Product Description

For this authoritative post-cold-war biography of Shostakovich's illustrious but turbulent career under Soviet rule, Laurel E. Fay has gone back to primary documents: Shostakovich's many letters, concert programs and reviews, newspaper articles, and diaries of his contemporaries. An indefatigable
worker, he wrote his arresting music despite deprivations during the Nazi invasion and constant surveillance under Stalin's regime.
Shostakovich's life is a fascinating example of the paradoxes of living as an artist under totalitarian rule. In August 1942, his Seventh Symphony, written as a protest against fascism, was performed in Nazi-besieged Leningrad by the city's surviving musicians, and was triumphantly broadcast to the
German troops, who had been bombarded beforehand to silence them. Alone among his artistic peers, he survived successive Stalinist cultural purges and won the Stalin Prize five times, yet in 1948 he was dismissed from his conservatory teaching positions, and many of his works were banned from
performance. He prudently censored himself, in one case putting aside a work based on Jewish folk poems. Under later regimes he balanced a career as a model Soviet, holding government positions and acting as an international ambassador with his unflagging artistic ambitions.
In the years since his death in 1975, many have embraced a view of Shostakovich as a lifelong dissident who encoded anti-Communist messages in his music. This lucid and fascinating biography demonstrates that the reality was much more complex. Laurel Fay's book includes a detailed list of works, a
glossary of names, and an extensive bibliography, making it an indispensable resource for future studies of Shostakovich.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #864119 in Books
• Published on: 1999-11-25
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 488 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Fay, an academic specializing in Russian music, notes in her introduction to this careful and detailed study of the Soviet composer's life and work that "there is not a single even remotely reliable resource in Russian, English, or any other language for the basic facts" about him. She has therefore set herself dutifully to sort fact from tendentious politicizing as best she canAwhether from the "right" (a dutiful Soviet official biography) or the "left" (Solomon Volkov's highly suspect Testament, which suggested the composer was a closet rebel against state conformism all his life). Dmitry Shostakovich (1906-1975) was certainly the pre-eminent composer who lived his entire creative life under the Soviet regime (Prokofiev escaped to Paris for an extended period). As such, he became, perforce, a cultural icon, despite his occasional fallings from grace with the Kremlin. One of the virtues of Fay's book is her picture of the endless mundane tasks to which Shostakovich was subjected: rote speeches, statements, interviews, appearances at conferences. In many ways his life was that of a senior civil servant, a role he performed with extraordinary conscientiousness. As a personality, however, he remains profoundly elusive. Fay reports that Shostakovich was frequently witty and sardonic, but gives few glimpses of this side of him. More importantly, it is never explained whether his apparent equivocations about deplorable aspects of Soviet artistic policy sprang from cowardice or cynicism. What is certain was that this enormously prolific, hard-working artist left behind a legacy of powerful, often agonizingly somber, work that is even more striking considering the circumstancesAoften feeble health, worries about money and personal securityAunder which he wrote. Fay has done a notable job of clearing the brush; a more substantial and penetrating portrait remains to be constructed on that cleared site. Illustrations not seen by PW. (Nov.)
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
The Cold War has ended, but writers on Shostakovich now face its effects on information, as Fay's own published criticism of some Shostakovich-related work has shown. This meticulously documented biography bravely offers a thoughtful, painstaking search for the truth regarding the great, tormented composer's actions and public reaction to his music, but sources themselves often conflict. For example, Fay presents a dozen versions of what happened and why regarding the 1936 withdrawal of the Fourth Symphony, some from the same people at different times. Other facts are equally elusive, and Fay leaves many questions open. A chronological report with a smattering of insights from Fay, this important contribution to Shostakovich scholarship presents the result of many years of study in archives and published accountsAgroundwork future scholars will appreciate. For academic and large public libraries.ABonnie Jo Dopp, Univ. of Maryland Lib., College Park
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
The USSR's foremost composer, Shostakovich (1906^-75), combined romanticism and modernism. His preference for programmatic music led him to include elements of folk song along with dissonance in many compositions, and his forays into the twelve-tone idiom produced memorable melodic strains woven into a romantic fabric. Raised in St. Petersburg, he lived there and in Moscow, teaching students, performing, and serving on various national arts councils for most of his life. He supported the Communist regime by composing music with historical programs, but he eventually denounced the most egregious transgressions of the Stalin years. Most important to his reputation, his music was played throughout the West. Fay's well-written but pedantic biography does little to bring out the man Shostakovich. Instead, Fay represents him through his music, especially his operas, songs, and choral symphonies, arguing that it is in the librettos and poetic texts of Shostakovich that his sadness and dissent are most evident. So far, the music of this prodigious figure has endured, continuing to be played for its aesthetic value, regardless of its politics. Alan Hirsch

Customer Reviews

"The unpleasant reality"
Fay does a wonderful job here presenting Shostakovich's life and career the way they really were; not the way some of us would have wanted to happen. Reality over fantasy. Frankly and realistically speaking, Shostakovich was never a dissident. He had countless opportunities to escape the Soviet regime. Not only he never went to jail for his political views, but he never even publicly made any comments or remarks of a political nature. By contrary, he was content (if probably not very happy...) playing the Soviet era political games and furthermore, even occupying high rank positions in the Communist Party. So much of a dissident life..... What Fay does here is accurately portraying Shostakovich the way he publicly behaved and to present his actions the way they really happen. After all, we are all judged by our Actions, and not only by simple and cheap words.

Having said that, it does not mean that I do not like Shostakovich: by contrary, I admire and respect him enormously as an artist/composer (I would like to stress here that he is after all my favorite composer), but I have little respect for him as a human being. Some would say here that is impossible to judge one without the other: I totally disagree since I do not have a problem clearly differentiating between the two. I have already mentioned that Shostakovich (despite his faults) is my favorite composer. The other two, in this order are George Enescu and Richard Strauss (all 20th Century `human' or `mortal' composers - Bach and Beethoven being the Gods here!). Not only I admire Enescu very much as a musician (I can only hope here that more people will (re)discover his genius), but I also respect him as a human being. Little is known, but he chose self-exile in Paris when the Communists supported by the Russian Red Army took control of Romania (as well as much of Eastern Europe), instead of having to deal with such a regime. He left behind a very comfortable life and died in almost total poverty in Paris eight years later, happy however knowing that he never compromised his principles. Again, we are talking actions here, and not just simple words.....

On the other hand, Richard Strauss (my third favorite composer), and one of the greatest musical geniuses, was not such a great human being after all. It is all fact and well documented that he was a puppet of the Nazi regime and for years he was their Culture Minister and only became a `dissident' when Hitler got bored with him and his antics. It is only when Strauss fell out of grace being of no further use to the regime that he decided to become a `dissident'. Same can be probably said (true, to a much lesser degree) about another great composer of the 20the Century, Jean Sibelius, who gladly accepted all the honors and titles that the Nazis bestowed upon him. It is after all so much more difficult to take a stand, and let your actions speak for yourself....

In conclusion, this is an excellent book presenting things the way they really happened: again, we might not always like the reality (it can be sometimes painful), but nobody can deny its veracity.

P.S. If you chose to call Shostakovich a dissident, then what would you call Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Finally, dissident or no dissident, we all agree that Shostakovich was one of the most extraordinary composers of the 20the Century. Let us just enjoy his beautiful music for what it is. It does not need any subversive messages and imaginary meanings to make it more beautiful than it is.

Will There Ever Be A Definitive Shostakovich Biography?
I have read 'Testimony' by Volkov, and followed much of the controversy about it. It is a fascinating read to be sure, but does it truly reflect Shostakovich the man? While this book by Fay does have it's limitations, I found it a valuable counter weight to 'Testimony'.

Shostakovich was a great composer, no doubt. His complacency within the Soviet system of the time can be looked at in different ways. What I have gotten out of both of these books is that Shostakovich was a man that in many ways was beaten by a repressive system. For those who did not directly experience those times, it is easy to criticize the man for some of the things he did. We must remember that it was literally a matter of life and death. Not just for him, but for his family too. It is no wonder that he became so secretive.

And it is that secretive nature that makes me wonder if there ever will be a definitive biography. We also must not lose sight of the fact that it is his music first and foremost that has attracted music lovers to him. Shostakovich wrote much music, with much of it of the highest quality. That he was all too human like the rest of us doesn't detract from that. That he could write so much music that touches the humanity of others while suffering under a repressive regime is remarkable.

I have been a Shostakovich 'fan' for a long time, and he has carved out a place in musical history as a great composer. As such, scholarship about his life and work will continue to provide more insights on both. I enjoyed this book, despite any shortcomings. There is much information and value within it. That is why I gave it 5 stars, and would recommend anyone interested in the man and his music to read it.

Ease up a bit please!
This is a fine book--well researched and well written. I had a great time with it as a casual on-the-sofa read and learned much from it about a composer I like. I recommend it. I'm a little stunned by the viciousness of some of the revues--failing to deify the composer is no crime; having opinions--even controversial ones--about what motivated the composer is just a biographer's job. Some of the really negative comments about the book, and more disturbingly, the author make me wonder if she's being brutally victimized a bit here--ironically, in an almost Stalinist way. I'm having difficulty imagining why the venom. Is there a Shostakovich cult?

If you are interested in learning about the man and his music the number of books available on the topic is surprisingly small--you might as well read them all. In contrast the controversies surrounding Shostakovich's life are absurdly large. The definitive book on Shostakovich won't be written until everyone who had anything to do with him is long gone and emotional involvement has settled a bit. Even then, well, no great composer, nobody in fact, ever gets consistent appraisals from biographers.

No, sorry, I don't think DS was the "greatest" composer of the last century, I'm not even sure he was the bravest. I'm not sure those words really apply at all to evaluating the creators of art music during that bizarre time. I think we lacked a single stand-out genius on the order or Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach but I'd argue the 20th Century had numerically more genuinely inspired and original composers than any other era. Mull over Bach, Telemann, Handel, Vivaldi and lesser lights of the first half of the 18th Century--then mull over Bartok, Stravinsky, Nielsen, Shostakovich, Strauss, Janacek, Puccini, Mahler, Elgar, Prokofiev and the long list that follows--up to mid-century when real problems start to show. No mediocities in their ranks but no Beethovens either. Something unprecedented was going on back then, maybe Western art music's Indian Summer. There's a good book in this I'm sure.

Irony is that during a time when so much compositional genius was floating around, the interest in art music began to decline--rapidly. This may in fact account for the diversity of the music of that time and, more importantly, the inconsistency of it. You can actually trace the careers of various composers as they create and then respond to the lack of response or to extramusical pressures that make a hash of their individual geniuses.

I'd say Shostakovich, then, was not the greatest 20th Century composer but he is the greatest example of the dilemma of the 20th Century composer.