1
Rebecca Robinson
FYS: Revolution and Dystopia
Dr. Bezio
23 October 2012
The Duality of Music in Soviet Russia
Though created as a means of controlling a population, propaganda often fails to
fully convince the people and truly win support. Ironically, the rigid confines of
censorship and the intrusive nature of propaganda serve to inspire rebellion in a society.
The more propaganda is promoted and expression is repressed, the more prevalent
rebellion will be. This is the case in Soviet Russia. The rich musical history of their
country allowed for music to become a very effective and powerful form of propaganda.
Through censorship of the music industry and the use of music as propaganda, the
Communist party in Soviet Russia attempted to eradicate the circulation of anti-party
themes and gained a valuable tool in promoting public loyalty. However, the elevated
status that propaganda and party-support gave music paved the way for eventual rebellion
through music. Due to its extensive censorship and use as propaganda by the State, music
became a powerful outlet for rebellion in Soviet Russia.
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
2
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]
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.
Before the RAPM could begin the creation of proletariat-friendly (Sufi) or
propagandized music, the RAPM 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
3
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). 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.
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
4
(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
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.
5
The publicity and prestige granted to music by the party paved the way for hidden
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
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.
6
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
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.
The use of music as propaganda in the Soviet Union was both a key strength and a
key weakness for the Party. By employing the use of Mass Song, the party, through
agencies such as RAPM, gained further control over the public. However, by promoting
music in society, the party also opened the door for subtle dissidents such as
Shostakovich and Prokofiev to share anti-Communist messages. Years of strict
censorship and a continual barrage of pro-Communist propaganda created not only a
large but receptive audience for this rebellious music. The impact of each individual
musical act of rebellion we will never know, but as a whole, they succeeded in creating a
cultural revolution that changed the course of history.
Mikhael Bulgakov, an author also persecuted by Soviet censorship, attests to
both the prominence of music in Soviet society and the ability of musicians and
composers to manipulate an oppressive system for their own rebellious purposes.
7
In his novel, Master and Margarita, Bulgakov presents a satire of communist Russia
through a tale of the devil visiting Moscow. Through this work, Bulgakov testifies to
the significance of music as a part of Soviet culture and as propaganda through his
many references to musical elements.
As an oppressed artist like Shostakovich and Prokofiev, Bulgakov understood
both the significance of art in society (as a cultural foundation and propaganda) and
the struggle artists faced due to forced censorship. In a way similar to musicians in
the Soviet Union, Bulgakov created propaganda under Party orders though his
personal beliefs did not agree. Bulgakov’s production of feuilltons (pro-Soviet
newspaper editorials) benefited the Party in a way similar to the mass songs and proSoviet music created by Shostakovich and Prokofiev. However, just as many composers
and musicians in the Soviet Union, Bulgakov discovered that the popularity and prestige
that literary works were given due to their role as propaganda created the perfect stage for
rebellion.
Though Master and the Margarita was never intended to be published as an
testement of Bulgakov’s dissatisfaction with the Party, it does reflect Bulgakov’s
understanding of the dual role of the arts (specifically music) in Soviet society. His
constant references to musical terms, composers, and song throughout the novel illustrate
the pre-existing affinity for music in Soviet society that later allowed music to become
such a powerful form of propaganda. Bulgakov gives three of his characters the names of
composers. Berlioz, the editor of MASSOLIT (censorship/publishing agency) is given the
name of a French-Romantic composer (a type of music outlawed in Soviet Russia)
(SOURCE). The juxtaposition of these two individuals with the same name and the
8
attention repeatedly drawn to it, “Berlioz, like the composer?” (p.???) serves as a
representation of many artists in the Soviet Union. Though they publicly create
propaganda for the party like Berlioz the editor, many also chose to weave hints of
dissent or anti-Party material as represented by Berlioz the composer.
Bulgakov continues to draw attention to the importance of music and its role as
propaganda through many of the public shows orchestrated throughout the novel.
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 (p. 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” (p 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 doesn’t 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
equally, despite the obvious contradiction. Whatever the leaders of the performance
propose, the crowd supports. Through this passage, Bulgakov criticizes the blindobedience 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,
9
a young woman had, “tears stream[ing] down [her] face, she tried to clench her teeth, but
her mouth opened of its own accord…” (p 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,” (p 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 this portrayal of music as a key aspect of affirms the statement that
music was given somewhat of an elevated status, Bulgakov’s most important
representation is that of the Woland (the devil) using the broken and corrupt
system in Moscow to expose the greed and bourgeoisie of a society that openly
opposes any “self-serving” traits. Because this ironic use of a corrupt system to
create an opposite result so closely mimics the techniques used by composers 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.