Introduction

Russian music underwent significant changes in technique, style, instrumentation, and accompanying ideologies during the socialist and realist periods. These changes involved political interests to empower music as a tool for enhancing and encouraging nationalism (Slonimsky, 1944). Remarkably, how the USSR utilized music to disseminate its ideologies is complex and fascinating (Slonimsky, 1950). Composers of this time, particularly Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky, contributed to a nationalistic foundation and facilitated the rise of the proletariat in Soviet Russia for nearly sixty years (Rothe, 1942). Political turmoil and the German invasion threat loomed over Russian society throughout this period. Russia’s dictator, Joseph Stalin (in office from 1922 to 1953) reinforced the complete levelling of class structure and attempted to defragment social hierarchies radically (Historicus, 1949). During his reign, he spread Russian ideals and nationalism throughout the country, promoting Russian history, national heroes, and language to establish a solid nationalistic front (Historicus, 1949). This fixation on nationalism led to radical cultural changes influencing music, art, and literature. Artistic mediums (art, music, and literature) aimed to further Soviet ideologies and to understand this effect, it is essential to review Stalin’s creed, Socialist Realism, and formalism. In addition, we need to examine the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM) during this period to gain a deeper understanding of Soviet Russia’s use of music to advance political goals.

The Stalin Reign

During his reign, Stalin believed that reinforcing the development and prolonging the state’s values would require cultural re-education and economic balance. He preached the importance of Orthodox Communism written in Marx’s and Engels’s The Communist Manifesto. According to his vision, a unified state would be a stateless one, insisting that strengthening the internal and external aspects of the state would yield the most promising results (Robinson, 1955). Stalin’s utopia is a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” He firmly believed that power must be allocated to those essentially powerless, and those with power must succumb to a release of their ability, thereby creating a balanced society (Robinson, 1955). Throughout the transition from Lenin’s socialism towards Stalin’s Communism, the process entailed a total refurbishment of cultural functions, power relations, economic fundamentals, and internal organizations. In addition, it entailed a refurbishment of each citizen’s distinct roles. In this pursuit, each act serves as a conduit for promoting and acknowledging Communism. Stalin stated that this unification must “serve as another decisive step toward the unification of the troops of the entire world in a single World Socialist Soviet Republic” (Robinson, 1955). However, Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia, and Transcaucasia formed a single state. Though his vision of the world and socialism changed closer to his death, he was still adamant about socialism’s persistence worldwide. Stalin was overly concerned about citizens and peasants. He was very hostile to individuality.

Stalin focused on collectivism for the state’s betterment (Historicus, 1949). Early in his career, he needed more centralization of power and control. Stalin felt that the division of labour and worker functions must be abolished, encouraging a fusion of agriculture and industry, farms and factories, villages and cities, and peasants and industrial workers (Robinson, 1955). By combining the two, state property would be enhanced, exchange issues would be limited, and the economy would be centralized for quick action. These Stalinist principles and code of conduct, reinforced to maintain the “democracy of the proletariat,” would eventually wreck music during the modern era.

Before Stalin came to power, a Russian movement known as “formalism” had a significant impact from 1915 until 1930 (Mayer, 1956). Formalists argued about the essence and aesthetic beauty of music and literature. Composers during this period focused on abstract, expressionistic styles to convey surreal concepts and ideas (Mayer, 1956). In Russia, formalism was also used to describe specific characteristics of literature (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy). Formalism did not maintain its reign in Russia for long because Stalin was more preoccupied with the state’s welfare than he was interested in expressionistic abstract music (Mayer, 1956; James, 1973; Slonimsky, 1944).

Once the decree eliminated formalism in Russian music, several proletarian organizations arose to serve the nation’s-reformed goals. One of these organizations was the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM). In 1922, the RAPM’s goal was to publish compositions that “satisfied the demands of mass amateur musical activities [and were] conducive not only to political agitation but to the general activation of […] human energy intended to utilize it for SovietConstruction” (Edmunds, 2000, p. 67). The result became a hardened manifesto determined to enforce Soviet Russia’s need to reinforce shared values at all levels of society. Their manifesto consisted of one goal: “strive above all to reflect the rich, full-blooded psychology of the proletariat in their music” (Edmunds, 2000, p. 77). Musical compositional styles perpetuate ordinary virtues. Unfortunately, the RAPM coincides with George Orwell’s 1984, in which mass propaganda reinforces an almost impossible scenario (James, 1973). For example, the RAPM heavily monitored content that could undermine Stalin’s government values, perpetuate the frivolous needs of the bourgeoise and overly complex metaphorical comparisons (James, 1973; Mayer, 1956). The RAPM read the political meaning and ideologies into every piece of music and thoroughly inspected and analyzed them. It developed a systematic approach to Soviet propaganda. The overall idea was that art was a function to support people rather than creating art for the artist’s pleasure (Edmunds, 2000). Members of the RAPM believed that “the bourgeoise exerted significant influence upon all strata of the population, systematically poisoning the worker’s mind” (Slonimsky, 1944, p. 4).

Furthermore, the RAPM banned Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Tchaikowsky, and Scriabin because they were considered too formalist. The bleakness in Russian music intensified, and Russian musicians, writers, and artists began to move away from exercising their art form. As this bleakness grew, artists, writers, and musicians felt that “it was obvious that the RAPM, by limiting the sphere of creative work, [caused] an unhealthy atmosphere in Soviet music” (Slonimsky, 1944, p. 6). On April 23, 1932, often considered “Emancipation Day” in Russian history, the RAPM and similar arts organizations were dissolved. The reason was that the system governing such strict practices needed to be more coherent, more easily accessible, and more prompt (Edmunds, 2000). After its dissolution, Stalin exercised Social Realist policies to strengthen ordinary virtues.

Proletarian organizations

Proletarians failed to achieve Stalin’s goals. Stalin reinforced a stateless society and diminished bourgeoisie control, enforcing strict socialist policies. These policies would revive the Leninist and Bolshevik beliefs in a society that promotes cultural sovereignty. Stalin believed that art, literature, and music communicated essential facets of culture to society and required significant regulation to maximize their use in the Soviet Republic (James, 1973; Robinson, 1955). The Congress of Soviet Writers developed the concept of Socialist Realism in 1934, which was approved by Stalin and his policy-makers like Andrei Zhdanov (James, 1973). Stalin demanded that all art showcase an individual’s struggle for socialism to achieve a good life. In this way, art was meant to provide direct, straightforward messages of optimism and Realism. It intended to establish a socialist order as a beneficial aspect of life. Unfortunately, totalitarian policy negatively influenced the abolishment of avant-garde, surrealistic, and abstract art, including literature that did not meet Congress requirements. Those who did not conform to these socialist and realist policies were executed or forced to work to death in Stalin’s labour camps. According to Stalin, “the task of Soviet [art] is to aid the state, to educate the youth correctly and to meet its demands, to rear the next generation fearing no obstacles” (Robinson, 1955). Although this desire for a powerful unified nation would come from other distinct forms of art and music, Stalin proceeded with this motion, causing even more confusion than the RAPM’s self-sanctioned policing of musical compositions (Makanowitzky, 1965).

The concept of “socialist realism” became a vague and arbitrary descriptor for an undefinable composition style. Makanowitzky says, “The Soviets themselves have been unable to arrive at a precise concept” (Makanowitzky, 1965, p. 269), resulting in significant misunderstanding and confusion among composers. Composers who could attain important rank and prestige among their colleagues for proletarian music composition. The Stalin regime would give this music intense exposure and prizes ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 rubles (Slonimsky, 1950). They were also provided with concert halls and chambers to rehearse their performances. While socialist Realism remains undefined, Stalin’s regime greatly valued those who moved the public. To fully comprehend the devastating and positive impact of Stalin’s socialist realism policies, we will discuss how composers like Dmitri Shostakovich, Igor Stravinsky, Sergei Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and Scriabin dealt with their situations.

Praised as the forerunner of socialist Realism in 1934, Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, composed by Dmitri Shostakovich, was accused two years later of “enjoying success with the bourgeoisie audiences abroad” (Volkov, 2004) and later condemned for his formalist compositions. Shostakovich was so deeply upset by Pravda’s review that he stopped composing operas and ballets altogether (Volkov, 2004; Slonimsky, 1944). In addition, Stalin’s Great Terror also occurred during this period in which Stalin’s regime eliminated all possible resistance fronts to silence opposition (James, 1973; Historicus, 1949). As a result, some of Shostakovich’s friends and composers were forced to work in labour camps or executed. Shostakovich’s compositional career grew complicated once he was denounced for formalism in the Zhdanov decree (Mayer, 1956), which was a cultural policy that isolated non-Communist actions or ideologies. Despite these complications, Shostakovich, fearing for his life, continued to make socialist compositions to secure the lives of those he loved. Shostakovich’s work showed atonality (use of non-coordinated or ambiguous chords and unconventional melodies) and chromaticism (use of a musical scale with twelve pitches) (Volkov, 2004). Shostakovich was also recognized as a tone row or serialize (twelve-tone technique) method user long before Schoenberg (Volkov, 2004). Unfortunately, Shostakovich’s work took on a conservative air following his two condemnations for his formalist techniques. Other composers such as Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Rachmaninoff also felt the incredible pressure to make music according to these socialist realist requirements.

Socialist policies

Shortly after enforcing socialist realist policies alongside the Zhdanov decree, Igor Stravinsky lived in Switzerland. After WWI, Russia’s borders were sealed, complicating his return to his homeland (Cross, 1999). While in Switzerland, he composed pieces that captivated Russian audiences and the world. For example, L’Histoire du Soldat (The Soldier’s Tale) was one of Stravinsky’s most successful Russian folk pieces. This tale portrays a satirical story about a soldier who trades his fiddle to the devil in exchange for a book that predicts the economy’s future (Cross, 1999). The consequent implications for Communist Russia’s socialism are tremendous. During these politically unstable periods, socialist realist policies were reinforced to stabilize the country despite extreme liberal views and satire. This wassimilar to Stravinsky’s L’Histoire. Another composer who suffered the same fate was Sergei Prokofiev.

Sergei Prokofiev lived much of his life abroad to avoid the revolutions and radical governmental revisions that would soon make life in Russia unbearable (Nestiev, 1960). After fame as one of the leading composers, he returned to Russia in 1935 and was, despite political and cultural policies moving to a more rigorous and extreme state. Like Shostakovich’s fate, Prokofiev suffered for exercising “formalist tendencies” (Nestiev, 1960). The result was either a forced adaptation to socialist realist methods and musical composition or death. As part of his adaptation, he created several “mass songs” (operas #66, #79, and #89), which were approved by Soviet policy (Slonimsky, 1950). Knowing that his survival meant cooperating with Soviet policies, Prokofiev created piano sonatas #6, 7, and 8, including operas #82-44, with war themes now known as “War Sonatas” (Nestiev, 1960). As a result, Prokofiev carefully concealed anti-Soviet material so that Stalin would not realize it. Prokofiev was awarded the Stalin Prize First Class (Slonimsky, 1944). However, as the living situation in the Soviet Union became increasingly complicated with the Zhdanov Decree, Prokofiev was criticized for producing overly formal pieces. Consequently, for fear of the consequences, concert halls and theatres avoided playing Prokofiev, resulting in extreme financial constraints (Nestiev, 1960).

Sergei Rachmaninoff lived in the United States for much of his life, composing music unhindered by Soviet socialist realist policies. However, socialist realist policies were complicated for Rachmaninoff; nevertheless, Rachmaninoff enjoyed success and was regarded as one of Russia’s foremost composers of his time (Mattnew-Walker, 1980). Rachmaninoff died after Hitler attacked Russia in 1943. Beyond his death, his Piano Concertos and Preludes were considered ingenious and significant contributions to Russia’s musical history. Even though it harboured no ordinary virtues, his most successful orchestral piece, Lilacs, was played during the Red Army marches and concerts (Mattnew-Walker, 1980).

Conclusion

Soviet and Russian ballet differ superficially. For a composer to create Soviet music successfully, the subject matter had to relate to current events. Furthermore, industrial themes and Soviet economic prosperity pervaded Soviet ballet. Music from the Soviet Union depicts life in Soviet Russia using simple secular cantatas and oratorios without religious metaphors. Socialist and realist policies enforced simple, relevant techniques to praise Stalin.

In contrast, Russian ballet is less structuralized, and its subject matter is philosophical and formalistic. Furthermore, it is characterized by experimentation, genre-merging, and dissonances, which express complexities and illusions (Rothe, 1942). Socialist realist policies have tremendously impacted Russia’s musical history and development, impacting several notable composers such as Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Rachmaninoff, and Prokofiev.

‍

Bibliography

Cross, J. (1999). The Stravinsky legacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edmunds, N. (2000). The case of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians. The Slavonic and East European Review, 78 (1), 66–89.

Historicus. (1949). Stalin on Revolution. Foreign Affairs, pp. 27, 175–214.

James, C. V. (1973). Soviet Socialist Realism: Origins and Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Makanowitzky, B. (1965). Music to serve the state (Vol. 24). New York: Russian Review.

Mattnew-Walker, R. (1980). Rachmaninoff. New York: Omnibus Press.

Mayer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Montefiore, S. S. (2004). Stalin: The court of the Red Tsar . New York: Knopf.

Nestiev, S. (1960). Prokofiev. New York: Stanford.

Robinson, G. (1955). Stalin’s vision of utopia: The future Communist society. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, pp. 99, 11–21.

Rothe, F. (1942). Russian music. The Kenyon Review, pp. 4, 48–61.

Slonimsky, N. (1944). Soviet Music and Musicians. Slavonic and East European Review, American Series, 3, 1-18.

Slonimsky, N. (1950). The changing style of Soviet music. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 3, 236-255.

Volkov, S. (2004). Shostakovich and Stalin: The extraordinary relationship between the great composer and the brutal dictator. (A. Bouis, Trans.) New York: Knopf.