Russian music has undergone significant alterations in technique, style, instrumentation, as well as their accompanying ideologies during the socialist realist period. These changes involved political interests to empower music as a tool for enhancing and encouraging nationalism (Slonimsky, 1944). Particularly, the ways in which the USSR utilized music to disseminate their ideologies is not only complex, but incredible (Slonimsky, 1950). Composers of this time, particularly Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky have all contributed to both a nationalistic foundation as well as a facilitating the rise of the proletariat in Soviet Russia for nearly sixty years (Rothe, 1942). Throughout this period, political turmoil and the threat of German invasion loomed undoubtedly in Russian society. Coupled with the anxiety of German invasion, Russia’s dictator Joseph Stalin (in office from 1922-1953) reinforced the complete leveling of class structure and attempted to defragment social hierarchies in a radical fashion (Historicus, 1949). During his reign, he manifested and spread Russian ideals and nationalisms through the country promoting Russian history, national heroes, as well as language in order to establish a strong nationalistic front (Historicus, 1949). This fixation on nationalism led to radical cultural changes influencing music, art, and literature. The goal of cultural mediums (art, music, and literature) was the furtherance of Soviet ideologies. In order to understand how this affected musicians, it will be critical to assess Stalin’s creed, socialist realism, and formalism alongside an analysis of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM) during this period will provide an interesting insight on Soviet Russia’s use of music as a tool to further their political agenda.

During his reign, Stalin believed that reinforcing the development and prolonging the values of the state would require cultural re-education and economic balance. He preached the values 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). Essentially, Stalin’s utopia is a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” firmly believing that power must be allocated onto those who are essentially powerless and those with power must succumb to a release of their power, thereby creating a balanced society (Robinson, 1955).  Throughout the transition from Lenin’s socialism towards Stalin’s Communism, the process entailed a total refurbishing of cultural functions, power relations, economic fundamentals, internal organizations as well as the singular functions of each citizen. In this pursuit, each individual functions as a conduit to promoting and acknowledging the nature of Communism. While Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia, and Transcaucasia were forming a single state, Stalin stated that this unification must “serve as another decisive step along the ay toward the unification of the toilers of the entire world in a single World Socialist Soviet Republic” (Robinson, 1955). Though his vision of the world and socialism changed closer to his death, he was still adamant about the persistence of socialism around the world.  Stalin was overly concerned about the role of citizens and the peasantry. He was very hostile to individuality and reaffirmed the importance of collectivism for the betterment of the state (Historicus, 1949). Early in his career, he found that there was very little centralization of power and control. Stalin felt that divisions in labour and worker functions must be abolished, encouraging a fusion of agriculture and industry, farms and factories, villages and cities, peasants and industrial workers (Robinson, 1955). This fusion would enhance the state property, limiting exchange issues, and centralizing the economy for swift action. These Stalinist principles and code of conduct as reinforced in order to maintain the “democracy of the proletariat” would eventually reek havoc on music during the modern era.

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

Once the decree had passed to eliminate any traces of formalism in Russian music, several proletarian organizations arose to serve the nations’ new goals. One of these organizations were called the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM). Established in 1922, the RAPM’s goal was simply to publish compositions that “satisfied the demands of mass, amateur musical activities [and were] conducive not only to political agitation, but to general activization of […] humanenergy with the aim of utilizing it for the needs of Soviet Construction” (Edmunds, 2000, p. 67). The result became a hardened manifesto determined to enforce the needs of Soviet Russia in order to reinforce proletarian values throughout all levels of society. Their manifesto consisted of simply one goal “strive above all to reflect the rich, full-blooded psychology of the proleteriat in their music” (Edmunds, 2000, p. 77). However, musical compositional styles were produced with the intent of perpetuating proletarian virtues. Unfortunately, the function of the RAPM highly coincides with George Orwells’s 1984 in which mass propaganda reinforces an almost impossible scenario to overcome (James, 1973). For example, the RAPM heavily surveilled content that may subliminally undermine the values of Stalin’s government, perpetuate the frivolous needs of the bourgeoise and overly complex metaphorical comparisons (James, 1973; Mayer, 1956). The RAPM read political meaning and ideologies into every piece of music, thoroughly inspected and analyzed them in order to develop a systematic procedure to reinforce Soviet propaganda. The overall idea was art as a function to support the people rather than for the mere act of creating art for the artist’s pleasure (Edmunds, 2000). Members of the RAPM believed that “the bourgeoise exerts great influence upon all strata of the population, systematically poisoning the worker’s mind” (Slonimsky, 1944, p. 4). Furthermore, the RAPM banned the works of Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Tchaikowsky, and Scriabin because their works were far too formalist. The bleakness in Russian music intensified and Russian musicians, writers, and artists began to move away in order to exercise 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, RAPM along with similar organizations in the field of the arts were dissolved. The reason was that the system governing such strict practises were becoming far too chaotic, difficult to reinforce, and a timely expense (Edmunds, 2000). Following its dissolution, Stalin exercised Social Realist policies in order to reinforce the proletarian virtues.

The lack of success by proletarian organizations to achieve Stalin’s goals doubled his need to reinforce a stateless society diminished of bourgeoisie control, thereby enforcing strict socialist policies. These policies would revive the Leninist and Bolshevik belief in a society intent on promoting its own cultural sovereignty. Stalin believed that art, literature, and music communicated important facets of culture to society and required significant regulation in order to maximize their use for the Soviet republic (James, 1973; Robinson, 1955). The concept of socialist Realism was developed by the Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934, which was subsequently approved by Stalin and his policy-makers like Andrei Zhdanov (James, 1973). Stalin essentially demanded that all art must showcase an individual’s struggle toward socialism in order to achieve a satisfactory life. In order to achieve this goal, art was meant to provide direct, straight-forward messages of optimism and realism intent on establishing a socialist order as a beneficial aspect in an individual’s life. Unfortunately, the consequence of such totalitarian policy included the abolishment of avant-garde, surrealistic, and abstract art including literature that did not meet the requirements of the Congress. Those who did not conform to these socialist realist policies were either 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 a new generation fearing no obstacles” (Robinson, 1955). Although this desire for a powerful unified nation would come at a consequence of other unique 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 arbitrary descriptor for a style of composition that became undefinable. According to Makanowitzky “The Soviets themselves have been unable to arrive at a precise concept” (Makanowitzky, 1965, p. 269). This effectively resulted in significant misunderstanding and confusion by composers. Composers who were able to attain significant rank and prestige among their colleagues for the composition of proleterian music, they would not only be given intense exposure by the Stalin regime but also be awarded with prizes ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 rubles (Slonimsky, 1950). They were also provided concert halls and chambers to rehearse their performances. While socialist realism remains thoroughly undefined, Stalin’s regime placed prize values for those who are able to move the public. In order to fully comprehend the devastating and positive impact of Stalin’s socialist realism policies, it will be important to discuss the ways in which 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, two years later, accused of “enjoying success with the borgeoisie 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 ballet’s alltogether (Volkov, 2004; Slonimsky, 1944). In addition to this, Stalin’s Great Terror also occurred during this period in which Stalin’s regime would systematically eliminate all possible resistance fronts in an attempt 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 were executed. Shostakovich’s compositional career grew steadfastly complicated once he was denounced for formalism in the Zhdanov decree (Mayer, 1956), a cultural policy determined to isolate non-Communist actions or ideologies. Despite these complications, Shostakovich, fearing for his life, continued to make social realist compositions in order to secure the lives of those he loved. Shostakovich’s work revealed exceptional use of 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 user of the tone row, or serialist (twelve-tone technique) methods long before Schoenberg (Volkov, 2004). Unfortunately, Shostakovich’s work began to take an aire of conservativism 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.

Shortly after the enforcement of the socialist realist policies alongside the Zhdanov decree, Igor Stravinsky had been living in Switzerland. After the onset of WWI, the borders to Russia had been sealed which complicated his return to his homeland (Cross, 1999). While in Switzerland, he composed pieces that would captivate Russian audiences and the rest of the world. For example, L’Histoire du Soldat (The Soldier’s Tale) was one of Stravinsky’s most successful Russian folk pieces depicting a satirical story about a soldier who trades his fiddle to the devil in exchange for a book that predicts the future of the economy (Cross, 1999). Clearly, this has a tremendous implication for Communist Russia’s socialism. During these politically unstable periods that are radically engulfing Russia’s society, socialist realist policies were reinforced to stabilize against extreme liberal views and satire similar to Stravinsky’s L’Histoire. Another composer who suffered the same fate is Sergei Prokofiev.

Sergei Prokofiev lived a great deal of his life abroad in order to avoid the revolutions and radical governmental revisions that would soon make life in Russia unbearable (Nestiev, 1960). After achieving recognition throughout the world as one of the leading composers, he returned back to Russia in 1935 despite the movement of political and cultural policies to more rigorous and almost extreme state. Much like the fate that Shostakovich fell under, so did Prokofiev 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 had been approved by the Soviet policy (Slonimsky, 1950). Knowing that his survival meant cooperating with Soviet policies, Prokofiev created piano sonatas #6, 7, 8 including operas #82-44 with war themes that are now known as “War Sonatas” (Nestiev, 1960). Hidden metaphorical and illusionary ways, Prokofiev embedded anti-Soviet material carefully such that Stalin would not realize. Ironically, Prokofiev was awarded the prestigious Stalin Prize First Class (Slonimsky, 1944). However, as the living situation in the Soviet Union became increasingly complicated with the Zhdanov Decree, Prokofiev was charged for producing overly formalistic pieces and, for fear of the consequences, concert halls and theatres would never play Prokofiev resulting in extreme financial constraints (Nestiev, 1960).

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

The differences between Soviet ballet and Russian ballet are quite astounding simply because the subject matter, as required by the Zhdanov Decree and socialist realist policies, must be contemporary to current events for a composer to be successful creating Soviet music. Furthermore, industrial themes and economic wealth for the Soviet Union pervaded the Soviet ballet. Soviet music utilizes simple secular cantata and oratorios in order to evoke, without religious metaphors, the circumstances regarding life in Soviet Russia. Socialist realist policies enforced simple, relevant techniques praising Stalin and the Soviet Union. In contrast, Russian ballet is less structuralized, the subject matter is relatively philosophical and formalistic; furthermore, it is characterized by experimentation, genre merging and dissonances which express complexities and illusions (Rothe, 1942). Socialist realist policies have had a tremendous impact on the development of Russia’s musical history 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 , 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 , 99, 11-21.

Rothe, F. (1942). Russian music. The Kenyon Review , 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.