1
Rebecca Robinson
FYS 100: Stage 3
Music as Rebellion: A Comparison of the Soviet Union and the GDR through Literature
In many societies, music plays a dual role as both a vehicle for propaganda and a
mode of rebellion. Though at first glance these applications of music may seem very
different, they are actually interconnected. Often, a country’s rich musical history allows
for music to become a very effective and powerful form of propaganda. Since music is
already an important part of society, a government can capitalize on this already method
of communication to promote their ideas. Through censorship and the use of music as
propaganda, a government can eradicate the circulation of opposing ideals while
presenting their rhetoric through a media posed to receive public support. However, the
visibility and elevated-status that this propaganda gives presents the perfect opportunity
for rebellion through music. This phenomenon is seen in both Soviet Russia and the
German Democratic Republic.
Both governments practiced Communism, similar forms of censorship, and
propaganda production. Nevertheless, as the novel Master and Margarita and the film
The Lives of Others portray, the effectiveness of the propaganda, the type of rebellion,
and method of censorship varied greatly between these two countries. Soviet Russia
emphasized fear tactics and a unified public, as seen through various references to “mass
song” in Master and Margarita. Conversely, the GDR stressed education of musicians
(as to proper state–approved music) and an adherence to a legacy of musical excellence
and intelligence as seen through references to Beethoven’s Appassionata. Through the
2
commentary of each work, it becomes visible that though music became a powerful outlet
for rebellion in both societies, the culture of the society and implementation of censorship
techniques produced very different forms of rebellion.
The importance of music to Soviet society is made clear through the words of
Stalin himself: “ the task of soviet art is to aid the state, educate the youth correctly and
meet its demands, to rear a new generation fearing no obstacles” (Sufi). In other words,
the role of music in Soviet Russia was to further the ideologies of the party through
propaganda. However, before it could fill this role, the State had to set boundaries and
establish permissible genres of music. In 1922, the Russian Association of Proletarian
Musicians was created to do just that (McKay). The RAPM was the major music
censorship agency of the early-to mid-twentieth century (Richardson). It’s selfproclaimed goal was to “publish compositions that satisfied demands of the mass amateur
musical activities conductive not only to public agitation, but to the general activation of
human energy with the aim of utilizing it for Soviet Construction” (Sufi). The RAPM
strove to make sure that music not only was appealing and understood by the masses, but
also reflected the values of the state. Any musical attack on the state, such as the
promotion of “bourgeoisie” values through overly- artistic music or the positive portrayal
of Western society was detected by this agency and the perpetrator reprimanded, sent to a
labor camp, or killed. Even indirect or unintentional dissent through the use of formalism,
a combination of abstract and impressionist styles, seen by the State as bourgeoisie, was
punishable by the same means (Sufi). Shostakovich, a prominent Soviet composer during
the time, commented on the potency and omnipresence of the RAPM and its successors
in his private memoirs: “Everyone knows you can’t appear on the radio if your [choral]
3
text hasn’t been passed by the censor. Not one, but almost ten censors, each of which
signs. If the papers aren’t signed, no one will let you near a microphone. Who knows
what you might say to the whole country?” (Shostakovich 190). For musicians like
Shostakovich, this rigid control of the music industry severely limited both their creative
expression and their freedom.
As a citizen of the Soviet Union and a private dissident, Mikhail Bulgakov
recognized both the prevalence of music and the powerful form of propaganda it made.
He also witnessed the state’s iron fisted control and censorship of the arts, especially
music. All these things, he portrayed in his novel, Master and Margarita. Berlioz, the
editor of MASSOLIT (censorship/publishing agency) is given the name of a FrenchRomantic composer (a type of music outlawed in Soviet Russia) (Blank). The
juxtaposition of these two individuals with the same name and the attention repeatedly
drawn to it, “Berlioz, like the composer?” serves as a representation of many artists in the
Soviet Union (Bulgakov 67). Most are controlled by the omnipresent control of the
censorship agency, yet there is always the possibility of rebellion.
The GDR created a similar institution, the “Staatliche Kommission für
Kunstangelegenheiten” (Stakuko) in attempt to mould the political ideals of the Party to
with the musical culture of the people. (4) The Communist party in the GDR realized, as
it did in Soviet Russia, that no matter how convincing their message or brutal their scare
tactics, the people would never truly be loyal until the country’s culture and the political
ideals were intertwined. Therefore, music and the arts were the Party’s key to winning
both the hearts and minds of the people. In 1951, a campaign against “formalism” and
“cosmopolitanism” was launched as an attempt to remove concepts incompatible with
4
party standards. (4) Though the crusade against formalism is a commonality between the
Soviet Union and the GDR, this is merely a result of shared Communist beliefs. Despite
the Soviet Union’s influence over the GDR, the censorship and musical culture of the
GDR were not a reflection of the Soviet Union under Stalin. (4) Both countries did stress
the value of proletarian, egalitarian, and party-promoting music; the GDR was equally
concerned with preserving its legacy of universal musical brilliance. Though both East
and West Germany claimed heritage to many of history’s great composer’s, the GDR
OWNED*, “ the birthplaces of Schütz, Bach, Handel, Telemann, and Schumann.” (4) As
the heritage of many of the Western world’s musical masters, the GDR felt a sense of
pride and duty in continuing their nation’s legacy. They claimed that alone, “ [they] could
carry forward this musical legacy, and bring it to a wider audience.” (4) Therefore, the
state, through the Statkuko rigorously regulated the music industry to control a “highly
sophisticated musical culture.” (4)
Though theoretically the Stakuko had unlimited control over the music industry,
in reality their power was diluted due to understaffing and an inefficient system (4). The
Stakuko were, “highly reliant on other arms of the Party, state apparatus, and on
particular individuals in them.” This unintentional distribution of power differed greatly
from the large, authoritarian agencies of the Soviet Union. As a result, rebellion,
especially through music had the ability to impact the public greatly.
In the Lives of Others, the Minister of Culture, Minister Hempf, exposes both the
value of music and other artists but also the control the Party had over them. In one
breath, the Minister remarks that, “the Party needs the artists but the artists need the party
even more” before instructing Weisler, a member of the Stasi, to bug a playwright’s
5
apartment. Through this statement, the film remarks on the importance of art to furthering
the goals of the GDR yet demonstrates the appearance of complete dominance that the
Party had over the industry, not only through censorship of music and literature, but
through surveillance of the artists’ private residence. Later in the film, the protagonist,
Dreyman writes, “The state office for statistics on Hans-Beimler street counts everything;
knows everything: how many pairs of shoes I buy a year: 2.3, how many books I read a
year: 3.2 and how many students graduate with perfect marks: 6,347.” This statement is
actually the beginning of an anti-Party pamphlet he is writing. Yet, he begins it with a
commonality of all GDR citizens; the omniscience of the Party and the control they exert
in the lives of individuals. This statistic, though intended to stir rebellion in the film, is an
semi-accurate representation of both life GDR and commentary of how artists were
monitored and manipulated by the Party. Once the Party had control over the artists and
the art industry, they were able to use the media as a powerful form of propaganda.
This is what happened in Soviet Russia. However, before the RAPM could begin
the creation of proletariat-friendly (Sufi) or propagandized music, it had to eradicate and
outlaw any music viewed as oppositional, including anything formalist (left widely open
for interpretation), jazz, old patriotic music, and Urban Romances, a genre that included
mood music, operatic tragedies and similar music. For example, formalist music was
outlawed due to its abstract and impressionist aspects (Sufi), qualities that did not fit in a
utilitarian society. Jazz music was viewed as something Western, and by extension,
capitalist; also a concept condemned by the proletariat-based Soviet Union (Edmunds
75). Previous patriotic music, though the messages may have been favorable, were often
sung to old melodies with rhythms similar to the banned Urban Romance (Edmunds 74).
6
Singing melodies reminiscent of pre-Bolshevik Russia did not coalesce with the State’s
motives, as one of the goals of the RAPM was to eradicate the music of the past in order
to redefine the present (Edmunds 75). Finally, Urban Romance music was unsuitable to
the RAPM due to the decadent moods created by this emotional music. The RAPM
believed that the lyrics were “propaganda for prostitution” and “acted as a drug that
induced torpor rather than the revolutionary fervor needed to build socialism” (Edmunds
75). Essentially, by erasing lush, romantic, and tragic music from existence, the RAPM
and party hoped to create a generation that was unfeeling except of great pride and
loyalty to the party. Once these forms of music were banned, the RAPM was free to
create music to further the party’s political agenda to fill the void they created in a
musically rich society.
MASTER AND MARGARITA
Once again, many similarities arise between Soviet Russia and the GDR because
of their shared belief in Communism. The GDR similarly fought against the evils of
formalism and demanded that, “theater and music reflect the fight against all kinds of
formalism, decadence, and kitsch.” (4) The GDR also waged war against Romantic music
and especially jazz. Though their censorship was partially motivated by loyalty to
Communism and the party, it was mostly fueled by a desire to uphold Germany’s music
tradition. (4) Jazz was an offense to Socialist ideals because of the American influence it
carried, but it was also an offense to the legacy of fine music as it promoted atonality and
unconventionalism. *TALK ABOUT MODERNISM AND LYRICS?
LIVES OF OTHERS* In a similar conversation, Hempf provocatively asks a
playwright who he thinks may be a secret dissident, “How is Jerska?” Jerska is the
7
playwright’s friend and fellow artist that was “blacklisted” for producing what the Party
labeled as “anti-Party” themes.*
Mass song quickly rose to meet the demand. As a song in which large groups of
people all sing the same refrain and melody, mass song proved effective in creating a
sense of unity. Party leaders knew that a national type of music was essential to
popularity among masses because, “history shows that song is important in motivating
and educating masses” (Edmunds 78). Mass song earned the position as the foundation of
the Soviet music due to the fact that it was monophonic, meaning that the choir sings in
unison reinforcing the symbol of unity and solidarity that the party wished to portray
(Edmunds). The propaganda of mass song was recognized and perfected over the years so
that standards were set so as to have the best impact on the masses. A song that was six to
ten minutes long was “not too short to seem superficial but ….not too long that the
political message was ignored” (Edmunds 78). Competitions for the best Mass-Songinspired-Symphony took place frequently (Edmunds 79), in which some composers
competed fervently and some, including Shostakovich, against their will (Shostakovich
256). Rewards for the piece most able to move the public were often awarded and
included intense publicity for the composers, cash prizes, concert hall availability, and
performance space (Sufi). These incentives for the creators of mass song helped to
encourage and propagate the design and popularity of Soviet approved songs from the top
down. The RAPM encouraged the popularity of propagandized music through intense
exposure and duress. The bans on non-party-approved music minimized the exposure for
non-RAPM composers in the Soviet Union, practically forcing the consumption of
government-promoted music. Radio stations in 1932 Leningrad played an average of
8
thirty-two hours of RAPM-produced music a week, compared to only three or four hours
of non-RAPM music (Edmunds 85). This intense exposure and lack of alternatives
increased both the popularity and acceptance of the Soviet propaganda and message. The
success of the organization grew exponentially over the years as people began to either
reject or forget their previous tastes in music. A yearly survey of celebrations in the Red
Square showed that RAPM approved music increased from only being preformed by 18%
of participants in 1930 to 61% in 1932 (Edmunds 87). This rapid increase indicates the
immense success of the RAPM propaganda with the people either due to increasing
popularity of the music or fear of governmental retribution for lack of Party support.
Through his novel, Master and Margarita, Bulgakov reveals the prevalence of
propaganda promoting group unity, especially mass song, in Soviet life. Professor
Woland (the devil), performs mass hypnosis on a large group at his “Black Magic Show”.
After a near-riot caused by magically appearing ten-ruble-bills is quieted by the director,
Bengalsky, the audience turns against him. When one of the performers asks if he should
“tear off” Bengalsky’s head, the crowd murmurs their approval in unison (Bulgakov
104). Similarly, when one of the performers asks if he should forgive Bengalsky, the
same effect is produced. First an individual shouts, “Yes, forgive him, forgive, him!”
only to be joined with “female voices and male voices to form a single chorus”
(Bulgakov 104). The effect of this mass hypnosis is very similar, if not representative of
mass song. The entire crowd participates to create a feeling of unison and they unite
behind an idea. The content the crowd rallies around does not matter, only the fact that
they all support it, another similarity to the “group-think” inspired by mass song. In this
passage, the performers propose two opposite ideas and the crowd supports them both
9
equally, despite the obvious contradiction. Through this passage, Bulgakov criticizes the
blind-obedience of the Soviet people and their ignorance of inequities.
In a similar situation, the entire staff of the Commission of Spectacle and Light
Entertainment randomly bursts into song, although quite against their will. While singing,
a young woman had, “tears stream[ing] down [her] face, she tried to clench her teeth, but
her mouth opened of its own accord…” (Bulgakov 161). In this passage, the people are
not singing to create a sense of unity or even out of their own free will, they are only
singing because some other force is controlling them. In the novel, this force is the
choirmaster (one of the devil’s companions). He ordered everyone to sing and, “dragged
the shy ones out of the closets where they were hiding to avoid singing,” (Bulgakov 162).
This forced obedience and participation in mass song is representative of the forced
loyalty to the Communist party. Even though some people did not want to participate in
the song, they were dragged out of the closet and forced to, an allusion to the Communist
Party’s threats, censorship, and bribes to force Party loyalty. Through the narrator, who
remarks, “it was against their will” and “it was beyond their power to stop”, Bulgakov
not only illustrates the feeling of helplessness many composers faced when forced to
create propaganda but also the helplessness of the public to resist.
Though mass songs were often broadcast in the GDR (4), a greater emphasis was
placed on education of the public. Unlike the Soviet Union, intimidation and threats were
used infrequently. The GDR prided itself on its using “pedagogical strategies” to
persuade its public. (4) The Stakuko claim, “society was introduced to songs of an
ideological nature, encouraging belief in the communist system.” (4) While mass song
10
and the concept of public unity and equality were critical, the GDR placed much higher
value on the concept of an enlightened public.
The indoctrination of the youth revealed itself to be the most efficient path to a
society educated in Socialist principals. Propaganda organizations such as the Young
Pioneers, Thailmann Pioneers, and Free German Youth established themselves as
prominent forces in youth party education. Through these groups, children were first
introduced to communist ideals through song. (2) GDR musicians were treated in a
similar fashion. Rather than creating lists of approved and banned musical repertoire or
relying on police reinforcement, the GDR promoted “self-censorship” through education.
(4) Authorities believed that, “once musicians understood the societal role of music, they
would independently avoid formalism and perform realistic/progressive music.” (4). The
GDR also established the “quota system” to ensure that both musicians and the public
received appropriate exposure to all forms of necessary music. All performing ensembles
were required to devote< “fifty-percent of their program to classics, twenty-five percent
to GDR produced music and twenty-five percent to music from the Soviet Union...” (4).
This idealistic view of propaganda is what differentiates the Soviet Union and GDR the
most. While the Soviet Union ruled with fear, the GDR managed some intimidation but
relied heavily on self-censorship and education. It is this difference that causes such
variability between the types of rebellion in these countries.
LIVES OF OTHERS
The publicity and prestige granted to music by the party paved the way for subtle
rebellions to be equally successful. Due to the closed nature of the Soviet Union,
accounts acts of rebellions can never be fully complete. Testimonies give documentation
11
of successful rebellion and Soviet records tell of those that were unsuccessful, yet a fair
amount of anti-party sentiment will go undetected by history. However, based on several
cases that have been released on acts of rebellion by musicians through music and other
media, it is easily inferred that personal rebellion was more common than is to be
believed. Perhaps the most visible example of dissent, Shostakovich’s life illustrates the
tumultuous road for a vocal freethinker in Soviet Russia. Shostakovich walked a fine line
between being praised for his proletarian efforts and being condemned as a formalist.
Though he feared imprisonment for most of his life, Shostakovich continued to produce
subtle and misleading anti-Communist messages in his works (Shostakovich 118).
Though his Eighth Quartet is known to be dedicated to the victims of fascism,
Shostakovich writes, “that the Eighth Symphony is an autobiographical quartet, it quotes
a song known to all Russians: ‘Exhausted by the hardships of prison’” (Shostakovich
156). Though this piece was advertised as a condemnation of fascism (an enemy of the
Soviet state), Shostakovich, through subtle references recognizable by the public,
criticized the labor camps, the deaths, and the destruction surrounding the Party. The
quotation of folk music (outlawed in the Soviet Union) was an act of rebellion within
itself. Therefore, by using music reminiscent of pre-Soviet society, Shostakovich reminds
the public of who they were and the freedoms they have lost. In a way recognizable to
the people through the quotation of historic songs, Shostakovich purposefully took a
stand and rebelled against the party without getting caught.
An equally well-known composer but less known dissident is Prokofiev. Though
lauded by some as a glorification of Communism, Prokofiev’s “Cantata for the Twentieth
Anniversary of the October Revolution” contains well-hidden bitterness against the
12
Soviet Regime (Turlish). The “lyrically tender” (Turlish) coverage of a brutal and harsh
topic depicts an irony and cynicism not in line with the party. Traditionally, lyrical and
melodic music is used to reflect serene settings and times of peace. By using this style to
depict a violent, brutal, and bloody rebellion, Prokofiev reveals a bitterly sarcastic tone
towards the Party and their glorification of the revolution. Though Prokofiev’s rebellion
is perhaps more ambiguous than Shostakovich’s due to the fact that he has not published
written memoirs, Prokofiev’s small attack against the party serves to represent the
equally subtle signs of dissent perhaps unnoticed by Western audiences.
Bulgakov’s novel communicates the subtlety of how most dissidents; especially
composers were forced to act. The concept of Woland (the devil) acting according to his
perceived nature (evil) but ironically achieving the opposite effect parallels the
roundabout way composers communicated their dissent. Woland intends to do “evil” by
creating chaos but ends up benefiting Soviet society by exposing their hypocritical and
corrupt nature. For example, during the afore mentioned “Black Magic Show”, Woland
exposes the greed of a supposed proletariat and egalitarian society through the magical
appearance of the ten-ruble-bills. Though the Muscovites prided themselves on their
egalitarian values, the crowd broke into chaos with the opportunity for self-promotion,
“[i]n the dress circle a voice was heard saying, ‘what’s that you’re grabbing? That’s
mine...Don’t push me or I’ll push you back!’” (Bulgakov 103). Though Woland’s main
purpose in creating this spectacle was to simply induce chaos (as is his perceived nature),
his actions that were not in society’s best interests ended up being beneficial as they
illuminated the Soviet’s flaws, thus allowing for self-improvement. Woland’s actions in
the novel relate closely to that of Soviet composers. Though the rebellious actions of
13
composers like Shostakovich and Prokofiev were viewed by both society and the Party as
malevolent, the message these rebellions presented reminded society of the freedoms they
were deprived of and spurred the development of a cultural revolution.
Because this ironic use of a corrupt system to create an opposite result so closely
mimics the techniques used by Shostakovich and Prokofiev to weave messages of
rebellion into music so often used as propaganda, it is reasonable to infer that Bulgakov,
as an inhabitant of Soviet Russia, witnessed the way composers evaded censorship
through propaganda and reflected this idea in his novel. Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and
Bulgakov were stuck in a paradoxical situation. Since there was a disconnect between
what the Party, morals, or personal freedoms described as “bad” or “illegal”, many artists
had to work against society to do good. Perhaps this is the reason that many musicians in
the Soviet Union and the Devil and his followers in Bulgakov’s novel fell prey to insanity
(Shostakovich). Each of them was acting in a certain way, expecting to get a certain
result, yet their actions always produced the opposite effect. Woland, as the devil is
depicted as intrinsically evil. Therefore, it is expected that he should act in a destructive
way and hope to achieve a negative outcome. However, in Master and Margarita, though
his actions were intended to create chaos in Moscow (which it does), the outcome of his
behavior ends up helping many people, especially the Master and Pontius Pilate.
Shostakovich and Prokofiev were also labeled as “bad” or “enemies of the State” by the
Party at different times in their lives. Neither composer wanted to work against society,
however, both felt that for the greater good they had to break the rules, through the
production of subtle rebellious messages.
14
Rebellion in the GDR, especially through music was less restrained. Since
punishment for disobedience was rarely brutality and usually “reeducation”, many
composers were more daring in their protest. Similarly, as fear tactics were less prevalent,
the entire population of the GDR had the ability to be more receptive towards rebellious
themes. (4) In many of the musical rebellions throughout the GDR, the audience was just
as responsible as the composer or conductor. During the Stakuko’s self-proclaimed “War
against Romanticism” a 1953 inspection of two pieces composed by Bruckner and Reger
condemned them as against “the building of Socialism”. (4) Despite Stakuko’s opposition
to performances of these pieces, there is no evidence of compliance. The popularity of the
pieces surpassed any loyalty to Party guidelines or fear of retaliation. Public demand
drove theaters to disregard Stakuko guidelines, thus creating a rebellion based on demand
for music. Government officials were reluctant to punish the disobedience for several
reasons. Stakuko, as mentioned before, did not have ultimate authority over the music
industry. Understaffing caused other agencies involvement in decision-making. As a
result, “jurisdictional disputes, guest conductors, prestige of ensembles thwarted hopes
for total control.” (4). The Stakuko’s authority, as well as the ideals of Communism were
undermined by the desire to uphold the German musical legacy. Party officials weighed
the benefits of inviting prestigious orchestras with allowing “banned” music. This ulterior
motive as well as disagreements within Party management created an ineffective
deterrent to rebellious behavior. The public knew the music they wanted and embraced it
as their government was slow to act. Unlike Soviet Russia, this gave the public the ability
to be more open about their dissent as well as act on it, at least through music.
LIVES OF OTHERS
15