As we have discussed in previous classes, the Soviet Union was known for placing a specific emphasis on folk music and what they felt it had to offer. In the reading “National Identity, cultural policy and the Soviet Folk Ensemble”, we find that Armenia exemplifies a rather positive case of impacts of Soviet cultural policy as compared to the other cases we have analyzed in class.
I believe the development of a strong nationalism prior to Soviet rule without a doubt plays into its success in the early 20th century, considering that “music policy towards the satellite nations was either related to nationhood in some way or was not” (151). Also, the fact that ideas or basic institutions were changed very little from when Lenin first employed nationalities policies, lasting well into the 1930s under Stalins rule, has a lot to do with the success considering the time it took to organize folk music and instruments into that of something usable in a western framework. this of course references the most important idea in music policy, advancement.
“Immediately following the first performance, Moscow papers praised the ‘progress’ of Kazak national art. Platon Kerzhentsev, who oversaw the events, declared: ‘Kazak musical theatre has only been around for three years, but its performance shown in Moscow reflects that it may be boldly compared with the performances of the other nationalities of the Soviet Union “(Rouland 192).
Last week we spent a considerable amount of class talking about the Soviet musical culture policies and their potentiality for colonial style oppression and interference. I was toeing the line a bit; now I am fully in the camp of this as a revamped colonial policy. I feel that above quote is case-an-point. What are your thoughts? Is anyone still thinking this policy is a net good?
The case of the composer Hajibeyov from Azerbaidzhan is an interesting one, simply because of the fact that outside of his home country, where he is so deeply recognized, his name is all but unknown. Unspoken of in most books, lectures, and conferences about music, which are mostly produced in the Western world, this composer goes unrecognized for the additions he made to music throughout his lifetime. The author gives a number of reasons for this:
His death took place during the cooldown of Western interest in Soviet Music, which was right after World War Two
He was considered a one-hit-wonder due to the fact that his most popular music near his death was war marches and cantatas
An important mention in this paper, though, is that Hajibeyov personified the failure of Soviet music policy when it came to national identity and culture. Is this assertion valid? What kind of evidence supports or refutes this statement? And, what does this have to do with the things we’ve learned about Soviet nationalist policy in previous classes?
I would like us to turn our attention to “A traditional song played on the qobyz (Kazakhstan)” and “‘Spanish Fantasia’ for kobyz and piano by Igor Frolov (Kazakhstan)” on our playlist for today. According to our reading, we are told the musical aspects of the Soviet Cultural projects was something that was easier to prompt than other projects. We are also told that by the late 1930s, there were some rules on how to be respectful in terms of cultural exchange: “First, the process before the revolution was unidirectional, while in Soviet times it became reciprocal […] Second, before the revolution only a few individuals sought out the songs and dances of the East, while now a significant portion, perhaps even the majority, of Soviet composers worked with this material. […] Third, the fairy-tale and fantastic elements of Russian orientalism contrasted with Soviet music, which, while legitimately open to the earlier styles, did not allow its conventions to overshadow the whole, diverse reality of the East” (353-355). I am wondering, how you think this quote from Frolova-Walker operates with these two pieces from Kazakhstan. Do you think the folk instrument here is being played in the same way in both videos? If it is not being played in the same way, do you that it is respectful or appropriation?
I found the influence the Soviet Union had on the music of different nationalities of its member states to be very interesting in “National in Form, Socialist in Content,” especially when Frolova-Walker compares this to the relatively uninterested stance taken by the Russian Empire who for the most part (with exceptions in Ukraine and Finland) did not interfere with language and religion of its inhabitants incorporated into the empire. Frolova-Walker states that “Constructing a national musical culture was, like the building of a gigantic dam, a matter of concern for the whole country” (Frolova-Walker, 336). Does this large Soviet impact on national music make the Soviets hypocritical and violate the self-determination ideals of Soviet Nationalities Policy? Does it aid or hinder the Soviets in their creation and modification of the nation art?
The article discusses the Russification imposed onto the Soviet nationalities. In my opinion, the focus on opera seems like a popular Russian art form nationalities were subjected to create. The article reads “Since musical nationalism in the Soviet republics was dependent on the model of nineteenth-century Russia, these states were expected to inaugurate their era of national art music with opera” (Frolova-Walker, 339). Furthermore, with drawing inspiration from western art being off limits, these nationalities seemed to have been forced to draw from Russian art. However, it is explained that many of the the urban elites and others in theses Soviet Nationalities believed the pathway to modernization and westernization was through Russian culture. The example of Azerbaijan is used. The article explains the view of workers in Azerbaijan, stating “the workers of the oil industry and the railways suddenly developed a vigorous appetite for ‘real opera’: ‘We need new Azerbaijani operas,’ they wrote, along with such slogans as ‘Cultured modern opera or nothing,’ and even ‘Ban the old mugam opera’ and ‘Turk opera must go, along with the Arabic alphabet and the yashmak [veil]!'” (Frolova-Walker, 340). So, it appears that Russification while being mandatory was not always despised, and in this case welcomed. In your opinion, does Russification seem like more of a choice or obligation? What effect does this Russification have on the Art in the Soviet Union, and in your opinion does it benefit or negatively effect the Soviet Union as a whole?
The constraints imposed upon composers was an interesting piece of this article. Stalin had created the outline of what soviet Opera would be. The article states
“Stalin’s speech on opera emphasized three points: the subject matter was to be socialist, a realist musical language bearing the imprint of its national origins was to be adopted, and a new breed of hero was to be drawn from contemporary Soviet Life… ‘Our new operas must above all include these four elements: Soviet subject matter, narodnost’ [“nationality,” or “people-ness”], realism, and the mastery of symphonic development.'”
(Frolova-Walker, 363)
However these constraints proved difficult for many artist to abide by. The article states that ” too much of the national element could be criticized as bourgeois nationalism, too much realism was bourgeois naturalism, and too much symphonic development was bourgeois formalism”(Frolova-Walker, 363). It is explained that these constraints created an art which “was to be familiar in form and anodyne in content” (Frolova-Walker, 368). Do these restrictions hinder development of Soviet art? Does it aid the Soviets by creating conformity between these nationalities? If both, does one outcome outweigh the other?
I found the music playlist very interesting and it shed light on the different aspects of culture from different regions in the Soviet Union. Each of the videos/songs represented different sounds and utilized different instruments, with some of the instruments being unfamiliar to me. In “Dance of the Kurds and Sabre Dance”, the movements caught my attention the most, but the clashing of instruments and sounds developed an almost foreboding or dark mood. In the second piece, I was really intrigued by the qobyz and the performers traditional clothes. Hearing the difference in the sound and presentation even in music from the same region was interesting to note. I really enjoyed listening and viewing the songs. By listening and watching them, I could understand how music and culture developed in the larger Soviet Union region and how unique each piece was. Overall it put the reading into context and displayed the result of the Soviet Union’s policies attempting to develop music and culture across the various nationalities.
Shur is a beautiful piece of music from Azerbaijan, that showcases the talent of orchestral musicians during this barely post-war time period. This song travels through different pieces, making it sound more of a symphony than a single piece. For example, the sound at the beginning of the song is very different than the sound at the 7-minute mark. This could be because the Soviet Union encouraged pieces to tell stories, which requires a longer amount of time. This music was different than what people would have typically been listening to in more Western countries. Why was this important to the Soviet Union, to have such different forms of music be accessible to the general public?
I was extremely interested by the depiction of Soviet society in this movie. This film, set in late 1920s Russia, seemed to reflect the theme of the old, Tsarist ruling class pitifully struggling to remain relevant while a new proletarian society emerges around them. The main plot if the movie revolves around representatives of the nobility and clergy scrambling to find some old jewels hidden in a chair, a quest that (spoiler alert) ultimately turns out to be in vain. While these metaphors for the Tsarist ruling classes are searching for their old wealth, we can see the signs of the old society dying and a new one rising around them. The death of the old order can be seen in things like the terrified meeting of old Russian officials and the auctions selling off their stuff. Meanwhile, the Soviet society is starting to emerge around them, as seen in the Red Army troops marching and singing, the public lectures, choirs, propaganda posters, and just a general sense of camaraderie among the people. With all that in mind, I’d like to pose the question: what message does the film want us to take from this? Do they think the fading of the old order is a good or bad thing?
Going into watching this film, I was not sure what to expect. In the opening scene when Bender pretends to be a Soviet official to get stuff from a store clerk, I was not quite sure where this film was going to go. Would it be a movie presenting order? A drama? A comedy? And although it was the latter, I was still surprised that this sort of comedy was allowed in the Soviet Union. Twelve Chairs is a very light hearted movie, yet there seem to be some clear criticisms of the Soviet Union within the plot. Such is the fact that Ippolit Vorobyaninov is even looking for the chairs in the first place. He was essentially demoted, and this fortune could be a chance to reconcile that. Moreover, the priest seems pretty corrupt. I found it to be confusing that the Soviet Union would allow a movie to exist that seems to lampoon failings in their government. However, is that maybe the point? To poke fun at the instability after the war? As this film acts as a look back into a different time, is there seperation between this story and the 1970s?
This film from the very beginning is a very accurate representation of soviet culture the setting of the film is just incredible. I love how the man, in the beginning, used his what I’m assuming pretended to use a officials red card top bribe a shop owner to give him food and goods, in exchange to not report him to USSR for violations. This film is very rich and full of stuff we talk about, for example at 52:39 the auction for the mother-law of “Ippolit Matveyevich” who is known in the movie for being the Marshal of Nobility. The Soviet auctioneers addressed the mother-in-laws furniture as not earned and rather that was owned by the corrupt aristocracy. This is related to our discussion from the Russian Empire transitioning into the Soviet Union and how the regime looked at the old republic. Everything in this film exemplifies everything we have been discussing and find it very easy to connect with. Also, this film allows me to visually see what we have been talking about, which I think is very important to paint that picture within our minds. To Conclude, the only thing I would like to discuss is the adaptations between the old film and this rather newer film. What was altered and changed from both of them?
