Month: March 2021

Close to the last paragraph of the Garrard reading, she states, “The alternative culture and subcultures that already existed in the GDR were also deemed irrelevant by these young people; rock music had been co-opted by the state, and previous subcultures such as the hippie movement had lost their edge and momentum” (Garrard 176). Now, this is occurring in the 1980s, but it appears to be of some import to consider the previous decades and how this milieu of disillusionment and the subsequent losing of their edge and momentum occurred. Particularly, I would like for us to consider this quote from the Risch reading. “Published interviews indicate that young men also dominated Wroclaw hippie circles. When asked if he remembered any female hippies, Zappa said that young girls and high school students used to frequent hippie gatherings but they tended to be fans of the hippie movement rather than be active in it” (Risch 95). I mention these two quotes in conjunction to point at a possible cause of the loss of momentum in the respective movements; mainly, the notion of a “true punk” or a “true hippie” and isolation that came from within the community. For discussion (in part), to what extent do you believe that the internal structures of the movements were the product of its downfall? How much do you think these communities were unable to drum up sustained support due to patriarchal stereotypes or misogyny? Was the work of the Stasi and the State more influential in their lack of progression?

In Youth and Rock in the Soviet Bloc : Youth Cultures, Music, and the State in Russia and Eastern Europe chapter 7 author, Kate Gerrard, discusses the subculture of punk within the GDR. The punk movement came out of Great Britain, a Western nation, in the 1970s and was adopted in many cities in the GDR. The fact that punk is a Western creation while also having ideals of non-conformity leads it to be outlawed in the GDR. Thus, the first representation of punk in the GDR was eventually squashed by the Stasi, only to have a revival in the 1980s. However, the two punk eras in the GDR have different aesthetics and ideals, and I think that is something that is important and interesting. Gerrard states about the new “wave” of punk, “[…] by the mid 1980s the imaginative do-it-yourself outfits from the initial wave of punk were replaced by rigorous dress codes to differentiate hardcore-, anachro-, wannabe-, alco-, dirt-, kid-, Nazi-punks, and skinheads from one another,” (Gerrard 154). Between group one and group two of the punk subculture there is a clear evolution of how fashion is to be done. Continually, there becomes more detailed subgroups within punk itself, that each have their own unique traits. There become more rules on what it means to be punk and how to do it correctly. Which brings me to some questions. Why is there such a clear change within the punk subculture between the first representation and the second? Could this be due to having time underground that lead to more organization? Do you think Soviet Socialism and officials affected how punk re-emerged? How does a more organized and rigid representation of punk seek to make it stronger or try to have it last?

The song I would like to focus on to discuss is the song “Nazi’s” by Namenlos. This song shows a lot of how some of the punk scene viewed the Soviet influence in East Germany. They use lyrics like “big words, too much power have only brought shit”. This is referring to the fact that the Soviet Union, and the western world, have ruined East Germany because they are using it as a place to fight each other. However, they use the word Nazi to describe them. Why do you think they made this choice?

Before there was The Miracle On Ice, there was The Miracle On Strings (so to speak). In chapter three of Virtuosi Abroad:…, the author presents the scenario surrounding the first International Tchaikovsky Competition located in Moscow (1958) and the subsequent “lore” that was created. As an international competition, this event gathered the top pianists from an array of nations. Broadly this competition was an attempt to establish Moscow as the “center of a competitive global musical culture system”. 

Based on this context so far, were there any comparable global systems that the U.S. tried to implement to rival the Soviet Union? If there are- did these global systems of the U.S. possess the same type of artistic elements or qualities? Moving on the actual results of the competition, Van Cliburn from Texas was crowned champion- providing the U.S. a simultaneous claim of victor. 

However, unlike The Miracle On Ice, Cliburn’s win was celebrated by both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Does anyone have a theory as to why? Was it the political atmosphere of the early Cold War? Or does it come down to the event itself and the difference between hockey (athletics) and a piano competition (art)? 

Chapter four of this text progresses into David Oistrakh’s “tours of the Capitalist West” and how through an “international music performance system” Soviet musicians became popular in the U.S. In order for musicians like Oistrakh to come into the U.S. they had to have “proven themselves on previous tours and competitions”.

 At the same time this meant that Soviet artists visiting the Western World had to act in political accordance with the Soviet Union- regardless of actual individual belief. Despite Oistrakh’s impressive and extensive musical resume, he experienced very limited access to travel because of Soviet bureaucracy. 

Was it paradoxical then for the Soviet Union to convey their cultural/ideological superiority via the aesthetic of art/music considering the amount of influence governmental institutions had? Did the U.S. have a similar foreign policy and strategy when sending musicians to the U.S.? What is it about the atmosphere of “high art” that separates from any of the other competitions discussed in the course? 

In the reading for this week there were two clear goals for the International Tchaikovsky Competition and the Moscow holiday event. One of them was popularize Russian music, “Shostakovich reminded the committee that the point of the competition was to popularize Russian music” (Tomoff, 91). The other one was too propagandize that the Soviet Union excelled in a lot of cultural aspects and also to influence those outside of the Soviet Union “a continual source of propaganda for the achievements of Soviet culture” (Tomoff, 107). My question to the class would be was the International Tchaikovsky Competition successful with the defeat from Van Cliburn but with the achievement of having the best violin soloists in the Soviet Union? Or was it an equal match between the Soviet Union and the west?

As previously stated, Tchaikovsky came before Marxist-Leninist Communism rose to power in what became the Soviet Union, and as such was a piece of Russia’s bourgeois (and by extension Imperial) past, but this is very telling in and of itself. The popularity of Tchaikovsky long after his death (he died in 1893 in Saint Petersburg, the then-capital city of Tsarist Russia) in the form of such performances as his Concerto in D Major in 1968 tells us that the Soviet people were not wanting to completely forget their cultural history and start completely anew with Communism as Stalin had tried so hard to implement. This was seen earlier with the unpopularity of anti-religious policies by the early Soviet governments and this appears to be an extension of that, albeit slightly less contentious because it is seemingly one-step removed from the direct beliefs of Marx and Lenin.

However, this leads to a few questions. Tchaikovsky was an incredibly unique and influential composer, with his use of crescendos, staccato notes, and rapidly varying dynamic levels (all of which are very noticeable in the third movement) being almost unreplicable. In other words, when one hears a Tchaikovsky piece, they KNOW it is a Tchaikovsky piece based on the trademark qualities he left throughout the music. This can only be said of the big classical composers like Beethoven, Rossini, Mozart, and Grieg to name a few. Did this quality give Tchaikovsky’s music a sort of exception? Certainly his music was more widely known in the West than those of other Russian composers. One need only look at the popularity of Swan Lake and Nutcracker ballet performances to see that connection. Was this a factor in his enduring fame? To remind Westerners of the great talent that Russia has gifted the world over the years? Sure, this somewhat strays from the direct political attachment of communism to the musical composer himself, but it nonetheless was a way to score points on the international stage far as the East-West culture war was concerned. And thinking about it from the Soviet perspective, who can blame them? They are amazing musical pieces that would otherwise be going to waste. Even if the composer himself would disagree with the purposes it was being used for, it wasn’t like the man was going to rise from the dead to make an objection. They had a great weapon at their disposal in the form of his pieces and they used them as they saw fit.

While Stalin had attempted to create new Soviet music in the name of socialist realism throughout his leadership, it seems that he could not succeed to bury the classics in favor of new creations. Tchaikovsky always seemed to reign supreme, even though it served as a remnant of the bourgeoisie past. So, if you cannot change something, why not ignore history and use it to serve your ideological purposes? That seems to be exactly what the Soviet Union did in this embracing of Tchaikovsky in the Moscow Music Holiday. By recognizing its international popularity, the music of Tchaikovsky was now utilized as a point of cultural superiority of the Soviet Union.

Interestingly enough, this Bespalov’s vision for the festival that never occurred was “to show the indisputable superiority of socialist culture, the high ideological level of Soviet art, the excellence of the best Soviet performers, and the accomplisments of Soviet composers” (Tomoff, 84). Bespalov goes on to say that this festival will be used to help other people’s democracies along the path of socialist realism. Given these goals, holding a Tchaikovsky Competition is simply counterintuitive. He, the Soviet Union, and the international world are largely aware of the fact that Tchaikovsky was long gone to be a Soviet composer and his music steeped in classical traditions was that of the Russian bourgeois.

Because all Soviet and socialist aspects of the festival were removed to cut costs, the music of the festival appear to line up more with the classical musicians of the West rather than focusing the festival on the new Soviet greats like Shostakovich. And, even worse than holding a festival that caters to political elitists and the music preferences of the West, the Soviet Union lost the piano competition to none other than an American. Despite these failings, Mikhailov displayed clear excitement about the festival’s overall success in how “successfully the competition was fulfilling its goals” (Tomoff, 99-100). Do you think this competition accomplished any of the festival’s original, intended goals? Was Tchaikovsky the best choice considering the festival’s original, intended goals? Was the Soviet Union able to overshadow the bourgeois history of Tchaikovsky and adopt it as their own through this cultural competition? Did the American victory overshadow the “cultural superiority” of the Soviet Union in other aspects of the competition?

In chapter 3 of Virtuosi Abroad : Soviet Music and Imperial Competition During the Early Cold War, 1945–1958 the author discusses the discussion and eventual birth of a competitive music festival in the Soviet Union. This project beings with the idea for “Moscow Musical Holiday” which was thought up by the Committee on Artistic Affairs. The leader of the committee, Nikolai Bespalov, finding that the Soviet Union was missing an event like this. He argues “‘Moscow- the capital of the USSR is the global center of musical culture. Holding an international festival should facilitate the strengthening of influence of Soviet arts on the development of progressive musical creativity abroad'” (Tomoff 84). The statement Bespalov makes is a very confident one. It is obvious he holds the Soviet Union in high esteem, and it seems he has a reason to back it up. Clearly the US and USSR are incredibly competitive at this time, and up until 1958 the USSR is the one with the power and “winnings” to back that power up. And personally, as someone who is supportive of the arts the importance put on this festival and other cultural outlets in the Soviet Union is something I agree with. But why? Why is there so much importance put onto cultural competition with the West and mainly the US? To me, it almost seems like small potatoes that distract from a bigger economic and political goal. So why does the Soviet Union care so much about becoming number one when it comes to culture? Is it a nearly a means to an end? Or is culture so important to a society’s survival that they feel they need to dominate in it to keep the USSR thriving?

Within Tomoff’s piece on the International Tchaikovsky Competition, the internal composition of the competition reveals the amount of detail and attention paid to ensure the success of the competition, but also the reputation of Soviet music culture as a whole. It emphasizes the importance of Soviet-composed music, its musicians, and their abilities to dominate the international performance stage in a time where Soviet progress continued to develop. However, the bureaucracy surrounding the planning of the competition also shows that the competition was an expression of the fine arts, but also served as a propaganda technique for the Soviet to further flaunt its achievements. The focus on delivering a competition that the Soviet competitors would thrive in, choosing only those worthy enough of competing, and re-vitalizing music programs throughout the Soviet Union afterwards showed the commitment to upholding their superiority in the music world.

Referring to the re-vitalization process created after the first Tchaikovsky competition, the revelations made by the Soviets in this time period indicated the main difference between their competitors and their Western counterparts: individual style that gave the musician their own identity, even when performing the same compositions in performances. The Soviet’s performers dominated in terms of technical performance, but lacked in the ability to create a unique style individual to each musician. The re-vitalization efforts focused on this issue, but still emphasized the importance of technical ability to ensure wins in international music competitions. With this in mind, how does this key difference also relate to other aspects of the differing experiences within the East and West? Does it make sense that the Soviets dominated in technical performance, but lacked individual style as they noted? How might this affect the Soviet music culture as a whole?

Between the Moscow Music Holiday and Red Woodstock, the Soviet Union focused on putting their performers in the spotlight regardless of what event it is. However, there is a major difference between Red Woodstock and Moscow Music Holiday. Red Woodstock focused on more modern music, to help attract younger people to the Soviet message. The Music Holiday was for more “sophisticated” music, as well as theater productions.

What was the reason why they had two different music festivals with different focuses? Which do you think would be more effective in drawing people into the Soviet Union?