Shostakovich: A Life

Rating:
Summary: An Injustice To A Great Man
Review: aDmitri Shostakovich (DDS) was probably the gretest composer of the 20th century. Unfortunately, a burning controversy has unjustly erupted around the perceptions of his personality and actions during his illustrious career regarding the question of whether he was a principled opponent of the totalitarian
Communist and Stalinist regime of the USSR, or whether he was a passive opportunist who used his talents to ensure a comfortable life for himself at the expense of his moral integrity. In 1979 Solomon Volkov published DDS's memoirs in the West. This showed DDS to be a bitter opponent of the regime, writing music that reflected this, while at the same time, castigating himself for the public face he had to show ostensibly in support of the system (just as everyone else had to do in order to survive especially during Stalin's terror, but also during other, more supposedly "relaxed" periods). The author of this book being reviewed, Laurel Fay, has devoted the last 25 years to a crusade trying to discredit Volkov and the image of DDS he presented to the world, saying that while DDS was a great composer, his music doesn't reflect any protest against the system which he willingly accomodated himself to. This biography is another contribution to this argument.
Unfortunately for her position, the fall of the Communist regime in the USSR has allowed many friends and relatives of DDS to speak openly for the first time and their view of him overwhelmingly strengthens the view of DDS provided by Volkov's book "Testimony" and rebuts Fay's point of view.
Fay seems to be oblivious to the terrible dilemmas that people faced living in the totalitarian regime that was the USSR and there was terrible pressure on everyone to conform. This book contains many quotations of what people call "source material" consisting of quotations from articles in Pravda (the USSR's official newspaper) and other "official sources". Fay accepts these basically uncritically, apparently unaware that these organs of communication did not exist in order to provide information to their readers, but rather to propagandize in favor the the regime, regardless of the truth. She does acknowledge in the book that articles that had DDS's name on them, supposedly indicating that he had written them, often were written by others and submitted to him for his signature, which he provided without even looking at the manuscript, but she then goes on to say that this doesn't necessarily mean that he DIDN'T
agree with what was written there. Fay does not bring any proof for this statement, and so the reader has no way of knowing which viewpoints expressed in the articles DDS supposedly agreed with. Perceptive people in the USSR ignored the propaganda entirely and didn't take what was written in these "official" organs seriously at all.
Fay also claims that DDS's composing his famous "From Jewish Folk Poetry" in 1948 which was rejected by the establishment musical authorities because of the the gathering "anti-Cosmopolitan" (i.e. anti-Jewish) campaign was the result of a pathetic attempt to please the authorities by writing music based on traditional folk music of the various nationalities of the USSR and it was just his "rotten luck" to choose a group that would soon be under attack. This claim of Fay's is nonsense because the the anti-Jewish attitude of the regime started already in 1942 and was accelerating in 1948. DDS had many Jewish friends and contacts with people in high places and was quite aware of what was going on. He wrote this piece as a protest against the regime's anti-Semitism! Fay is again oblivious to this.
Finally, Fay views DDS's joining the Communist Party in 1960 as another attempt to promote his personal interests, yet Fay has fallen for the prevailing myth that after Stalin died and the "Thaw" began under Khruschev, the regime stopped terrorizing the intelligentsia. In reality, there was still coercion, but it was done in a more subtle manner. Instead of threatening arrest and deportation to the Gulag, people could be threatened instead by refusing to allow one's children into good schools and jobs, or possibly, in DDS's case, refusal to allow decent medical care since his health was deteriorating. DDS castigated himself because he felt he had capitulated to the system, but it is probable that he had no other choice. As one gets older, it is harder and harder to keep up the frontal struggle.

In summary, a reader interested in the life of DDS would be better served by reading "Testimony", Elizbeth Wilson's "Shostakovich-A Life Remembered", Ho and Feofanov's "Shostakovich Reconsidered" and by looking at thewritings of the late Ian MacDonald on his "Music Under Soviet Rule" website.

Rating:
Summary: a new "standard reference," but not the definitive work
Review: Having recently discovered Shostakovich, I quickly ran into the controversy regarding the official versus private accounts. Fay includes the official denunciations by the Stalinist regime, most infamously in 1936 and 1948, and so clearly moves beyond the "loyal son of the Communist Party" propaganda line, but rejects as unreliable much of the recent testimony of those who knew Shostakovich, including the memoirs called "Testimony." Personally, I am convinced by the mass of testimony that Shostakovich was indeed a passionate dissident, and that his music expressed that "to those with ears to hear," in the words he often used.

Take this volume for what it's worth. For now it is the standard biography, and has no competition in that regard. It tells the whole story, but leaves us feeling that we are missing the true inner story. For that story, other sources are clearly invaluable -- the book of reminiscences compiled by Elizabeth Wilson ("Shostakovich: A Life Remembered"), Solomon Volkov's "Testimony," and "Shostakovich Reconsidered," which contains much valuable commentary beyond simply defending Volkov's book.

I am listening to Rostropovich conducting Shostakovich's Fifth as I write, and nothing seems more absurd than the notion that the composer was a party apparatchik. Shostakovich's music expresses deep sorrow and suffering, and his defiant humanism. The music speaks for itself, but I am confident that Fay's biography will be surpassed by accounts that more fully convey the spiritual significance of Shostakovich's life and music.

Rating:
Summary: A dead and lifeless "life"
Review: I have two fundamental problems with Fay's book, both of which really prevent me for giving it a solid endorsement, much less considering it a benchmark in biography.

First, Fay has taken the position that all of her sources must be written (and generally published). This not necessarily a safe thing to do in a society with a free and open press, and becomes very problematic for a prominent Soviet citizen. Were articles published in Soviet books, journals, and newspapers true and accurate? Were they free of political influence? Can anyone verify the authorship of any of these? Even with the extensive endnotes offering references with publication sources and dates, it's hard to consider her work to be any more valid than, say, Solomon Volkov's "Testimony", which Fay hates so much that she cannot be objective about it.

I draw here on the statistical definitions for reliability and validity, in which "reliable" merely means that a result can be reproduced reliably, while "valid" implies that a result accurately represents what it claims to represent. This seems to be a useful distinction, and I will hedge, and grant Fay's book reliability, but not validity.

What she leaves out is equally troubling. There are many people still alive who knew Shostakovich. How many of them did Fay talk to? How many of them did she quote? Virtually none. Are such sources really any less valid than, say, an article in Pravda? In each case, one should note the source. If there are contradictory statements, one should note the contradictions. If sources may be less than credible, one should say why. Fay's biography is noticeably lacking in contradictions, which is remarkable in a biography of a man who himself seems to have been full of contradictions, and who lived in a society that was full of contradictions.

I wouldn't have such a problem with all of this if Fay had taken the position that "these are what the published sources say" rather than "this is Shostakovich". As long as a reader understands the difference, then yes, Fay's biography is an invaluable source. I do wish that Fay had drawn this distinction.

Finally, along these same lines, I have to question Fay's position of objectivity. Selection and omission of sources are always a source of bias. And there are times, particularly in relation to the Jewish issues of 1948 (the existence of the "doctor's plot" and the question about how much Shostakovich really knew about the risks of using Jewish subject matter in writing his music), where Fay takes a strong stand that is not supported in her sources, and which does not hold up in light of Shostakovich's previous use of Jewish themes or his previous connections to the Russian Jewish community. While Fay paints an unflattering picture of Shostakovich, the person she really defames is herself.

My second concern, much of which flows out of the first, is that this is a bloodless biography. I finished the book with a sense of the history, or at least one version of it, but in no way did I ever feel in Fay's book any presence of Shostakovich himself. There are glimpses, such as the quote by Shostakovich about party criticism of the eighth symphony (which he looked forward to as "one step forward, rather than one step back"), but the irony of this statement came across more because I knew of Shostakovich from other sources (writing, and of course the music), rather than from Fay herself. If I knew nothing of Shostakovich, would I have noticed this? It's hard to get a feeling whether Fay even likes or respects Shostakovich, either as a man or as a composer. There is no life in "Shostakovich: A Life". There is no music in "Shostakovich: A Life". Without these things, what is the point?

Good biography does not have to be this way. As an example of what *can* be accomplished, I highly recommend "Patton: A Genius for War" by Carlo d'Este. D'Este accomplishes what Fay fails to do, which is to capture the full humanity of a brilliant, complex, difficult, enigmatic, and controversial public figure. If there is a standard for judging biographies, it starts with this book; one comes away knowing what formed and motivated Patton, and more importantly, one learns to see both the private and the public man in everything he did and said. D'Este combines Fay's level of documentation with Elizabeth Wilson's level of personal insight in "Shostakovich: A Life Remembered", and it is a remarkable achievement. For anyone looking for a single volume on the life of Shostakovich, Elizabeth Wilson's book is the one to get.

In fairness, I don't think we'll ever see such a biography of Shostakovich, because the documentary record is much, much weaker, and because Shostakovich was so closed about himself. But I do wish that Fay had at least tried to capture "A Life". As it stands, Fay is only one of several "required readings", and I wouldn't put her at the top of the list unless one has need of her endnotes.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully written
Review: I love this book - Laurel's book is very well researched and very readable. I feel like I knew this genius personally. It is filled with letters or statements from those who were close to Shostakovich so he is seen less "official" then most other books.

Rating:
Summary: Shostakovich liberated
Review: In his book, "The Symphony: A Listener's Guide," Michael Steinberg writes, "When a good life-and-works of Shostakovich at last appears - one, that is, based on thorough study of sources, free of political parti pris, and written by someone of musical and human sensibility - we shall have one of the most gripping of all artistic biographies." Well, here it is. This book, along with Elizabeth Wilson's "Shostakovich: A Life Remembered," has finally established a firm biographical foundation upon which the further study of the composer and his works can confidently move forward.

The problems with Shostakovich scholarship began in the late 1970's with the publication of "Testimony," a book which claimed to be the composer's authentic memoirs, as related to and edited by Solomon Volokov. The book cast the composer as a life-long dissident against communism whose music was an expression of his anger and bitterness. The picture it painted, however, was so extreme that many believed that it could not be true. Much ink was spilled over the authenticity of the book; some scholars claimed that it was a fabrication designed to sell well in the capitalist west (which, by the way, it did), others that it was an authentic portrait. (I personally think that "Testimony" is an inherintly questionable academic source simply because it is a collection of memoirs. Shostakovich was looking back at his troubled life from a particularly troubling time. He was suffering from a debilatating illness and probably cast the anger and bitterness he felt at the time backwards on the works of his past. Volokov probably doctored the tone, perhaps inadvertantly, to give the statements more impact.) All the while, musicians remained unsure of what was behind the notes they were playing.

Laurel Fay has provided a solution to the dilemma. Rather than investigate the authenticity of "Testimony," she has gone back to the primary sources: letters, concert programs, public statements, comments from those who knew him best, newspaper reviews, etc. The result is a well-written, academic biography which is free from the fog of authenticity problems which have plagued all research based on "Testimony." Not surprisingly, Fay's biography shows that Shostakovich's life and works are much more complex (and thus much more human) than simply being reflections of repressed bitterness. The real bitterness and dissidence is sandwiched between layers of real patriotism, real depression, real joy, real sorrow - in short, real emotions.

This book is essential reading for anyone interested in Dmitri Shostakovich.

Rating:
Summary: An insult to a great man
Review: Spurious scholarship and a definite agenda from this fraudulent "scholar". The attempt is to deny Shostakovich his humanity and the meaning of his life. This from an individual with absolutely no understanding of the tormented and horrific times in which this great man had to survive. A book for the trash bin and an insult to one of the 20th Century's great artists.

Rating:
Summary: Lies, all Lies
Review: The impression created in this poorly written book bares no actual resembelence to the great Shostakovich. It sheds no light on his herioc struggle against Soviet rule. If you want to learn about this artist, listen to the 5th and 10th symphonies. If you must read something, this is not the book to read. This "work" is nothing more than Ms. Fay's desperate attempt to salvage her widely discredited opinions,i.e. falsely painting the composer as a commie stooge.

Rating:
Summary: Workmanlike musicologist's review of Shostakovich's life
Review: This biography definitely adds to what we know about Shostakovich, but is somewhat academic.

Historical accuracy is the goal at every point, and there is much clearing up of obvious falsehoods from other quarters. Not too much light shed on anything one couldn't already glean from other sources, except for precise dating, and cross-referencing of sources, which is of interest only to musicologists, and not the general public.

A good book and a must-read for any Shostakovich aficionado, but not as good a read as Elizabeth Wilson.

Rating:
Summary: Flat Earthers and deep denial
Review: This is one of the small numbers of books on Shostakovitch which is almost completely unreliable. There is a type of intellectual (mercifully rare now that the Berlin Wall is history) who delighted in telling us how wonderful in every wayb the Soviet Union was, how much delight, life and freedom could be found there. Evidence - such as the experienmces of those who had the misfortine to live there - were dismissed as looney tunes or fascist propaganda or some such. Somehow these flat earthers would never dream of living there themselves.
This book is one such. Don't touch it with a barge pole.
But do get Semyon Volkov's Testimony instead
I am amazed that fifteen years after the end of communism in Europe this intellectually bankrupt book is actually still available. It should be in the Black Humour section. It is certainly not scholarship.