. I focus on Nikolay Myaskovsky (1881–1950), regarded by Schwarz as a prime example of a modernist who retreated into safe conventionality in the early 1930s after the composition of his notorious Twelfth Symphony, ostensibly written to glorify Stalin’s grandiose project of agricultural collectivization. A re-examination of the circumstances surrounding the symphony’s genesis suggests that the constructions Schwarz placed on this phase of Myaskovsky’s career are questionable. Although the composer’s harmonic language became noticeably less dissonant after 1932 than in certain works of the 1920s, I argue that this cannot be attributed solely to external pressures, as Myaskovsky’s later style evinces strong continuities with tendencies manifest in his earlier work. The essay closes by reflecting on the wider implications of these findings for our understanding of Soviet composition of the Stalinist era.","PeriodicalId":413730,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Musicology","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Musicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/JM.2014.31.3.354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Western studies of musical life in the USSR have typically placed great emphasis on the constraints to which composers were subject and often appear to have accepted as axiomatic the notion that the styles of Soviet composition of the Stalinist era were fundamentally conditioned by external pressures. One of the most influential formulations of this view is to be found in Boris Schwarz’s Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, which has remained a standard work of reference for over four decades. Schwarz considered the promulgation of the Communist Party’s resolution of 23 April 1932 “On the Reconstruction of Literary and Artistic Organisations” to represent a fateful turning point in the fortunes of Soviet music, marking the inauguration of a stultifying new era of “regimentation” and the demise of freedoms that had remained after the persecution of leading modernists by the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians. According to Schwarz “advanced composers turned conventional, and conventional composers turned commonplace.” In Schwarz’s view, the newly founded Composers’ Union, just as Goebbels’s Reichsmusikkammer, presided over an artistic wasteland. In this essay I question such generalizations. I focus on Nikolay Myaskovsky (1881–1950), regarded by Schwarz as a prime example of a modernist who retreated into safe conventionality in the early 1930s after the composition of his notorious Twelfth Symphony, ostensibly written to glorify Stalin’s grandiose project of agricultural collectivization. A re-examination of the circumstances surrounding the symphony’s genesis suggests that the constructions Schwarz placed on this phase of Myaskovsky’s career are questionable. Although the composer’s harmonic language became noticeably less dissonant after 1932 than in certain works of the 1920s, I argue that this cannot be attributed solely to external pressures, as Myaskovsky’s later style evinces strong continuities with tendencies manifest in his earlier work. The essay closes by reflecting on the wider implications of these findings for our understanding of Soviet composition of the Stalinist era.
西方对苏联音乐生活的研究通常非常强调作曲家所受的约束,并且通常似乎已经接受了一个不言自明的概念,即斯大林时代的苏联作曲风格基本上是由外部压力决定的。鲍里斯·施瓦茨的《苏维埃俄罗斯的音乐与音乐生活》是这一观点最具影响力的阐述之一,这本书在40多年来一直是一本标准的参考著作。施瓦茨认为,共产党于1932年4月23日颁布的“关于文艺组织重建”决议,代表了苏联音乐命运的一个决定性转折点,标志着一个愚蠢的“管制”新时代的开始,以及在俄罗斯无产阶级音乐家协会(Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians)迫害主要现代主义者之后,自由的消亡。根据施瓦茨的说法,“先进的作曲家变得传统,而传统的作曲家变得平庸。”在施瓦茨看来,新成立的作曲家联盟,就像戈培尔的帝国音乐界一样,掌管着一片艺术荒原。在本文中,我对这种概括提出质疑。我关注的是尼古拉·米亚斯科夫斯基(Nikolay Myaskovsky, 1881-1950),施瓦茨认为他是现代主义的典型代表,在创作了臭名昭著的《第十二交响曲》后,他在20世纪30年代初退隐到安全的传统中。《第十二交响曲》表面上是为了颂扬斯大林宏大的农业集体化计划而创作的。重新审视交响曲起源的环境表明,施瓦茨对米亚斯科夫斯基职业生涯这一阶段的建构是有问题的。尽管在1932年之后,作曲家的和声语言明显比20世纪20年代的某些作品少了一些不和谐,但我认为这不能仅仅归因于外部压力,因为米亚斯科夫斯基后来的风格与他早期作品中表现出来的倾向有很强的连续性。文章最后反思了这些发现对我们理解斯大林时代的苏联构成的更广泛的影响。