What are you listening to right now? | Page 141 | Golden Skate

What are you listening to right now?

Isk said:
@Magill It's hard for me to say anything. You see, the 1990s for me was a hard time, because my whole world was turned upside down, everything I valued was painted black, anathematized, but this was not what I knew firsthand. I am not saying everything was great, but... Then at some point the need to understand who and why did this, became too pressing and I studied the statistics. They are published, just not publicized. They represent a very different picture than the one painted by the likes of the Nobel prize winner Solzhenitsin, but unlike the writings by Solzhenitsin, these are well documented historic studies. Then I read some memoirs and analytics. People write all sorts of stuff, some liked it, some didn't, but they write about experiences and and corroborate them with evidence. There is no question that a lot of what you probably know and some of what I know about those times is not true. But I think, having lived in the place, I understand it a little better... It's not all black and white. I see a lot of drawbacks, but a lot of what I've seen makes a lot of sense. I don't know much about Sofronitsky, to be honest. What I know is that he liked to perform in Scriabin's house, just didn't like to be recorded, and the place is unfortunately in Moscow, much as some might want it to be somewhere in NYC. It didn't belong to him, it's a museum, but the place was dear to him nevertheless. I know that Rachmaninov struggled in immigration. I can totally empathize with those folks whose world was turned upside down in 1917. I had to choose too. But my grandparents on both sides are of a peasant descent, they were able to receive a free university education and became teachers, doctors and journalists, so did my parents, but they went for engineering, and I have a Ph.D. This would not have been remotely possible prior to 1917. Rachmaninov did well eventually in the US, most importantly, he found an inspiration to write Symphonic dances, his last and favourite composition. Some people say they can't create in immigration. Did you know that Rach sent money to the Soviet Union during the war? Read Chopin's letters, they might help you understand what it feels like to be in this position. Read Wagner, how he missed his Germany. Prokofiev chose to return and did very well, blossomed, until he was repressed by Asafiev and Muradeli. I am not sure what happened to his ex-wife, she was apparently in Gulag for a couple of years. As for Sofronitsky, he could have stayed in Paris, but he didn't. He could have evacuated from Leningrad, but chose to stay. He was eventually evacuated in 1942 and worked in Moscow as a conservatory professor, and so did Shostakovich. Shostakovich had a hard time, honestly, I think "chaos instead of music" and especially "the ballet falseness" were very unfair and very dangerous, although I disagree with his view of Ekaterina Izmailova, trust me SafeSport would not approve of it either, and I am not a fan of most of his music. Evidence points in the direction of Zhdanov, something here for you to read between the lines. But read his Evidence, read about what he experienced as a young musician prior and soon after the revolution and what he says about Glazunov. You know, I am not the best person to turn to for support of your point of view, simply because I don't see it the same way. To me it's much deeper than Stalin = evil, USSR = evil, Russia = evil but not as much, but, hey, still very evil, but I am sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to talk to you about it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing all this, I appreciate your openness! And now, I need a bit of time and space to think about it. What I want to say now though is that my remark on being born in Stalinist Russia was not so much on a choice between staying and leaving, but rather some more primary though abstract act of choosing the time and place where you are born as surely there are those which are more comfortable to be born in or more challenging. And then this primary first choice determines and narrows down all the other choices that follow.
I know very well that whatever circumstances we are born to if we are lucky enough to have a more or less loving family, or even without it, this is our home and we grow to love it. We tend to think that in certain times and places everyone was fighting for freedom, or everyone was suffering from oppression, or plotting to do this or that, while in reality nothing of it is true. Most people just live their lives, fall in and out of love, admire sunsets, go to school, earn a living, quarrel with neighbors,, have children, get drunk, write poems that will never be published. just trying to live as normal and good life as possible under whatever circumstances were given to them.. This much I know. :)
Immigration is a hard choice and often unhappy.
I want to ask you though,Solzhenitsyn is one thing, but what do you think of Secondhand Time and the likes, if you know it? Is it any closer to your experience and the reality like you know it?
 
Last edited:
Magill said:
Thank you for sharing all this, I appreciate your openness! And now, I need a bit of time and space to think about it. What I want to say now though is that my remark on being born in Stalinist Russia was not so much on a choice between staying and leaving, but rather some more primary though abstract act of choosing the time and place where you are born as surely there are those which are more comfortable to be born in or more challenging. And then this primary first choice determines and narrows down all the other choices that follow.
I know very well that whatever circumstances we are born to if we are lucky enough to have a more or less loving family, or even without it, this is our home and we grow to love it. We tend to think that in certain times and places everyone was fighting for freedom, or everyone was suffering from oppression, or plotting to do this or that, while in reality nothing of it is true. Most people just live their lives, fall in and out of love, admire sunsets, go to school, earn a living, quarrel with neighbors,, have children, get drunk, write poems that will never be published. just trying to live as normal and good life as possible under whatever circumstances were given to them.. This much I know. :)
Immigration is a hard choice and often unhappy.
I want to ask you though,Solzhenitsyn is one thing, but what do you think of Secondhand Time and the likes, if you know it? Is it any closer to your experience and the reality like you know it?
Click to expand...
I have to read it, I haven't. When I do, I hopefully can express my opinion. But to me it was a revelation that marshal Tuhachevsky was a traitor, but all evidence points that he was. He is a very charismatic person though, and a friend of Shostakovich, and I can totally understand it. There are streets named after him still, and I understand that too. But I am happy that at least Tchaikovsky street in my home town was not renamed.
 
Last edited:
Isk said:
@Magill No need to be sad. :) I am totally with you on Yuzuru. It is complicated and we are what we are. Did you watch the gala of Chopin competition? I didn't, but I will later. @4everchan's wish for a Canadian winner did not materialize, but he is 2nd place, a very good achievement.
Click to expand...
No, I did not watch the gala. I stayed up until some 3 am watching all the fluff to hear the results and then had to go after other business today.
I will watch it later, yes!!!
 
Isk said:
@Magill It's hard for me to say anything. You see, the 1990s for me was a hard time, because my whole world was turned upside down, everything I valued was painted black, anathematized, but this was not what I knew firsthand. I am not saying everything was great, but... Then at some point the need to understand who and why did this, became too pressing and I studied the statistics. They are published, just not publicized. They represent a very different picture than the one painted by the likes of the Nobel prize winner Solzhenitsin, but unlike the writings by Solzhenitsin, these are well documented historic studies. Then I read some memoirs and analytics. People write all sorts of stuff, some liked it, some didn't, but they write about experiences and corroborate them with evidence. There is no question that a lot of what you probably know and some of what I know about those times is not true. But I think, having lived in the place, I understand it a little better... It's not all black and white. I see a lot of drawbacks, but a lot of what I've seen makes a lot of sense. I don't know much about Sofronitsky, to be honest. What I know is that he liked to perform in Scriabin's house, just didn't like to be recorded, and the place is unfortunately in Moscow, much as some might want it to be somewhere in NYC. It didn't belong to him, it's a museum, but the place was dear to him nevertheless. I know that Rachmaninov struggled in immigration. I can totally empathize with those folks whose world was turned upside down in 1917. I had to choose too. But my grandparents on both sides are of a peasant descent, they were able to receive a free university education and became teachers, doctors and journalists, so did my parents, but they went for engineering, and I have a Ph.D. This would not have been remotely possible prior to 1917. Rachmaninov did well eventually in the US, most importantly, he found an inspiration to write Symphonic dances, his last and favourite composition. Some people say they can't create in immigration. Did you know that Rach sent money to the Soviet Union during the war? Read Chopin's letters, they might help you understand what it feels like to be in this position. Read Wagner, how he missed his Germany. Prokofiev chose to return and did very well, blossomed, until he was repressed by Asafiev and Muradeli. I am not sure what happened to his ex-wife, she was apparently in Gulag for a couple of years. As for Sofronitsky, he could have stayed in Paris, but he didn't. He could have evacuated from Leningrad, but chose to stay. He was eventually evacuated in 1942 and worked in Moscow as a conservatory professor, and so did Shostakovich. Shostakovich had a hard time, honestly, I think "chaos instead of music" and especially "the ballet falseness" were very unfair and very dangerous, although I disagree with his view of Ekaterina Izmailova, trust me SafeSport would not approve of it either, and I am not a fan of most of his music. Evidence points in the direction of Zhdanov, something here for you to read between the lines. But read his Evidence, read about what he experienced as a young musician prior and soon after the revolution and what he says about Glazunov. You know, I am not the best person to turn to for support of your point of view, simply because I don't see it the same way. To me it's much deeper than Stalin = evil, USSR = evil, Russia = evil but not as much, but, hey, still very evil, but I am sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to talk to you about it.
Click to expand...
I think that Stolypin's "approved" projects were going much in this direction, without the violence? But indeed so many things weren't told and people were living their lives as they could...
The fact is (it has long struck me) that Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Prokofiev and Stravinsky, in spite of all the most physical threats and censure they endured, were the last creative greats, and that extremely few Western composers could survive composing real music, and those who did succeed in film movies probably had even less freedom of expression than USSR ones... Creative people have long been object of attempts to control by people, whom some consider to faces of the same coin, in spite of their apparent opposition. For regular people though, the Western world has long had a better life with much less fear of, for instance being perceived as less proactive in the latest internal regime change, than most people in urban USSR, from World War I to the 1980s. Even in England, children from poor background, not only were better fed than they ever had been since the Reformation (and it's not that they were great before) but also did access to university studies and careers, thanks to free Grammar Schools in particular, with subpar healthcare but still better than in USSR. In France, we would have this just better. In both countries though, general education accessible to regular people started losing their levels since World War II (in France, plan Langevin-Wallon, Langevin was the Physicist who tried to cancel young Louis de Broglie who was rescued by Einstein, aimed at preventing people from learning), but it wasn't "efficient enough" until the 1990s when methods outright preventing children from learning to read and count were implemented, only "knowing parents" teaching their children before school, perpetuating social classes and dooming most children into ignorance; while in the UK (still in Wales) the 1980s were already those of unattaining education (until the tripartite reform of around 2010, but it's now crushed). In USSR, since the October Revolution, a higher proportion of infants had "failure to thrive" symptoms preventing them to later getting profit of the education offer, not to speak of the famines or of the whole peoples displaced, half dying in the journey and the rest so malnourished too. And so on.
I think that in the USA it started later and stopped around the same period? Without ever general healthcare. But I don't know it well.
What was cruel was the way people were not only imposed new ways, of which they didn't understand the need, and which weren't always for better; but the denigration of people themselves, which I think was (is!) particularly painful in East Germany. They believed they were getting freedom, but that was just a change of lid.
 
Isk said:
I have to read it, I haven't. When I do, I hopefully can express my opinion. But to me it was a revelation that marshal Tuhachevsky was a traitor, but all evidence points that he was. He is a very charismatic person though, and a friend of Shostakovich, and I can totally understand it. There are streets named after him still, and I understand that too. But I am happy that at least Tchaikovsky street in my home town was not renamed.
Click to expand...
Crazy as he was along with his military genius, it's long been well known that all the "proofs" that hadn't been dictated under torture, were the most successful intoxication operation achieved by Nazi intelligence? I confess that the book I've read was old (and it was a long time ago, and I couldn't finish it) but are there real proofs (not fabricated by "interrogatories" or the Nazi) of any treason? We're getting very off-topic, maybe this discussion could go on in another thread.
 
Sorry, I didn't remember where it was but there's a subtitle under "The Cafe" subforum : (no politics)
Although here we're rather in History.
 
Magill said:
No, I did not watch the gala. I stayed up until some 3 am watching all the fluff to hear the results and then had to go after other business today.
I will watch it later, yes!!!
Click to expand...
I don't think I'll watch it, out of protestation.
By the way the Audience Prize doesn't seem to have been tampered with. Piotr Aleczewicz was first, Vincent Ong second with half less votes which is still a lot, I don't remember the third.
 
DizzyFrenchie said:
I think that Stolypin's "approved" projects were going much in this direction, without the violence? But indeed so many things weren't told and people were living their lives as they could...
The fact is (it has long struck me) that Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Prokofiev and Stravinsky, in spite of all the most physical threats and censure they endured, were the last creative greats, and that extremely few Western composers could survive composing real music, and those who did succeed in film movies probably had even less freedom of expression than USSR ones... Creative people have long been object of attempts to control by people, whom some consider to faces of the same coin, in spite of their apparent opposition. For regular people though, the Western world has long had a better life with much less fear of, for instance being perceived as less proactive in the latest internal regime change, than most people in urban USSR, from World War I to the 1980s. Even in England, children from poor background, not only were better fed than they ever had been since the Reformation (and it's not that they were great before) but also did access to university studies and careers, thanks to free Grammar Schools in particular, with subpar healthcare but still better than in USSR. In France, we would have this just better. In both countries though, general education accessible to regular people started losing their levels since World War II (in France, plan Langevin-Wallon, Langevin was the Physicist who tried to cancel young Louis de Broglie who was rescued by Einstein, aimed at preventing people from learning), but it wasn't "efficient enough" until the 1990s when methods outright preventing children from learning to read and count were implemented, only "knowing parents" teaching their children before school, perpetuating social classes and dooming most children into ignorance; while in the UK (still in Wales) the 1980s were already those of unattaining education (until the tripartite reform of around 2010, but it's now crushed). In USSR, since the October Revolution, a higher proportion of infants had "failure to thrive" symptoms preventing them to later getting profit of the education offer, not to speak of the famines or of the whole peoples displaced, half dying in the journey and the rest so malnourished too. And so on.
I think that in the USA it started later and stopped around the same period? Without ever general healthcare. But I don't know it well.
What was cruel was the way people were not only imposed new ways, of which they didn't understand the need, and which weren't always for better; but the denigration of people themselves, which I think was (is!) particularly painful in East Germany. They believed they were getting freedom, but that was just a change of lid.
Click to expand...
We are getting off topic, but I'll answer the things that are on topic. Stravinsky never returned from immigration. I think he did great, but he was envious of the popularity of Shostakovich. He is a curious character, you can study music history by his works: he worked in every genre from baroque to 20th century. I remember hearing his early piano sonata and thinking it was basically Schumann as is he studied in Russian school. One might think he hadn't developed his style, but one of his next opuses is a funny song about unsuccessful mobilization. It's really a song based on a fairy tale, but it is so both incongruously serious and silly, and yet so relevant. He is like Ilia Malinin, we'll see how Ilia fares, but Stravinsky is a genius. Shostakovich, Khachaturian and Prokofiev all had their share of trouble, no doubt. All are great composers. I don't know how they would have fared elsewhere, it's very difficult to say. Prokofiev did pretty well in Paris apparently, yet he decided to return. Why - I don't know. Rather than take my view of it, I'd read Shostakovich's Evidence, he speaks pretty openly about his experiences. Also "Letters to a friend" is a good read, it gives a different perspective. Just keep in mind that other evidence strongly suggests that Tuhachevsky was a controversial figure, but Shostakovich might not have known about all of his activities.
My favourite piece by Shostakovich strangely enough is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC60cIZpII
All sadness of the world is in this music and yet it's so lyrical. He didn't put much value into incidental music, he also didn't think much his piano concerto no.2, which I also like. He is not an easy composer. To him it might have been a way to make a little money or a graduation gift to his kid, but we are so overburdened with depressive 20th century experiments that we need to hear something comprehensible. As much as I am against any suppression of creativity, I am grateful that this music was written. Chachaturian wrote some good incidental music too, e.g. I love his music for Shakespeare plays. Tonal and comprehensible good quality, and, well, politically correct, is what the USSR establishment basically wanted from composers. Problem is there are certain laws of development, you can't have a cake and eat it, meaning a great composer can't develop unless he or she can create and have some sort of peace in their surroundings. Doesn't mean he or she will deliver, but... Classical music went along the overtone series, it's pretty clear now, they hit a wall of <1/2 tones and went into atonality, etc. I am not sure how much of this was understood by those at power. They tried to come up with a theory, I believe Asafiev tried to develop it, but it's not scientifically solid, and he didn't seem to believe in it himself.
 
Last edited:
Isk said:
We are getting off topic, but I'll answer the things that are on topic. Stravinsky never returned from immigration. I think he did great, but he was envious of the popularity of Shostakovich. He is a curious character, you can study music history by his works: he worked in every genre from baroque to 20th century. I remember hearing his early piano sonata and thinking it was basically Schumann as is he studied in Russian school. One might think he hadn't developed his style, but one of his next opuses is a funny song about unsuccessful mobilization. It's really a song based on a fairy tale, but it is so both incongruously serious and silly, and yet so relevant. He is like Ilia Malinin, we'll see how Ilia fares, but Stravinsky is a genius. Shostakovich, Khachaturian and Prokofiev all had their share of trouble, no doubt. All are great composers. I don't know how they would have fared elsewhere, it's very difficult to say. Prokofiev did pretty well in Paris apparently, yet he decided to return. Why - I don't know. Rather than take my view of it, I'd read Shostakovich's Evidence, he speaks pretty openly about his experiences. Also "Letters to a friend" is a good read, it gives a different perspective. Just keep in mind that other evidence strongly suggests that Tuhachevsky was a controversial figure, but Shostakovich might not have known about all of his activities.
My favourite piece by Shostakovich strangely enough is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC60cIZpII
He didn't put much value into incidental music, he also didn't think much his piano concerto no.2, which I also like. He is not an easy composer. To him it might have been a way to make a little money or a graduation gift to his kid, but we are so overburdened with depressive 20th century experiments that we need to hear something comprehensible. As much as I am against any suppression of creativity, I am grateful that this music was written. Chachaturian wrote some good incidental music too, e.g. I love his music for Shakespeare plays. Tonal and comprehensible good quality is what the USSR establishment basically wanted from composers. Problem is there are certain laws of development, you can't have a cake and eat it, meaning a great composer can't develop unless he or she can create, right? Doesn't mean he or she will deliver, but... Classical music went along the overtone series, it's pretty clear now, they hit a wall of <1/2 tones and went into atonality, etc. I am not sure how much of this was understood by those at power. They tried to come up with a theory, but it didn't work.
Click to expand...
That Tukhachevsky was "controversial" is an understatement. "Yet" as far as I know, he was serving unrelentingly the Soviet Army.
I confess that I know too little of the whole work of these composers (and, personally, I don't like much of Prokofiev's and Stravinsky's because of what I perceive as violence) and of their biographies, thank you for all your information! I was just meaning that composers' creativity was curbed on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and if we judge by the result, the Western world may have been more restricted than the Eastern one. Yes composers wanted to explore atonality, but globally in the West a composer had to dive into non-music in a chicken race to "modernity" for subsidies and tenures, or do incidental music with sometimes acceptable constraints but also sometimes painful ones, and certainly no less than under Soviet law (but without the fear of being sent to Gulag and family too separately if a piece would displease), or starve. As Mozart had partly done in his time of early dictatorial constraint on music.
 
DizzyFrenchie said:
That Tukhachevsky was "controversial" is an understatement. "Yet" as far as I know, he was serving unrelentingly the Soviet Army.
I confess that I know too little of the whole work of these composers (and, personally, I don't like much of Prokofiev's and Stravinsky's because of what I perceive as violence) and of their biographies, thank you for all your information! I was just meaning that composers' creativity was curbed on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and if we judge by the result, the Western world may have been more restricted than the Eastern one. Yes composers wanted to explore atonality, but globally in the West a composer had to dive into non-music in a chicken race to "modernity" for subsidies and tenures, or do incidental music with sometimes acceptable constraints but also sometimes painful ones, and certainly no less than under Soviet law (but without the fear of being sent to Gulag and family too separately if a piece would displease), or starve. As Mozart had partly done in his time of early dictatorial constraint on music.
Click to expand...
The lives of millions of people depended on Tuchachevsky's actions. He knew what he was doing, took the risk, lost and was executed. It's not a question of him wanting power for his own gain, he is not the only one who did, rather what effect it would have had on the defence ability of the rest of the country if he won. Let's put it this way: it doesn't look like it would have been positive. Yes, I think there are constraints everywhere. These are different models of the same thing. In USSR composers received salaries, also many worked as teachers, had projects, received awards, etc. The real trouble began when one became a political outcast and couldn't find a job, but mostly people had difficulties getting their stuff performed and published, which is not unheard of in other parts of the world. Speaking of constraints, it is very interesting that Shostakovich says of Meyerhold that his real tragedy was that he never got to produce Hamlet, which is a lot to say. The new Viennese school was basically banned, also until 1940, Wagner and Mahler were out of favour, but, if we look at the pre-WW2 theatre repertoire, otherwise it was quite broad actually.
I am not a fan of either composer myself. Stravinsky is considered an expressionist, musicologists have terms for everyting, but Prokofiev's style is quite unique, I don't really know who to compare him with.
 
Last edited:
This is in the case he did betray, and this is where we we diverge, although I don't have sought information recently; or rather, the only resource I thought I could ask, doesn't know.

The worldly preoccupations were different indeed.

I'm editing late, sorry. The "resource" I mentioned found that Krushtshev had destroyed all the archives when he rehabilitated Tukhachevsky, so there's very little to be certain of.
 
Last edited:
I think I posted this before…
Don’t Mess Around With Jim -
Jim Croce

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtu.be youtu.be

Our Boston based PBS daily talk show had a discussion recently about timely songs; I immediately thought of this one.. (Will see myself out now..)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
What are they doing now?
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
moonvine
moonvine
dorispulaski
2025-26 Programs By Discipline
41 42 43
Replies
859
Views
141K
dorispulaski
dorispulaski
surimi
What are you looking forward to most this season?
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
13K
Noxchild
N
A
Nebelhorn Trophy 2016 Column
Replies
0
Views
4K
Alex D
A
dorispulaski
Interview with Igor Shpilband
Replies
4
Views
5K
dorispulaski
dorispulaski
Back
Top