What's the verdict on Shostakovich's "Testimony?"
Roger F. Hane
Many years ago, Shostakovich's supposed autobiography called
"Testimony" was smuggled out of the Soviet Union. There was much debate
as to whether it was authentic. Has this question been resolved?
By the way, the movie that was made from "Testimony" was absolutely
fantastic. It's a definite must-see. But good luck finding a copy.
--
ROGER HANE
"Die Entropie der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu"
--Clausius
redrick
>
> Many years ago, Shostakovich's supposed autobiography called
>"Testimony" was smuggled out of the Soviet Union. There was much debate
>as to whether it was authentic.
While it is generally agreed that it definitely is not an
authentic "autobiography" (or "memoirs as told to Solomon
Volkov"), it fits in so well with the prejudices of most
westerners (and of many defectors & émigrés) that the desire for
it to be true is greater than the historical judgement to let it
go.
>Has this question been resolved?
For historians, yes. For fans and popular writers, no. See the
FAQ.
> By the way, the movie that was made from "Testimony" was absolutely
>fantastic. It's a definite must-see. But good luck finding a copy.
See other threads this group for a discussion of the film.
Regards, -Rick
--
red...@az.com
/ // /// ///// /////// /////////// ///////////// / // ///
Jacques Pierrat
>
>
> Many years ago, Shostakovich's supposed autobiography called
>"Testimony" was smuggled out of the Soviet Union. There was much debate
> By the way, the movie that was made from "Testimony" was absolutely
>fantastic. It's a definite must-see. But good luck finding a copy.
>ROGER HANE
>
> "Die Entropie der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu"
> --Clausius
Solomon Volkov pretended that Shostacovitch has sign every page of
the manuscripts from which the book has been made off...
Anyway, in what country could this film be found?
Merci d'avance.
Richard Landau
You can find copies of the film <Testimony> at
HMV Record Shop, 150 Oxford Street, London, W1, UK.
I picked one up yesterday. £17.50 STG.
The video is generally available in the UK.
Marketed by Connoisseur Video
Catalog No: CR 174 (VHS)
But will it play in France? (We have PAL system. French have SECAM)
I don't know the answer to that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In article <4kdrko$7...@chleuasme.francenet.fr>, Jacques Pierrat
<prkf...@MicroNet.fr> writes
--
Richard Landau
Wayne Dooley
: In article <4jskot$j...@detroit.freenet.org>, ai...@detroit.freenet.org (Roger F. Hane) says:
: >
: >
: > Many years ago, Shostakovich's supposed autobiography called
: >"Testimony" was smuggled out of the Soviet Union. There was much debate
: >as to whether it was authentic. Has this question been resolved?
: > By the way, the movie that was made from "Testimony" was absolutely
: >fantastic. It's a definite must-see. But good luck finding a copy.
: >--
: >ROGER HANE
: >
: > "Die Entropie der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu"
: > --Clausius
: Solomon Volkov pretended that Shostacovitch has sign every page of
: the manuscripts from which the book has been made off...
: Anyway, in what country could this film be found?
: Merci d'avance
--
Look for 'The New Shostakovich" by Ian MacDonald. This answers many of
the questions concerning the authenticity of Testimony. Generally,
MacDonald makes a good case for the book being authentic.
The film version of Testimony appeared in the US on PBS several years
ago, starring Ben Kingsley. British, 1987.
Wayne
p000...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
redrick
>Look for 'The New Shostakovich" by Ian MacDonald. This answers many of
>the questions concerning the authenticity of Testimony. Generally,
>MacDonald makes a good case for the book being authentic.
>The film version of Testimony appeared in the US on PBS several years
>ago, starring Ben Kingsley. British, 1987.
>
Hi Wayne,
The sources you are mentioning are very questionable. BTW, even
MacDonald himself has shied away from claiming that Testimony is
an authentic autobiography.
You will, if you stick around in alt.fan.shostakovich, no doubt
be hearing many views. There are still many unquestioning
believers in "The New Shostakovich" here. I just hope that you
will be aware that there are certainly alternatives to the
extreme and largely unsupported views in "The New Shostakovich".
Both of these popular books pander to the desire of many in the
west to see all great Soviet artists as secret anti-Soviet,
anti-communist heroes of America's "New World Order".
"Testimony" by Solomon Volkov is presented as a memoir by
Shostakovich as told to Volkov. It is neither. It is a fraud-
but a skillfully constructed fraud. It has been praised by some
former defectors with strongly anti-Soviet prejudices for it's
"true feeling". (Another phrase you will hear a lot if you stick
around in alt.fan.shostakovich.)
Ian MacDonald is a tabloid style journalist and former would-be
Beatles pundit. He presumes to analyse some of Shostakovich's
music without being able to analyse music- something akin to
applying Prof. Harold Hill's "Think System" to musicology. The
general tenor of his conclusions is that Shostakovich's music
fooled the world , east and west, for decades by all sorts of
secret expressions of anti-communism and anti-Sovietism. Such
claims are no doubt effective in boot-strapping one into brief
book-chat popularity, but gradually fade into the obscurity they
deserve, possibly leaving a small cult following behind.
I understand Ian MacDonald's next assault on fame and fortune
will be something entirely different and unrelated. Good luck to
him.
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Frankly, Redrick, your regurgitation of the same overstated mean-spirited
rhetoric about MacDonald, Volkov and all is getting boring. We get your
drift. It is possible to express the fact that you disagree with these authors
without spewing bile, however.
I revisited MacDonald's Music Under Soviet Rule Web site recently -- and I
found that most of his observations were thoughtful and temperate. You, on the
other hand, offer no evidence for your position that DSCH should again be
viewed as poster child for the Soviet system, a view that is untenable, given
the materials assembled in Wilson's biography.
There is no doubt that it would be silly to portray DSCH as a Western "liberal"
anti-communist. But I don't see that either MacDonald or Volkov paints such a
picture. Instead one sees an individual that is not terribly "political" at all,
beyond a revulsion towards a government that was often viciously repressive and
a musical bureaucracy that would have been amusing if it had not been able
to inflict such harm on its victims.
A review of DSCH's life suggests someone who was indeed initially excited by
the perceived artistic freedom and iconoclasm of the early Soviet era, but was
never terribly interested in politics as politics. There can be little serious
doubt that this enthusiasm waned when friends and associates were killed,
disappeared or otherwise destroyed. Whatever belief he had in the ideals of
"communism" in the 20s, there is no reason to assume that these survived the
terror of the 30s.
In order to survive, DSCH wrote plently of hackwork as the party-run musical
buraucracy demanded. He also signed lots of statements he was told to sign.
Where is your proof that, contrary to the memory of virtually all his friends and
close musical associates, he was a committed and devoted party man after the
1930s?
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Michael W. Sumbera
> "Testimony" by Solomon Volkov is presented as a memoir by
> Shostakovich as told to Volkov. It is neither. It is a fraud-
> but a skillfully constructed fraud. It has been praised by some
> former defectors with strongly anti-Soviet prejudices for it's
> "true feeling". (Another phrase you will hear a lot if you stick
> around in alt.fan.shostakovich.)
Could yo explain just how _Testimony_ has been proven a fraud? I've seen
this statement bandied about so much, that I wonder what its basis is. If
this is in the FAQ, my apologies.
I'm not here questioning whether _Testimony_ is or is not what it claims
to be, rather asking for a summary of the argument against it. It seems
like a reasonable discussion for this thread, but I haven't seen aything
related to it. Of course, it could have just slipped past my ISP....
Mws
--
Michael W. Sumbera sum...@panix.com
Doctoral student, Musicology, CUNY-Graduate School
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams. -- Roald Dahl
Instruments do not play music, people do. -- Richard Taruskin (pace NRA)
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>Frankly, Redrick, your regurgitation of the same overstated mean-spirited
>rhetoric about MacDonald, Volkov and all is getting boring.
Frankly, Michael, considering your anti-Soviet prejudices
expressed in alt.fan.shostakovich it is not strange that you
should come out defending these "everybody was a secret
anti-communist" frauds and fantasies.
If you find my posts boring than don't read them. The arguments
you make in reply have been better stated by others and long
since refuted. You apparently did not notice that the
correspondent to which I was replying had obviously not been
following the long debate in a.f.s., nor that it (and your reply,
BTW) was cross-posted to rec.music.classical, to which the
information is new.
>A review of DSCH's life suggests...
Well excuse me all to hell if I don't accept as evidence what
*your* "review of DSCH's life suggests". As you have asserted
elsewhere in a.f.s. that such a review by any of
us who happen to disagree with your political views is invalid,
perhaps we'll return the favor.
>In order to survive, DSCH wrote plently of hackwork
Meaning anything you haven't yet been able to fantasize as being
secretly anti-communist.
>Where is your proof
Symphonies 7, 11, 12 to start. But I suppose they're just
"hackwork".
Neil Tingley
In article <4lmm57$34...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, "Michael E. Kerpan,
Jr." <ker...@ibm.net> writes
>In order to survive, DSCH wrote plently of hackwork as the party-run musical
^^^^^^^
>buraucracy demanded. He also signed lots of statements he was told to sign.
>Where is your proof that, contrary to the memory of virtually all his friends
>and
>close musical associates, he was a committed and devoted party man after the
>1930s?
Exactly. We are not talking about artistic or spiritual survival here,
it was literally a matter of life or death. Considering Stalin butchered
30 million of his fellow countrymen, DSCH had every right to terrifyed
out of his mind. His life was controlled by the need for politicians to
control his musical sole. He was too powerful a figure to be left to his
own devices.
I suggest you read Galina Vishnevskaya's autobiography. There's surely
no more harrowing account of musical life under communism ever written.
DSCH was not interested in politics, only music. The fact that he lived
in fear of his life for twenty years under Stalin, and had to obligingly
repress his own exhuberant style, and write within very strictly defined
parameters could hardly have endeared him towards the regime. Very
quickly he saw the monster, was dictated to by unmusical, halfwitted,
power crazy beaurocrats and lived his life side-stepping every potential
brush with the authorities. The tragedy of communism in Russian musical
life was that if one wasn't prepared to bow to every whim of the ruling
elite you were in danger of being sidelined completely. DSCH and
Prokofiev were banned from concert halls and opera houses at the whims
of the politcal thought masters. Only the fact that they were capable of
arousing the deepest love and reverence of the Russian musical public
kept them from the gulags.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Tingley Furtwaengler FAQ from r.m.c.r contributers at:
ne...@music.demon.co.uk http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/music/ & links to
London, UK Glenn Gould and others "more about me" menu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
In <Q6D$JmAaJQ...@music.demon.co.uk>, Neil Tingley <ne...@music.demon.co.uk> writes:>Exactly. We are not talking about artistic or spiritual survival here,
>I suggest you read Galina Vishnevskaya's autobiography. There's surely
>no more harrowing account of musical life under communism ever written.
I have read it -- at least all the pages that mention DSCH. <g>
>DSCH was not interested in politics, only music. The fact that he lived
>in fear of his life for twenty years under Stalin, and had to obligingly
>repress his own exhuberant style, and write within very strictly defined
>parameters could hardly have endeared him towards the regime. Very
>quickly he saw the monster, was dictated to by unmusical, halfwitted,
>power crazy beaurocrats and lived his life side-stepping every potential
>brush with the authorities. The tragedy of communism in Russian musical
>life was that if one wasn't prepared to bow to every whim of the ruling
>elite you were in danger of being sidelined completely. DSCH and
>Prokofiev were banned from concert halls and opera houses at the whims
>of the politcal thought masters. Only the fact that they were capable of
>arousing the deepest love and reverence of the Russian musical public
I don't think most of the harm done to DSCH and other honest musicians after the
30s was primarily "political" -- unless perhaps one happened to be Jewish.
What I think one sees by the late 40s and 50s are entrenched, self-seeking
bureaucrats with minor talents using "politics" to feather their own nests and
protect themselves from great musicians -- like DSCH and Prokofiev. Of course,
by the 40s, DSCH had already been permanently scarred as a person and a
musician.
To add insult to injury, the West began writing off DSCH as a political hack
who wrote out-of-fashion music -- by the 50s. T
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
redrick
sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
>Could yo explain just how _Testimony_ has been proven a fraud? I've seen
>this statement bandied about so much, that I wonder what its basis is. If
>this is in the FAQ, my apologies.
>
Volkov did not have access to DS as he claimed. Also, the
signatures of DS that he had laboriously managed to get onto
pages turned out to be from other documents.
I note you quoted Richard Taruskin in your sig. I believe he had
an article on this in the DSCH Journal.
Regards, -Rick
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
>Frankly, Michael, considering your anti-Soviet prejudices
>expressed in alt.fan.shostakovich it is not strange that you
>should come out defending these "everybody was a secret
>anti-communist" frauds and fantasies.
Please explain why anyone should be pro-Soviet when it comes to that system's
treatment of artists, musicians and writers from the 30s onwards.
>If you find my posts boring than don't read them. The arguments
>you make in reply have been better stated by others and long
>since refuted. You apparently did not notice that the
>correspondent to which I was replying had obviously not been
>following the long debate in a.f.s., nor that it (and your reply,
>BTW) was cross-posted to rec.music.classical, to which the
>information is new.
I apologize for cross-posting. Are you capable of responding to
something with which you disagree with without being nasty and offensive.
>>A review of DSCH's life suggests...
>
>Well excuse me all to hell if I don't accept as evidence what
>*your* "review of DSCH's life suggests". As you have asserted
>elsewhere in a.f.s. that such a review by any of
>us who happen to disagree with your political views is invalid,
>perhaps we'll return the favor.
Up until this point I have not bothered to argue with you. Hoping vainly, that
after you had said your piece, you would settle down. You don't have any idea
of what my political ideas are -- and I don't think they are relevant to this
forum. I am not suggesting that you accept my personal opinions as facts.
There is plenty of documentation as to the bare facts of DSCH's life. Moreover,
I think that the recollections of DSCH's close friends and associates as to what
he thought and felt are entitled to considerable weight.
>>In order to survive, DSCH wrote plently of hackwork
>
>Meaning anything you haven't yet been able to fantasize as being
>secretly anti-communist.
Are you nutty? What do my politics have to do with this? How many DSCH
film scores have you listened to? How many patriotic cantatas? Do you
seriously suggest that these pot-boilers are equivalent to the chamber works,
major song cycles or symphonies. The pot-boilers were not only economically
necessary, they were politically mandatory.
>>Where is your proof
>
>Symphonies 7, 11, 12 to start. But I suppose they're just "hackwork".
I very much appreciate these symphonies, even the much-reviled 12th.
Do you really believe that the official "programs" of these works offer
conclusive contradiction of the recollections of almost everyone who knew
DSCH well. I think that unbiased listening to the music itself shows that the
"programs" are pretty much window dressing for bureaucratic consumption. It
seems clear to me that you have no evidence beyond DSCH's public
pronouncements (which many witnesses attest were usually written for him
by party writers) for your belief that he was a totally committed party man.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Michael W. Sumbera
red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
> sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
>
> >Could yo explain just how _Testimony_ has been proven a fraud? I've seen
> >this statement bandied about so much, that I wonder what its basis is. If
> >this is in the FAQ, my apologies.
> >
> Volkov did not have access to DS as he claimed. Also, the
> signatures of DS that he had laboriously managed to get onto
> pages turned out to be from other documents.
>
> I note you quoted Richard Taruskin in your sig. I believe he had
> an article on this in the DSCH Journal.
I haven't seen Taruskin writing on this specific subject, but then, I've
never seen an issue of the DSch Journal, either... I'm trying to track
down a copy as I thoroughly enjoy reading Dr. Taruskin's work. Even when
I disagree with him, his ideas are always provocative (I cannot wait for
his upcoming Stravinsky book). If anyone can send me a copy or full
citation of this article, please do.
I've heard comments about Shostakovich's signatures on the first page of
each chapter being questioned, but I've never seen comments reputing
Volkov's access to Shostakovich. In fact, access to the "author" was one
of the comments I've seen in support of _Testimony_'s veracity.
However, from what you said, and my own familiarity with the discussion,
does that PROVE that Volkov faked the book (or substantial protions
thereof), or does it merely call it into question? As most writers I've
seen credit it, the Volkov is provoative, but must be taken with a grain
of salt.
Hence my question if you knew of something that categorically shows
that it cannot be accurate. Without that, I don't think the book warrents
more consideration than you give it, but what is know also means it cannot
be accepted as is.
Michael
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>To add insult to injury, the West began writing off DSCH as a political hack
>who wrote out-of-fashion music -- by the 50s. T
>
The greatest irony is that Soviet music (of all things) is
enjoying a comeback because right-wingers (a.) prefer their
fantasies of secret anti-communism in Soviet composers to the
left-wing stance of most Western composers, and (b.) thanks to
Socialist Realism, the music is simple enough so that even they
can understand it.
Cheers, -Rick
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
>The greatest irony is that Soviet music (of all things) is
>enjoying a comeback because right-wingers (a.) prefer their
>fantasies of secret anti-communism in Soviet composers to the
>left-wing stance of most Western composers, and (b.) thanks to
>Socialist Realism, the music is simple enough so that even they
>can understand it.
I am not aware that DSCH is a particular favorite of right-wing politicians
or groups. DSCH is important because he is someone who coped heroically
(as much as any mere mortal could) with totalitarian repression and yet
remained true to his own vision. I dont think DSCH's independence of vision
is any more attractive to right-wing thugs than to left-wing ones.
Virtually nothing DSCH wrote, aside from scores to propaganda films and such
like, can be categorized as socialist realism. The pillars of socialist realism
in music like Khrennikov were not friends or fans or students of DSCH. I am not
aware of any great demand in the west for work by Khrennikov and his buddies,
simple as it may be.
Some Americans were blind to the value of DSCH's music largely due to his
musical incorrectness. He did not write stuff that passed muster with
America's academicians (so to speak). So he was not "respected." His
presumed political posture simply made it easier to consign him to
unimportance. In terms of concert popularity, he was still too far "advanced"
for most people. Not until Mahler became part of everyone's steady concert
hall diet, did DSCH's musical language seem safe enough for season ticket
subscribers (though people still complain about the "worthless noise" of Bartok,
DSCH et al in recent ASO seasons.)
It is always exciting to discover that an artistic figure has additional layers
of complexity and depth. It just so happens that in this case, the simplistic
(and routinely accepted) picture of DSCH was that he was a Soviet musical
ideologue. I dont think many DSCH fans are obsessed by politics, only by
trying to learn more about the who, what and why of DSCH.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>Please explain why anyone should be pro-Soviet
Because it was their country and it was fighting against worse
things (Nazism, Fascism).
>after you had said your piece, you would settle down. You don't have any idea
>of what my political ideas are
On the Contrary, you have already stated yourself as violently
anti-Soviet. Also that your opinions are based solely on the
opinions of others who are anti-Soviet. You have stated that
anyone who is not anti-Soviet should be disqualified from writing
on the subject.
>I think that unbiased listening to the music itself shows that the
>"programs" are pretty much window dressing for bureaucratic consumption.
Given the above, what could you possibly know about unbiased
listening?
You certainly have as much right to your opinions as I do to
mine, Michael. But your opinions do not have precedence as being
"unbiased" simply because they follow the line of current Western
propaganda.
-Rick
"Lenin was the greatest man of our very complicated times."
-Dimitri Shostakovich, 1959.
Simon Hawkin
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:21:12 GMT,
red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
*> "Testimony" by Solomon Volkov is presented as a memoir by
*> Shostakovich as told to Volkov.
By Volkov. Most likely, it is not; it reads as a nice collection
of anecdotes, some more "authentic", some less. The way Maksim
Shostakovich put it, "there is a ring of truth to it" (did he
say it in English?) -- good enough for samizdat, but not good
enough as an academical source.
*> It has been praised by some
*> former defectors with strongly anti-Soviet prejudices for it's
*> "true feeling".
There is a Russian word "durak" which can be properly translated
as "fool" in English. When you read redrick's articles in this
group, you should keep in mind that redrick is our local durak,
the fool of our village. I do insist on name-calling here. There
are several reasons for that: one is his own name calling, like:
*> Ian MacDonald is a tabloid style journalist and former would-be
*> Beatles pundit.
Another is his deep, 60s-style leftish misunderstanding of the
Soviet life, which sounds strange even for many westerners and
particularly ridiculous for those who lived in the Soviet Union.
Which is sad, considering redrick's apparent serious musical
expertise. But not surprising.
Simon
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>It just so happens that in this case, the simplistic
>(and routinely accepted) picture of DSCH was that he was a Soviet musical
>ideologue.
This is more fantasy. I have played Shostakovich's music with
people of various generations and nationalities since the '50s
and never encountered that view. Where have you read or heard
that Shostakovich was regarded as a Soviet musical ideologue? Or
is it again that you regard anyone that isn't pro-American as a
Soviet ideologue?
OTOH, *since* his death we do get frauds like "Testimony"
claiming that he was a secret pro-American ideologue.
Alan Rubin
red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>To add insult to injury, the West began writing off DSCH as a political hack
>>who wrote out-of-fashion music -- by the 50s. T
>>
>The greatest irony is that Soviet music (of all things) is
>enjoying a comeback because right-wingers (a.) prefer their
>fantasies of secret anti-communism in Soviet composers to the
>left-wing stance of most Western composers, and (b.) thanks to
>Socialist Realism, the music is simple enough so that even they
>can understand it.
>
I hope there was supposed to be smiley on that.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Rubin aru...@cix.compulink.co.uk
al...@rubin.compulink.co.uk
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~rubin/welcome.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick TJ McPhee
In article <3186f89...@news2.az.com>, redrick <red...@az.com> wrote:
% OTOH, *since* his death we do get frauds like "Testimony"
% claiming that he was a secret pro-American ideologue.
Testimony makes no such claim. Shostakovich is portrayed as anti-Western.
--
Patrick TJ McPhee
Toronto Canada
pt...@io.org
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
In <3186f89...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>(and routinely accepted) picture of DSCH was that he was a Soviet musical
>>ideologue.
>
>This is more fantasy. I have played Shostakovich's music with
>people of various generations and nationalities since the '50s
>and never encountered that view. Where have you read or heard
>that Shostakovich was regarded as a Soviet musical ideologue? Or
>is it again that you regard anyone that isn't pro-American as a
>Soviet ideologue?
You have a very active fantasy life as to what other peoples' political
viewpoints are. Can you imagine that someone might be opposed to the former
Soviet system because they oppose all authoritarian and repressive regimes,
whether on the right or the left.
As to the "common" perception of Shostakovich, all I can say is that
contemporaneous newspaper articles, reviews, etc. tended to have a bit
of a negative or dismissive air -- often with a passing mention of his
being a devoted Soviet spokesman. Obviously, some people like Ormandy
played DSCH because he liked the music a lot. Bernstein's championship,
OTOH, just reinforced the "leftist" picture of DSCH -- not a good thing
in places like Tulsa, Oklahoma (and other such places in Middle America).
Michaerl Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
In <3185a90...@news.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>
>
>Because it was their country and it was fighting against worse
>things (Nazism, Fascism).
>
Granting the relevance of this position in the early to mid-40s, what does this
have to do with DSCH's position after the war. Moreover, could DSCH not have
been pro-Russian and anti-Nazi without being pro-Soviet.
>>after you had said your piece, you would settle down. You don't have any idea
>>of what my political ideas are
>
>On the Contrary, you have already stated yourself as violently
>anti-Soviet. Also that your opinions are based solely on the
>opinions of others who are anti-Soviet. You have stated that
>anyone who is not anti-Soviet should be disqualified from writing
>on the subject.
You really fantasize a lot. My opinion on what DSCH thought is based
on the recollections of people who knew him well and were in a position
to know. The fact that most of these people were "anti-Soviet" might
tell you how DSCH felt, even if we did not have the specific recollections
that have become available.
Neither I nor, so far as I am aware, anyone else in AFS has suggested that
_anyone_ has no right to think or say what they want. I do reserve the right
to discount the opinions of people who do not seem reliable sources of
information or analysis. I also think that whatever one's opinions are they
can be voiced respectfully and civilly.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Simon Hawkin
Hi,
On 30 Apr 1996 01:17:15 GMT,
ker...@ibm.net wrote:
*> DSCH is important because he is someone who coped heroically
*> (as much as any mere mortal could) with totalitarian repression and yet
*> remained true to his own vision.
Well... DSCH is important because he was a good composer. There
are lessons we can learn from his life, but he will remain first
and foremost as one of the best (classical) composers of this
century.
*> Virtually nothing DSCH wrote <...>
*> can be categorized as socialist realism.
Nothing at all "can be categorized as socialist realism". S.r.
is an empty term, a label to mark loyal authors, composers,
artists, whatever. Repeat after me: there is no such thing as
socialist realism. There is no such thing as socialist realism.
There is no such thing as socialist realism. :-) Doesn't work, I
know.
*> I dont think many DSCH fans are obsessed by politics, only by
*> trying to learn more about the who, what and why of DSCH.
This is true. Still, there is a greater message, about the
artist and the society, or the artist and the tyrant.
Cheers,
Simon
Simon Hawkin
Hi,
On Wed, 01 May 1996 05:48:03 GMT,
red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
*> OTOH, *since* his death we do get frauds like "Testimony"
*> claiming that he was a secret pro-American ideologue.
What? The "Testimony" has many strange things, but, AFAIR,
Volkov has never claimed anything like this. That DSCH was
"pro-American ideologue"? G-d forbid. How could he be one?
Simon
Egalitz
In article <4m6g1j$f...@hoho.cs.umd.edu>, ce...@cs.umd.edu (Simon Hawkin)
writes:
>
>There is a Russian word "durak" which can be properly translated
>as "fool" in English. When you read redrick's articles in this
>group, you should keep in mind that redrick is our local durak,
>the fool of our village. I do insist on name-calling here. There
>are several reasons for that: one is his own name calling, like:
This is an insult to the Russian cultural tradition. In Russia the durak
is an innocent fool, who is a transmitter of a truth outside of his own
being (see Boris Godunov, really by DSCH). Redrick is not a durak in the
traditional sense, as he is not innocent and he has a private purpose to
his argument.
Now I am really pissed in Miami, Earl.
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
> My opinion on what DSCH thought is based
>on the recollections of people who knew him well and were in a position
>to know. The fact that most of these people were "anti-Soviet" might
>tell you
You use sources that are restricted to these people and then
assume that they represent all people who knew DS. Very
scholarly.
redrick
ce...@cs.umd.edu (Simon Hawkin) wrote:
>one is his own name calling, like:
>
>*> Ian MacDonald is a tabloid style journalist and former would-be
>*> Beatles pundit.
>
This is not name calling, but an accurate description.
>Another is his deep, 60s-style leftish misunderstanding of the
>Soviet life, which sounds strange even for many westerners and
>particularly ridiculous for those who lived in the Soviet Union.
>
Again, Mr. Hawkin insists he is the spokesperson for all former
Soviets, and that his assertions are to be accepted without
evidence or logic.
I have not pretended to any particular understanding of Soviet
life, merely to point out that Testimony is *not* a memoir, as
Mr. Hawkin agrees.
Cheers, -Rick
redrick
Hi Earl,
Is that pissed in the American or British sense. I'm for the
latter.
ega...@aol.com (Egalitz) wrote:
My purpose still seems private? Could you give me a clue on how
I might make it more public? :>
I'm glad that someone else is noting that Simon's assumed
expertise on all things Russian is a bit thin. I wonder if
Stalin/Boris ever had nightmares of The False Dmitri ("Stoh...but
that march...what does it *mean*?"). Only the Fool knew what the
False Dmitri really meant.
BTW the "innocent fool" is of course present in other mythologies
as well, i.e., Parsifal- "der reine Tor".
You mean Boris Godunov that was really by Rimsky-Korsakov was
really really by DSCH? Of course! Another drawer-Stalin-satire!
But the modest guy they gave the credit to was better than any of
them at getting...
>really pissed
>in Miami, Earl.
Cheers, -Rick
Michael W. Sumbera
> I have not pretended to any particular understanding of Soviet
> life, merely to point out that Testimony is *not* a memoir, as
> Mr. Hawkin agrees.
The catch is that a more accurate statement is that it *might not* be a
memoir. You haven't yet produced the smoking gun. It's authenticity is
only questionable, not obliterated. As with so many other statements
attributed to Shostakovich, you can't be sure one way or the other who
wrote it, or how much he concurred with what he is said to have said.
James Twiss
In article <4marcc$n...@hoho.cs.umd.edu>, Simon Hawkin <ce...@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>Nothing at all "can be categorized as socialist realism". S.r.
>is an empty term, a label to mark loyal authors, composers,
>artists, whatever. Repeat after me: there is no such thing as
>socialist realism. There is no such thing as socialist realism.
>There is no such thing as socialist realism. :-) Doesn't work, I
>know.
I agree that the Soviets lumped a great deal of real art under the label
of Socialist Realism, but that doesn't mean that SR didn't exist at
all...Socialist Realism is (as the name says) a style that attempts to
depict realistically historical scenes or individuals engaged in the
heroic construction of socialism.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single GOOD piece of SR, but
much schlock comes to mind. Virtually every painting shown under
Stalinism was SR, as were the works of our hero Aleksei Tolstoy, and
quite a few others. Obviously, realism is more elusive in music, but such
immortal classics as Gliere's "Heroic March for the Buryat-Mongolian
ASSR" come to mind.
Jamie
Patrick TJ McPhee
In article <4mfkno$e...@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>,
James Twiss <tw...@fas.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:
% Socialist Realism is (as the name says) a style that attempts to
% depict realistically historical scenes or individuals engaged in the
% heroic construction of socialism.
Socialist Realism reminds me most of the sort of bad paintings you find
in corporate art collections. I suppose the same mentality that drives,
eg, oil companies' patronage of the arts also drove the Soviet state.
redrick
al...@rubin.compulink.co.uk (Alan Rubin) wrote:
>red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>
>>The greatest irony is that Soviet music (of all things) is
>>enjoying a comeback because right-wingers (a.) prefer their
>>fantasies of secret anti-communism in Soviet composers to the
>>left-wing stance of most Western composers, and (b.) thanks to
>>Socialist Realism, the music is simple enough so that even they
>>can understand it.
>>
>I hope there was supposed to be smiley on that.
Nope. I said it was a great irony. Other than that, I always
smile when telling a truth.
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
>ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>> My opinion on what DSCH thought is based
>>on the recollections of people who knew him well and were in a position
>>to know. The fact that most of these people were "anti-Soviet" might
>>tell you
>
>You use sources that are restricted to these people and then
>assume that they represent all people who knew DS. Very
>scholarly.
You have been asked over and over to identify your contrary sources of
authoritative information. Instead of answering, you insult people and
take various cheap shots. Put up -- or shut up.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Alan Rubin
red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>al...@rubin.compulink.co.uk (Alan Rubin) wrote:
>
>>red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>>
>>>The greatest irony is that Soviet music (of all things) is
>>>enjoying a comeback because right-wingers (a.) prefer their
>>>fantasies of secret anti-communism in Soviet composers to the
>>>left-wing stance of most Western composers, and (b.) thanks to
>>>Socialist Realism, the music is simple enough so that even they
>>>can understand it.
>>>
>>I hope there was supposed to be smiley on that.
>
>Nope. I said it was a great irony. Other than that, I always
>smile when telling a truth.
>
So you really believe (b)?
:-0
Simon Hawkin
Hi,
On 3 May 1996 12:48:51 -0400,
ega...@aol.com (Egalitz) wrote:
*> >There is a Russian word "durak" which can be properly translated
*> >as "fool" in English.
*>
*> This is an insult to the Russian cultural tradition. In Russia the durak
*> is an innocent fool, who is a transmitter of a truth outside of his own
*> being (see Boris Godunov, really by DSCH).
I am glad you remembered this. :-)
*> Redrick is not a durak in the
*> traditional sense, as he is not innocent and he has a private purpose to
*> his argument.
I tend to disagree. He seems to be rather innocent, in a sense.
As for the private purpose, well, if you remember the Russian
folkstales about fools, you may find they were not so simple.
(Just like Enlish fools.)
Simon
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>
>You have been asked over and over to identify your contrary sources of
>authoritative information.
About what? What do you need a reference for? Why not as a
specific question instead of these broad, defensive, meaningless
accusations?
Michael W. Sumbera
> ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
> >
> >You have been asked over and over to identify your contrary sources of
> >authoritative information.
>
> About what? What do you need a reference for? Why not as a
> specific question instead of these broad, defensive, meaningless
> accusations?
Ask a specific question? I did, and got a vague, non-informative answer.
Why do we need a reference? Because you have repeatedly said
_Testimony_ has been proved a fraud. Yet when asked about where that
determination has been said, you have (for all practical purposes) no
response.
Those are very particular claims, so obviously some of the readers here
would like to check for themselves, weigh the arguments presented and
determine which is most convincing. If you can't cite where your
determination is supported (and who is it that argues most about lack of
scholarly support, or unscholarly reasoning?), then it seems obvious that
your whole discussion is based on just as much faith as those who support
_Testimony_.
Michael
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
>ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>>
>>You have been asked over and over to identify your contrary sources of
>>authoritative information.
>
>About what? What do you need a reference for? Why not as a
>specific question instead of these broad, defensive, meaningless
>accusations?
>
>-Rick
>
If you had been paying attention, you would have noted that my request for
particulars related to a very specific context. I pointed out that Wilson's book
makes it very clear that DSCH did not "mean" much of the of the official
propaganda statements that were attributed to him. This is attested to by
his friends and close associates. These sources say that the articles were
ghost written and that DSCH did not even read them. When forced to deliver
these orally, his style was so inept as to suggest that he was just reading an
obligatory script. Close associates also attest to his extreme degree of
disaffection from the Soviet government and musical bureaucracy.
When first asked where was your evidence that, contrary to these sources,
DSCH was, in fact, a committed member of the Soviet Communist party, you
cited only the 7th, 11th and 12th Symphonies. When I expressed the opinion
that the music was ambiguous and could be interpreted as not necessarily
consistent with the obligatory official programs, you became offensive. I then
repeated my request for the evidence which supported your dismissal of virtually
all the friends and associates of DSCH who have "testified" on this topic as
liars.
You persist in substituting namecalling for any sort of good faith discussion of this
topic.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
redrick
al...@rubin.compulink.co.uk (Alan Rubin) wrote:
>red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>
>>al...@rubin.compulink.co.uk (Alan Rubin) wrote:
>>
>>>red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The greatest irony is that Soviet music (of all things) is
>>>>enjoying a comeback because right-wingers (a.) prefer their
>>>>fantasies of secret anti-communism in Soviet composers to the
>>>>left-wing stance of most Western composers, and (b.) thanks to
>>>>Socialist Realism, the music is simple enough so that even they
>>>>can understand it.
>>>>
>>>I hope there was supposed to be smiley on that.
>>
>>Nope. I said it was a great irony. Other than that, I always
>>smile when telling a truth.
>>
>So you really believe (b)?
>
Yes. DS's music is more approachable than it would have been
without government pressure. And right-wingers of today share
with Stalinists a simple-minded view of the arts.
If you don't believe this, listen to the first part of the 2nd
symphony and imagine where this composer would have gone on his
own. Then listen to the first part of the 3rd Symphony, written
after he was criticized for not writing "Proletarian" enough.
Of course, you may want to argue about the term "Socialist
Realism" but please let's don't. If the bureaucrats that
invented the term knew what it meant they certainly weren't able
to express it in a way that would make sense to any musician.
(But then neither does much of today's "analysis" of DS's music
by non-musicians.) I use the term as it's meaning is generally
perceived- more approachable (tonal, not-too-dissonant, melodic),
and, if at all programmatic, supportive of the regime in power.
BTW, the view that artist's (especially if government supported)
ought to create works that can be understood by the "common
folks", that do not offend against communally held beliefs, and
that "honor rather than tear down our country" is still being
expressed today in the West, but not by the Left.
Cheers, -Rick
redrick
sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
> Because you have repeatedly said
>_Testimony_ has been proved a fraud.
Excuse me. I didn't think there was anybody that still thought
DS wrote Testimony. Laurel Fay first showed it to be a
fabrication a decade ago. While there has been a lot of carping
about Fay from neo-McCarthyites who seem to want her blacklisted,
I'm aware of nobody (except you) that believes Testimony is an
authentic memoir. Even MacDonald admits this, calling it "to be
fiction based on truth."
That last quote is from this group's FAQ. Is that an easy enough
reference for you?
Your sig identifies you as student of musicology? Why not ask
your advisor if he/she would advise citing "Testimony" as the
sole support for an assertion in a paper or dissertation?
BTW, one of the ironies of all this is that even the more extreme
theorists like MacDonald have to sidle away from Volkov because
it is inconsistent with some other opportunists like Lebedinsky
and (as Alan Rubin pointed out in a recent post) Basner. See
their screeds in the Wilson and compare to the Volkov.
Hiroyuki Tanaka
In article <sumbera-0405...@sumbera.dialup.access.net>, sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
-> In article <318abfec...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
->
-> > I have not pretended to any particular understanding of Soviet
-> > life, merely to point out that Testimony is *not* a memoir, as
-> > Mr. Hawkin agrees.
->
-> The catch is that a more accurate statement is that it *might not* be a
-> memoir. You haven't yet produced the smoking gun. It's authenticity is
-> only questionable, not obliterated.
I don't have any first degree material on hand, so correct me where I'm wrong.
(My books are all in Japanese, you see ....)
As far as I heard about the Testimony, the only reason it was ever considered
as a memoir of Shostakovich, and not a novel by Volkov, was that there were
Shostakovich's signatures on the first page of each chapter.
It DOES look convincing, but ....
I've also read about Laurel Fay's work, which showed that 7 out of 8 chapters'
first page were not original; they were (clearly) rewritten from previous Russian
publications. And on those "rewriten" pages were Shostakovich's sigatures.
(Sorry, I confess I haven't read Fay's original paper ;-p )
['Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose Testimony?',
The Russian Review, vol.39, no.4, october 1980, pp.484-493]
(Check it out if you can, and please post what any of you think of it.)
Unfortunately, I have not read MacDonald's "The New Shostakovich",
so I don't know what he has to say about Fay's paper ;-)
Considering the above, I would say there is NO proof as to its authenticity.
The book may be true, I feel there is some truth in it, but Volkov's honesty is highly
questionable. (Why do you have to throw in previous newspaper and magazine
articles into a "memoir"? Many portions of the book can be traced to its original in
such articles, and no words from Volkov of having rewritten those articles.)
So, I ditto Mr.Redrick's remark, that "Testimony is *not* a memoir".
--
Hiroyuki Tanaka dmi...@leo.bekkoame.or.jp
Representation and Culture
University of Tokyo
Richard A. Muirden
red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>>*> Ian MacDonald is a tabloid style journalist and former would-be
>>*> Beatles pundit.
>>
>This is not name calling, but an accurate description.
not quite. it is YOUR OPINION and is stated in such a way as to be
name calling.
If someone calls you, redrick, a rabble-rousing anonymous flame-bait
spewing news poster, you would certainly take that as name calling,
but it, too, is descriptive.
silly argument.
>>Another is his deep, 60s-style leftish misunderstanding of the
>>Soviet life, which sounds strange even for many westerners and
>>particularly ridiculous for those who lived in the Soviet Union.
>>
>Again, Mr. Hawkin insists he is the spokesperson for all former
>Soviets, and that his assertions are to be accepted without
>evidence or logic.
I have never seen Simon claim any such thing. Perhaps you are making
that inference from what he says. I take his words to mean "I was
there and I think I know more than anyone here who has not lived
in the Soviet Union what it was *like* to *live* in the Soviet
Union" I am sure he also has many friends who would share his thoughts
which is why he will make comments along the lines of "anyone who was
there would think this..." To me that is NOT being the spokesman for
all former Soviets. I do wish you would not keep reading such things
into people's words. But then again at first you thought I worked
for Boeing. Sorry, I turned that job offer down.
(just as well really, then I'd be in Seattle, and there seems to
be lots of interestingly other unpleasant people in that area, as
well as the wonderful ones, but that is a personal digression)
-richard
--
Richard A. Muirden, Systems & Network Administration / Webmaster / Fanatic :)
RMIT Information Technology Services (ITS) *UNIX* email: ric...@rmit.edu.au
I like: Boeing, United(UA), Ansett(AN), Vodka, Trek, 'phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814
Shostakovich. Shost CD's I own: 126. Web: http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard
James Twiss
In article <31904321...@news2.az.com>, redrick <red...@az.com> wrote:
>Yes. DS's music is more approachable than it would have been
>without government pressure. And right-wingers of today share
>with Stalinists a simple-minded view of the arts.
This assertion about the artistic sensibilities of the right is somewhat
accurate when one defines "right-wingers" as lunatic-fringe populists who
think culture is run by effete Eastern urbanites. It is a groundless
smear when one defines "right-wingers" as anyone who disliked the results of
the Soviet experiment. Which definition are you using, redrick?
Jamie
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>I pointed out that Wilson's book
>makes it very clear that DSCH did not "mean" much of the of the official
>propaganda statements that were attributed to him. This is attested to by
>his friends and close associates.
No, a *few* (in fact it's mostly all Lebedinsky, the two-faced
hanger-on that Irina finally managed to eject from the DS milieu
in the early '60s) of the associates (many not so close as they
claim) attest this about *some* statements. And I have never
said I believe *all* public statements attributed to DS,
especially during the Stalin regime.
As Wilson herself makes very clear, you need to beware of this
kind of gross generalization and extreme representation. You are
talking about people who Wilson chose to/was able to talk to in
the fraught 1988-90 period (as Wilson puts it "a time of
excitement and confusion) and edited together to support her own
assertions.
The remarkably consistent thing is everyone seems to describe a
Shostakovich whose politics mirror his or her own. This does not
necessarily mean that any or all of them are lying. Perhaps this
was an impression that DS intentionally projected.
>These sources say
>virtually
>all the friends and associates of DSCH
Again, every assertion to be found in the Wilson is not what
"these sources" (meaning all of her sources) say. And her
particular sources certainly do not represent "virtually all the
friends and associates of DSCH".
-Rick
"Lenin was the greatest man of our very complicated times."
-Dimitri Shostakovich, 1959.
redrick
sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
>In article <dmitri-0805...@leo.bekkoame.or.jp>,
>dmi...@leo.bekkoame.or.jp (Hiroyuki Tanaka) wrote:
>
>> Considering the above, I would say there is NO proof as to its authenticity.
>
>Nope, wouldn't argue that there is, but my whole point is that you
>basically can't be positive one way or the other.
'Hate to mention it again, but, ever hear of Occam's Razor?
>> So, I ditto Mr.Redrick's remark, that "Testimony is *not* a memoir".
>
>Assuming that the only definition of "memoir" we are working with here is
>that of autobiography, then I would never argue that it is. However,
>memoir covers a broader definition than that. Thinking of it as a
>narrative composed from personal experience, then we might be dealing with
>a poorly sub-titled book, better sub-titled as "A Memoir of Dmitri
>Shotakovich."
Oh, come on! This from a "doctoral student"? Volkov clearly
titles the book as "by Dmitri Shostakovich". Volkov deliberately
forged the signature on the first pages of chapters. This is
deliberate falsification of source material- lying about history.
A book that starts out with a big lie does not engender great
confidence in its further content. And you suggest we should
give it the benefit of the doubt?
Richard A. Muirden
red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>About what? What do you need a reference for? Why not as a
>specific question instead of these broad, defensive, meaningless
>accusations?
funny. some would say that this is what you seem to specialise in.
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>In <3190399d...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>
>>Excuse me. I didn't think there was anybody that still thought
>>DS wrote Testimony. Laurel Fay first showed it to be a
>>fabrication a decade ago. While there has been a lot of carping
>>about Fay from neo-McCarthyites who seem to want her blacklisted...
>
>Neo-McCarthyites?
>
(snip long paranoid screed)
Well. :> Methinks he protesteth one whole hellova lot. If Mr.
Kerpan is so innocent then it's interesting that he immediately
jumps in and identifies himself as one of the latter-day
tailgunners I mention.
Here's his original denunciation of Fay: (a distinguished
worker, BTW, without who's scholarship we would still all be
believing Volkov's "Testimony" was written by Shostakovich! This
act of truth-telling is probably the real crime the
"neo-McCarthyites" are after her for. ...I'm hoping Mr. Kerpan
will again take the bait here...)
This is from the thread "Origins of 'From Jewish Poetry'",
wherein Mr. Kerpan condemns a new New York Times article by Fay
that he obviously hadn't read yet. (And didn't until I provided
him with a pointer to it.)
>Laurel Fay has long had an especially warm relationship with the official
>(read Soviet) academic musical establishment. This gave her access
>to Soviet musical archives at at a time when most other scholars had very
>little access. I do not view her as an impartial commentator on DSCH's
>attitude to the Soviet "musical" bureaucracy. IMO, she has, at least at times,
>served as a _de facto_ mouthpiece in the West for the the position of
>the Soviet bureaucrats.
>
>Michael Kerpan
>Stone Mountain
I love that "(read Soviet)"! Kazart! Heady stuff!
Writing in the year 1996, what he means by "has had a warm
relationship with the official (read Soviet) academic musical
establishment" I leave to your imagination. Those who do more
research will acquire more contacts than those who do less
research.
I also asked what he meant by his further slanderous accusation
"de facto mouthpiece" but got no reply. Apparently it's anyone
who doesn't toe the pro-Western line, or who exposes Volkov, or
who disagrees with Mr. Kerpan.
Cheers, -Rick
Floyd Wige
Richard A. Muirden wrote:
>
> (just as well really, then I'd be in Seattle, and there seems to
> be lots of interestingly other unpleasant people in that area, as
> well as the wonderful ones, but that is a personal digression)
>
> -richard
What the kinda shot is that? If it's meant to be serious, the same could
be said about EVERY place on earth.
(Unless that idiot redrick lives in the area. In that case, I could
understand the remark.)
Alan Rubin
red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>Yes. DS's music is more approachable than it would have been
>without government pressure. And right-wingers of today share
>with Stalinists a simple-minded view of the arts.
>
The 4th symphony is one of my favourites. Does that mean that I am
not a right winger?
Do you approve of what government pressure did to Shostakovich's
music?
Michael W. Sumbera
> 'Hate to mention it again, but, ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Yes, I have. I also know that it's not always applicable.
> Volkov deliberately
> forged the signature on the first pages of chapters. This is
> deliberate falsification of source material- lying about history.
> A book that starts out with a big lie does not engender great
> confidence in its further content. And you suggest we should
> give it the benefit of the doubt?
No, I don't. I'm suggest that with this book, as with other statements
attributed to Shostakovich, it is questionable as to whether he was
responsible for it, or aware of, let alone condoned, what it said. Given
that, the amount of validity attributed to the book depends on how you
want to use its data to construct your facts.
Oh and as I understand it, and as Hiroyuki mentioned, the signatures on
the initial pages of each chapter are authentic, however, those first
pages bear striking resemblances to speaches Shostakovich had made at
earlier times in his life. In addition to the signature, these same
initial chapter pages also bear an inscription saying something to the
effect of "I have seen this." Even in that, it doesn't say that
Shostakovich supports what is inside.
I'd still like to know more about the assertion that Volkov didn't have
the access to Shostakovich that he claimed. Where is this said? In the
same Fay article? (I still haven't gotten to it.)
Simon Hawkin
Hi,
On 8 May 96 13:27:46 GMT,
ric...@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote:
*> >Again, Mr. Hawkin insists he is the spokesperson for all former
*> >Soviets, and that his assertions are to be accepted without
*> >evidence or logic.
*>
*> I have never seen Simon claim any such thing. Perhaps you are making
*> that inference from what he says. I take his words to mean "I was
*> there and I think I know more than anyone here who has not lived
*> in the Soviet Union what it was *like* to *live* in the Soviet
*> Union"
Yes, absolutely. I just thought that my experience of the life
"on the inside" may be interesting and helpful to the students
of DSCH. That's the sort of background that most of the readers
of afs are missing (not that they miss it too much). Of course,
it's just an impression of an average member of intelligentsia,
but then, who else is supposed to judge music? :-) And life...
Simon
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
In <sumbera-0905...@sumbera.dialup.access.net>,
>Oh and as I understand it, and as Hiroyuki mentioned, the signatures on
>the initial pages of each chapter are authentic, however, those first
>pages bear striking resemblances to speaches Shostakovich had made at
>earlier times in his life. In addition to the signature, these same
>initial chapter pages also bear an inscription saying something to the
>effect of "I have seen this." Even in that, it doesn't say that
>Shostakovich supports what is inside.
Redrick flings charges of criminal activity -- like forgery --
with great abandon, doesnt he?
I likewise have not been able to get access to Fay's original
article. I was more familiar with it once upon a time, long ago,
back when I had my argument with Ms. Fay. <g>
There actually is a very good reason why a genuine DSCH memoir might
have "recycled" material in it. Given the fact (disputed only by Redrick, I
guess), that many of his articles and speeches were ghost-written and did
not necessarily reflect his views, DSCH may have wanted to set his seal of
approval on those items he did want to take historical responsibility for.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Ian O. Morrison
> 'Hate to mention it again, but, ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Hate to mention it, but I agree with RedRick on this one!
--
Ian O. Morrison (i...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk)
A Wyld Wykkyd Helandman fae Linlithgowshire
Patrick TJ McPhee
In article <319196ef...@news2.az.com>, redrick <red...@az.com> wrote:
% ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
% (snip long paranoid screed)
It wasn't long, and it wasn't paranoid. People don't get upset with
red...@az.com's opinions or his statement of them. The get upset with
_the way_ he expresses them. red...@az.com _said_ that there had been
a lot of carping about Fay and that the carpers seemed to want her
blacklisted, and ker...@ibm.net presumably felt that this comment
referred to an article which he had posted to this news group. Perhaps
he was mistaken, but that doesn't indicate paranoia. As for length, it
was shorter than red...@az.com's reply, and probably shorter than my
reply will be when I'm done with it.
% If Mr. Kerpan is so innocent then it's interesting that he immediately
% jumps in and identifies himself as one of the latter-day
% tailgunners I mention.
It was a reasonable conclusion that you referred to him. Let me ask you, if
it wasn't him, then who, specifically, was it? If it was him, then why
is he paranoid and scheming (or whatever opposite of innocent is in this
context) for recognizing the fact.
% (a distinguished worker, BTW, without who's scholarship we would still
% all be believing Volkov's "Testimony" was written by Shostakovich!
Well, no, we wouldn't. Without Fay, Testimony would have questionable
origins. With Fay, it is disputed. In either case it can't be used as
a dependable single source, but it can add some weight as a correlation
of some other source material. You can say Occam's Razor as much
as you like, but Occam's razor doesn't really address the issue. From
what we know about the book's genesis, it seems quite likely that
at least part of the book is based on interviews with Shostakovich.
That's Occam's razor there -- we know Volkov interviewed Shostakovich,
and the simplest explanation says that he'd use that material. There's
no especial reason to believe that some of the material didn't come from
the interviews. A lot of the anecdotes were probably widely known 20
years ago, for instance. None of this required Fay to point it out, and
I don't think she added much to what seemed to me at the time I was thinking
about this (which was 7 years ago) as the essential question: which parts
_are_ authentic?
Having said that:
% >Laurel Fay has long had an especially warm relationship with the official
% >(read Soviet) academic musical establishment. [...] I do not view her as
% >an impartial commentator [...]
While this isn't quite the same thing as saying she's a fraud, we shouldn't
be so quick to believe that people are willing to set their personal integrity
aside in return for a professional edge.
Richard A. Muirden
red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>authentic memoir. Even MacDonald admits this, calling it "to be
^^^^^^
>fiction based on truth."
>That last quote is from this group's FAQ. Is that an easy enough
>reference for you?
Very clever redrick, but not quite.
The FAQ section states:
Ian McDonald's excellent book "The New Shostakovich" (ISBN 0-19-284026-6) goes
into some detail claiming the book to be fiction based on truth.
^^^^^^^^
"claiming" does not equal "admits" and the "to be fiction based on truth"
was what I wrote. I must reread the actual book to see if I.M actually
*wrote* this (I cannot be certain) and I do not wish to imply something
that I.M. may have not actually written, but the claim, or at least the
idea is definately within the pages (and I am sure Ian would have berated
me a long time ago if he disagreed with the actual wording).
Just want to make it clear as to what the FAQ does and does not say.
redrick
tw...@fas.HARVARD.EDU (James Twiss) wrote:
>In article <31904321...@news2.az.com>, redrick <red...@az.com> wrote:
>>Yes. DS's music is more approachable than it would have been
>>without government pressure. And right-wingers of today share
>>with Stalinists a simple-minded view of the arts.
>
>This assertion about the artistic sensibilities of the right is somewhat
>accurate when one defines "right-wingers" as lunatic-fringe populists who
>think culture is run by effete Eastern urbanites. It is a groundless
>smear when one defines "right-wingers" as anyone who disliked the results of
>the Soviet experiment. Which definition are you using, redrick?
>
Your two choices represent an absurd spectrum. Certainly any
communist would have disliked what appears to be the end result
of the Soviet experiment.
I should say right-wingers are those who are *glad* that the
Soviet experiment turned out badly.
redrick
ric...@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote:
>red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>>About what? What do you need a reference for? Why not ask a
>>specific question instead of these broad, defensive, meaningless
>>accusations?
>
>funny. some would say that this is what you seem to specialise in.
>
Why not ask a specific question instead of these broad,
defensive, meaningless accusations? :>
redrick
sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
>I've never once said I think _Testimony_ is
>authentic.
Then what *is* your point?
I said it was a fraud. I didn't cite as I thought that was
generally accepted. You asked for who proved it a fraud so I
gave you Laurel Fay. Mr. Tanaka was even good enough to post the
specific reference.
>
>> Even MacDonald admits this, calling it "to be
>> fiction based on truth."
>>
>> That last quote is from this group's FAQ. Is that an easy enough
>> reference for you?
>
>No. That's a statement that gives no explanation of how. I have no idea
>what the context was, nor the point MacDonald is trying to make in saying
>that. Individual sentences do not, to me, constitute enough support for
>any argument.
>
Well then look it up. I'm not going to do your research for you.
The reference for MacDonald's book can also be found in the FAQ.
Read it if you can stomach the crude musical illiteracy. It's
out of print but available in libraries.
Michael W. Sumbera
> sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
>
> >I've never once said I think _Testimony_ is
> >authentic.
>
> Then what *is* your point?
From a message I wrote in the "Volkov, MaDonald frauds" thread:
"I'm suggest[ing] that with this book, as with other statements
attributed to Shostakovich, it is questionable as to whether he was
responsible for it, or aware of, let alone condoned, what it said. Given
that, the amount of validity attributed to the book depends on how you
want to use its data to construct your facts."
And I don't think there's anyone who's written about Shostakovich since
1979 (or 1984) for whom that isn't true.
Michael
Jim Clow
Richard A. Muirden wrote:
>
> red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
> >>*> Ian MacDonald is a tabloid style journalist and former would-be
> >>*> Beatles pundit.
> >>
> >This is not name calling, but an accurate description.
>
> not quite. it is YOUR OPINION and is stated in such a way as to be
> name calling.
>
> If someone calls you, redrick, a rabble-rousing anonymous flame-bait
> spewing news poster, you would certainly take that as name calling,
> but it, too, is descriptive.
>
> silly argument.
Hmmmm. How do the 'roused' feel about being called 'rabble'?
Is it possible that redrick is really RM using controversial postings
to raise a.f.s 'ratings'? Nah.
Is it possible that redrick is really a hirling of Boeing using
controversial postings to raise RMs visibility because of his
championing of BAC products? Nah.
Jim Clow
San Diego
Jim Clow
1. az.com is in Washington state.
2. redrick an idiot? Hardly. Misguided, yes, in my opinion.
Perhaps he has life experiences to make him that way.
Jim Clow
San Diego
Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen
In article <31904321...@news2.az.com>, redrick <red...@az.com> wrote:
>>
>Yes. DS's music is more approachable than it would have been
>without government pressure. And right-wingers of today share
>with Stalinists a simple-minded view of the arts.
>
but not necessarily true. (Of course, we'll never know what _would_ have
happened if Stalin had died in 1934...) Consider that he clearly was coming
back to more approachable style in the cello sonata and the 4th symphony
(although the latter is arguable since we don't know what parts exactly
were written before the Pravda attacks, and whether there indeed were no
revisions to the score before 1962).
>If you don't believe this, listen to the first part of the 2nd
>symphony and imagine where this composer would have gone on his
>own. Then listen to the first part of the 3rd Symphony, written
>after he was criticized for not writing "Proletarian" enough.
>
Or perhaps he just thought he had reached an impasse with works like the
2nd symphony and "the Nose"? (BTW, I like both of those very much...)
>Of course, you may want to argue about the term "Socialist
>Realism" but please let's don't. If the bureaucrats that
>invented the term knew what it meant they certainly weren't able
>to express it in a way that would make sense to any musician.
>(But then neither does much of today's "analysis" of DS's music
>by non-musicians.) I use the term as it's meaning is generally
>perceived- more approachable (tonal, not-too-dissonant, melodic),
>and, if at all programmatic, supportive of the regime in power.
>
And optimistic, you forgot _optimism_, shame on you 8-)!
>BTW, the view that artist's (especially if government supported)
>ought to create works that can be understood by the "common
>folks", that do not offend against communally held beliefs, and
>that "honor rather than tear down our country" is still being
>expressed today in the West, but not by the Left.
>
Sad but true. However, the attitude of always biting the hand that feeds
you, and writing for your composer fellows only may not be any better,
if the only message you have is how independent and smart you are... Not
everything that is simple is banal (although an overwhelming majority of
it is), and not everything that is complex is worth the paper it is
written on (although I certainly enjoy some very complex works by
Penderecki and Ligeti, I still am not convinced by Xenakis, for instance).
>Cheers, -Rick
>
>
Veli-Pekka
--
Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen, *
Information Technology Research Institute * All opinions are my own, not my
University of Jyvaskyla, Finland * employer's. Besides, they may
v...@jytkoson2.jyu.fi, v...@cs.jyu.fi * change without prior notice.
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
>This is from the thread "Origins of 'From Jewish Poetry'",
>wherein Mr. Kerpan condemns a new New York Times article by Fay
>that he obviously hadn't read yet. (And didn't until I provided
>him with a pointer to it.)
No, Bill M. provided the information that allowed me to find the article. I
didn't condemn Laurel Fay's article before I read it. I don't "condemn it
even now -- I just think it was inaccurate carelessly written.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
You started this thread under the name "MacDonald, Volkov frauds." You have
enlightened us as to what "fraud" Volkov committed -- his alleged "forgery"
(a charge apparently based on a misunderstanding of Laurel Fay's actual
accusation). You have also let us know how much you despise MacDonald and
everything he has ever written. When, however, are you going to let us know
what "fraud" you accuse him of.
Michael
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
In <4mukbi$r...@zot.io.org>, pt...@zot.io.org (Patrick TJ McPhee) writes:
>
>Having said that:
>
MK>Laurel Fay has long had an especially warm relationship with the official
MK >(read Soviet) academic musical establishment. [...] I do not view her as
MK >an impartial commentator [...]
>While this isn't quite the same thing as saying she's a fraud, we shouldn't
>be so quick to believe that people are willing to set their personal integrity
>aside in return for a professional edge.
I never hinted that Laurel Fay is a "fraud" and I don't think she lacks "personal
integrity." Nonetheless, even honest scholars who have a close working relationship
with individuals or institutions they are writing about can sometimes exhibit
an unconsconscious skewing in their position. I think that Laurel Fay, for
whatever reason, fixated on Volkov's real or imagined transgressions -- and had
little interest in probing into the enigma of Shostakovich himself.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
>I just thought that my experience of the life
>"on the inside" may be interesting and helpful to the students
>of DSCH. That's the sort of background that most of the readers
>of afs are missing (not that they miss it too much).
That is definitely a background that I prefer to learn about second-hand.
>Of course, it's just an impression of an average member of intelligentsia,
>but then, who else is supposed to judge music? :-) And life...
Only members of the proletariat are allowed to judge art or life, I believe. <g>
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
redrick
>...he will make comments along the lines of "anyone who was
>there would think this..." To me that is NOT being the spokesman for
>all former Soviets.
Come again? How can "anyone who was there would think this..."
not be speaking for all?
Cheers, -Rick
PS- BTW, from your sig I referred to you as "the man from
Boeing". This was a reference which you are perhaps too young to
recognize. We had been talking about the rabid anti-Soviet
propensities of certain "Social Democrats". During the '60s
there was a Democrat Senator from the state of Washington of
extremely "hawkish" and red-baiting propensities. He was
referred to as "the Senator from Boeing" because of huge
contributions he received from that war-profiteering company.
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
Oh, right. We Members of the Intelligentsia... Uh, what, should
we raise our hands? :>
Or is the above smug arrogance enough of an identifier?
We certainly wouldn't want any proles presuming their way into
this high-level thread on two works with such spotless scholarly
reputations!
redrick
ric...@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote:
>red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>>authentic memoir. Even MacDonald admits this, calling it "to be
> ^^^^^^
>>fiction based on truth."
>
So what's the problem. The characterization "admits" is clearly
mine, the words I put in quotation marks are copied and pasted
from your FAQ- "fiction based on truth".
>>That last quote is from this group's FAQ. Is that an easy enough
>>reference for you?
>
>Very clever redrick, but not quite.
>
>The FAQ section states:
>
>Ian McDonald's excellent book "The New Shostakovich" (ISBN 0-19-284026-6) goes
>into some detail claiming the book to be fiction based on truth.
> ^^^^^^^^
>"claiming" does not equal "admits" and the "to be fiction based on truth"
>was what I wrote.
Come now Richard. Is this the best you can do? Even if this
carp wasn't splitting hairs to the nth degree, surely we can be
excused for having assumed that the word "claiming" refers to
"truth", not "fiction".
Considering all the "True Feeling" stuff on his web site, I
hardly think the characterization "admits" is out of line.
In any event, the point is that MacDonald admits, claims, avers,
confesses, or however you'd like it to read that "Testimony" is
not the memoirs of Shostakovich. That is the point that Mr.
Sumbera wanted clarified.
In an earlier post of yours, on 3/13, you said:
>Anyway I don't think Ian totally trusts what Volkov says
>in Testimony.
I appreciate the way you put that- "what Volkov says
in Testimony. ^^^^^^
How MacDonald squares this with his book's fantasies being based
on the Volkov is his problem, and how you justify the FAQ's
shameless fawning over both is yours.
Cheers, -Rick
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>(a charge apparently based on a misunderstanding of Laurel Fay's actual
>accusation)
How can you still misunderstand? It is a fraud. It is not the
memoirs of Shostakovich. Volkov forged DS's signiture on the
first page of chapters.
>When, however, are you going to let us know
>what "fraud" you accuse him [Ian MacDonald] of.
>
MacDonald claims to analyze music with without being able to
analyze music. It's like applying Prof. Harold Hill's "Think
System" to musicology.
Richard A. Muirden
red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>believing Volkov's "Testimony" was written by Shostakovich! This
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You keep saying this. you're ignoring the title of the damn book!
Volkov never said that DSCH wrote the bloody thing, it is "as related
to Solomon Volkov" by DSCH, and the forward goes on to talk about
the times they sat together and talked etc.
Now I am not saying that Volkov did not make some/much/all of it
up (believe what you want) but the above statement is silly. Perhaps
you meant to say that you do not believe DSCH ever related anything
to Volkov for the express purpose of such a document as Testimony?
I hope so.
Richard A. Muirden
tw...@fas.HARVARD.EDU (James Twiss) writes:
>smear when one defines "right-wingers" as anyone who disliked the results of
>the Soviet experiment. Which definition are you using, redrick?
Seems to me that redrick's definition of anything he slurs (ie: "right-wingers")
equals anyone who disagrees with his view. Kind of makes sense when
you think of it that way.
>Jamie
Richard A. Muirden
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) writes:
>everything he has ever written. When, however, are you going to let us know
>what "fraud" you accuse him of.
oh come now we all know what it is. He's a right-winger[1] no-hoper[2]
who has his own views[3] which happen to agree with a lot of people[4]
regarding the life and music of Dmitri Shostakovich.
Redrick has a problem with Testimony, we all know that. Macdonald's book
supports a lot of the material, or rather the sense of the man as given
in that book, ergo redrick has a problem with Macdonald's book.
Now, before someone jumps down my throat for saying "supports a lot" that
does NOT equal an agreement that Testimony is totally factual in what
it claims to be. More a comment that reading _The New Shostakovich_ gave
me the impression that Ian was in general agreement that the person
portrayed in that book was indeed one Dmitri Shostakovich, and that
the opinions expressed would seem to be genuine, or most likely of
the man.
(I have no idea why the searing remarks about Macdonald's Beatles efforts
exist though. But I haven't read any of that stuff).
>Michael
-richard
---
[1] See definition elsewhere in this newsgroup
[2] doesn't agree with redrick's personal view of the universe
[3] ditto
[4] ditto
--
Richard A. Muirden, Systems & Network Administration / Post/Web/News-master,etc
Richard A. Muirden
red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>>funny. some would say that this is what you seem to specialise in.
>>
>Why not ask a specific question instead of these broad,
>defensive, meaningless accusations? :>
Just an observation, not an accusation. I leave those to others more
versed in giving them willy-nilly.
-richard
redrick
ric...@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote:
>red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>>believing Volkov's "Testimony" was written by Shostakovich! This
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Richard, the publisher lists Shostakovich as author, Volkov as
"editor". Both will appear in computerized author searches. If
you search a library's computer for the author "Shostakovich" it
will give you "Testimony". Ditto for "Volkov". If you don't
have access to a library's computer you can do the same thing
with the bookseller...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/index2.html/9296-6816407-971420
and do an author search. They list it this way:
Testimony : The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich
by Dmitrii Dmitrievich Shostakovich , Solomon Volkov(Editor)
4th Edition
Paperback
Published by Proscenium Pub
Publication date: October 1, 1984
ISBN: 0879100214
>the forward goes on to talk about
>the times they sat together and talked etc.
So many are so eager to tell us about how many long talks they
had with Shostakovich it's a wonder he had time to write any
music.
>
>Now I am not saying that Volkov did not make some/much/all of it
>up
Good to hear you say that.
> but the above statement is silly.
The smoke screen you're trying to cast over the main point (see
subject header) is what is silly. Volkov lied. Volkov
deliberately forged a source document. "Testimony" is not the
Memoirs of DS.
Cheers, -Rick
Perhaps
>you meant to say that you do not believe DSCH ever related anything
>to Volkov for the express purpose of such a document as Testimony?
>I hope so.
>
>-richard
>
>--
>Richard A. Muirden, Systems & Network Administration / Webmaster / Fanatic :)
>RMIT Information Technology Services (ITS) *UNIX* email: ric...@rmit.edu.au
>I like: Boeing, United(UA), Ansett(AN), Vodka, Trek, 'phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814
>Shostakovich. Shost CD's I own: 126. Web: http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard
--
redrick
sum...@panix.com (Michael W. Sumbera) wrote:
>"I'm suggest[ing] that with this book, as with other statements
>attributed to Shostakovich, it is questionable as to whether he was
>responsible for it, or aware of, let alone condoned, what it said. Given
>that, the amount of validity attributed to the book depends on how you
>want to use its data to construct your facts."
>
True. But I should hope that, given the first part of your
statement, anyone concerned about establishing truth would avoid
using such a "questionable" document (whose "editor" has been
shown to have used forgery) to "construct" facts.
>And I don't think there's anyone who's written about Shostakovich since
>1979 (or 1984) for whom that isn't true.
>
Unfortunately, some have used it's "data" (a combination of good
guesses, bad guesses, and flat-out lies) to construct pure
fantasy. A whole new Shostakovich. :> I liked the old one.
He's the one that wrote the music.
Regards, -Rick
redrick
ric...@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote:
>Seems to me that redrick's definition of anything he slurs (ie: "right-wingers")
>equals anyone who disagrees with his view.
Seems to me that Richard is back to becoming so incensed whenever
he sees my name in a post that he immediately hits "reply" and
starts typing vitriol without thinking or even reading the post
he's replying to.
I said nothing of the kind he infers but, BTW, yes I do indeed
disagree with right-wingers of today "who share with Stalinists a
simple-minded view of the arts".
At Jamie's request I took a stab at definition in a subsequent
post which Richard might want to look at if he can please promise
to count to ten first. :>
If that's too subtle to figure out, I suggest he fall back on
checking the shoe for size.
Cheers, -Rick
Jim Clow
redrick wrote:
> PS- BTW, from your sig I referred to you as "the man from
> Boeing". This was a reference which you are perhaps too young to
> recognize. We had been talking about the rabid anti-Soviet
> propensities of certain "Social Democrats". During the '60s
> there was a Democrat Senator from the state of Washington of
> extremely "hawkish" and red-baiting propensities. He was
> referred to as "the Senator from Boeing" because of huge
> contributions he received from that war-profiteering company.
That would be "Scoop" Jackson. I'm certainly not too young to know
this prominent Democrat hawk, although I missed the connection in
your reference to RM. Henry Jackson contributed much to US security
and to Boeing's coffers.
I am one who has been spared the horrors of war but I have seen the
results often enough to believe that war is an absurdity except when
there is no alternative. Think how humanity might have benefitted
had Hitler's 1935 abrogation of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 and his
1936 march into Köln had been confronted; those who might have enforced
the treaty were either weak (Britain, France) or isolationist (US).
Very recent examples of lack of will by strong nations having left
hundreds of thousands to suffer the atrocities of war can be found in
the Balkans.
Boeing along with every industrial organization profitted from WWII,
and Boeing is preeminent today in commercial aircraft because of
their DoD-sponsored development of the KC135 jet which became the basis
for the many 7xx models in use today. But, I'm glad that there was
a Boeing, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Lockheed, etc, etc in existence in 1939
when they were needed. All were in the depths of the Great Depression
and all were "War Profiteers".
As one who uses such pejoratives so easily, your championing of
Lenin seems indefensible; his promotion of war in support of
political revolution can hardly fit the humanistic and principled
views which I infer that you hold.
Jim Clow
San Diego
Jim Clow
redrick wrote:
> Your two choices represent an absurd spectrum. Certainly any
> communist would have disliked what appears to be the end result
> of the Soviet experiment.
>
> I should say right-wingers are those who are *glad* that the
> Soviet experiment turned out badly.
Surely your vocabulary can find a better characterization of the
'war Communism' thesis of Lenin and Soviet Communism than
'experiment'! I have seen examples of your vast vocabulary of
pejoratives.
'experiment' conjures images of a scholary endeavor. Few people I know
or have read would view USSR history so benignly.
Jim Clow
San Diego
Richard A. Muirden
*waves a little white flag and goes back to eating borcht*
-richard
--
Richard A. Muirden, Systems & Network Administration / Post/Web/News-master,etc
redrick
ric...@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) wrote:
>Redrick has a problem with Testimony, we all know that.
Redrick has no problem with Testimony. Its fraudulency is well
established.
The people with a problem are (a.) those who still believe it,
and (b.) those (like Mr. Muirden) who acknowledge it's a fake but
want to believe its fantasies so badly that they can't shake
their devotion, which comes out in his long screeds of
self-tortured double-talk.
Redrick only has a problem with (c.) charlatans like Ian
MacDonald that pander to the cultish members of (a.) and (b.).
Cheers, -Rick
Jim Clow
Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen wrote:
Some very well-expressed views, especially the following paragraph.
(But what is your problem with Xenakis?)
Jim Clow
San Diego
James Twiss
In article <319623...@cts.com>, Jim Clow <jim...@cts.com> wrote:
>redrick wrote:
>> I should say right-wingers are those who are *glad* that the
>> Soviet experiment turned out badly.
>
>Surely your vocabulary can find a better characterization of the
>'war Communism' thesis of Lenin and Soviet Communism than
>'experiment'! I have seen examples of your vast vocabulary of
>pejoratives.
Actually, redrick was responding to one of my posts that included this
phrase. Although your point is well taken, "The Soviet experiment" is a
standard formulation used by those of widely diverging political beliefs.
Walter Laqueur, a conservative historian, recently used it in a book title.
Jamie
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
In <3194408b...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>(a charge apparently based on a misunderstanding of Laurel Fay's actual
>>accusation)
>
>How can you still misunderstand? It is a fraud. It is not the
>memoirs of Shostakovich. Volkov forged DS's signiture on the
>first page of chapters.
>
I don't think Laurel Fay claimed the signatures were "forged" -- what's
_your_ basis for alleging forgery (as opposed to mere skullduggery -- which
is what she claims to have established).
>>When, however, are you going to let us know
>>what "fraud" you accuse him [Ian MacDonald] of.
>MacDonald claims to analyze music with without being able to
>analyze music. It's like applying Prof. Harold Hill's "Think
>System" to musicology.
Writing a book without being adequately qualified hardly constitutes fraud. If it
was, the jails in the US would be a lot more overcrowded than they already are.
Why do you make charges of criminal or quasi-criminal activity just because
you disagree with someone or dislike their work? Bad manners do not aid
serious discussion.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
redrick
v...@tukki.jyu.fi (Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen) wrote:
>In article <31904321...@news2.az.com>, redrick <red...@az.com> wrote:
>>>
>>If you don't believe this, listen to the first part of the 2nd
>>symphony and imagine where this composer would have gone on his
>>own. Then listen to the first part of the 3rd Symphony, written
>>after he was criticized for not writing "Proletarian" enough.
>>
>Or perhaps he just thought he had reached an impasse with works like the
>2nd symphony and "the Nose"? (BTW, I like both of those very much...)
>
Possible. But as he must have heard what the critics were
saying, whether he would have come to the same conclusion they
did without them is probably a question even Shostakovich
wouldn't be able to disentangle.
BTW, I didn't thing anyone else liked the 2nd! I find it very
interesting, though I'm certainly glad he went on to other
things. Some say DS completely "disinherited" it- but have you
noticed there's a passage about 4 1/2 mins. in to the 1st mvt. of
the 15th that is very reminiscent. It is possible that he was
just calling it up to bury it for good, so to speak. But I
should think that at almost a half-century's remove the older DS
might have had more tolerance for the younger one's experiments.
Peter Berndt
Heureka: Here is the final verdict on Mr. Volkov and his presumed narrator!
(long version)
And it does not leave any questions open. And it is self-consistent. And
it does agree with _all_ views that were expressed during the J.Springer
show that was held on this channel lately!
Before I can share my sudden, but certain new knowledge with the
leftist-anarchist, centrist-social and neo-McCarthyist crowd of a.f.DSCH I
have to mention my sources and the price I paid to obtain these invaluable
insights. It started all in the morning. I wasn't prepared. With half open
eyes I went into the bathroom and grabbed the rasor. That was a bloody
mistake! It turned out to be the shaving device of Mr. Occam, who was [1]
absolutely not invited into my bathroom & [2] had not been asked to leave
his razor there. It turned out to be a hazardous device, anyway, within
five minutes I stood bleeding, I saw my own (still red, even after 5 years
of German unity) blood flowing and there it was: the enlightment!
We all know from the narratives of countless dissident, would be
dissident, and not dissident eyewitnesses that DSCH was quite a patent guy
(football and jazz, to name it), but also a genius. With this latter
function he was certainly entitled to have those five-six neurosises that
even ordinary people are supposed to have, and as the eyewitnesses
witness, he was still a patent guy, even with his ticks. So what was his
main neurosis? Very simple. Whenever somebody came with something to be
underwritten by him, he did shake nervously, whistled "The song of the
counterplan" in the scating, anti-stalinist version, pulled out the
party-obdient pen (the other one - for the music - was always hiding on
one of the two pianos), and underwrote. We fully understand, that this was
the only way to get rid of the visitor, and it was fortunate, because
pondering over silly party resolutions would have taken away time from the
serious plot to make the 12th symphony deliberately poor in the attempt to
arouse anti-leninists feelings in the concertgoing, alert Moscow public,
that was supposed to topple the politbeuro in frantic outrage after
hearing such a bad symphony written by the autor of the timeless "Song of
the counterplan" (pro-stalinist, official version). BTW, in later times
the politbeuro liked to tikle itself with the feeling of fear, uncertainty
and distraction, as it liked to play this opus on the radio on Nov. 7th,
which almost made me an anti-DSCH pundit, if I wouldn't have known through
Mr. Volkov that this was supposed to be so silly. But I wanted to talk
about the DSCH mania with the underwriting thing. This was really stupid.
It must have been Stalin's phone call back then. I guess, Stalin, as a
real mephistopheles, had made the proposition that DSCH would be allowed
to write anything he liked on notepaper, as long as he would underwrite
anything that came to him on typographic paper without reading. Only in
such a way we can understand, how he could sign the official letter
against the saintly Mr. Solschenitzin.
So, it was just one beautiful, bright spring morning in Moscow. The
sprinkler-car of the hero of socialist labor collective just watered the
Kutusovsky prospect, and the long line from the kwas-cage went two times
around the block. The fifty five militia-man at the corner looked relaxed
while wistling the "March of the Soviet Militia". The KGB-guy at the door
was looking angry, because he wasn't allowed to wistle music of DSCH, but
had to wistle I.Dzershinski. DSCH stood in the bathroom and used one of
these razor blades that we all know very well from the narrative of DSCH
close personal friend O.Wells. In other words, he was bleeding like that
little pig that choose to be photographen with DSCH for the cover of the
Times two years after the photosession (one more crime of the inhuman
stalinistic crowds). The doorbell rang, and it was... Mr. Volkov! "K
tscherty, Volkov, tschto tak rano? Podpiz nuschna? Dawaite, bystro! Fu,
tschernily net v rutschke! Ladno - krowju soidet?..." (As these are the
authentic words of DSCH as narrated to Mr. Volkov I couldn't even dare to
translate. They would instantly loose the aura of authentizity). Now we
know it! DSCH _never_ wrote any of the countless speaches, declarations,
musicological statements, and memoars ascribed to him. Even the
between-the-lines-anti-stalinist battle cry "Lenin is the greatest guy in
our very complicated times" was ghostwritten and just undersigned! More
than that: He never bothered to _read_ any of the countless speaches,
declarations, musicological statements, and memoars ascribed to him. Even
if he had to make the speach, e.g. as Deputy of the Russian Federative
Soviet, or as member of the All-Union Composers Union, or as dissident at
the kitchen table, it was just his mouth that moved, but in his ears he
heard countless new rayoks that were all written down while not listening
to the speaches of the other beurocrates, but which did not survive
because it would have been too much of a loss of face for him to show the
world that he would take notes at the gathering and not throw them away
into the next wastebasket after the gathering. So we can say with
certainty: Mr. Volkovs volume has the same authencity as all the other
written statements by DSCH, for the same reason. Also, we know that DSCH
did always pass on the honorar for the writings to the (real) ghostwriter.
Only in such a way we can explain, how it came that Mr. Volkov did not (to
my knowledge) pay the heirs of DSCH every single $ that "Testimony"
earned, even though it is labeled as a literary work by DSCH (and Mr.
Volkow just corrected the orthography).
'nuf said. You've got the idea.
The moral of the story for the humor impaired: There is one source for the
life and the times of DSCH - his music. Listen to his music.
--
Peter
___________________
ber...@cems.umn.edu
redrick
Jim Clow <jim...@cts.com> wrote:
>redrick wrote:
>> Your two choices represent an absurd spectrum. Certainly any
>> communist would have disliked what appears to be the end result
>> of the Soviet experiment.
>>
>> I should say right-wingers are those who are *glad* that the
>> Soviet experiment turned out badly.
>
>Surely your vocabulary can find a better characterization of the
>'war Communism' thesis of Lenin and Soviet Communism than
>'experiment'! I have seen examples of your vast vocabulary of
>pejoratives.
>
With the words "the end result of the Soviet experiment" I was
echoing the post I was responding to. This is hardly the place
for all the words I would use to describe what the Russian people
set out to attempt in 1917, but "heroic" would definitely be one
of them.
>'experiment' conjures images of a scholary endeavor. Few people I know
>or have read would view USSR history so benignly.
>
Perhaps you have read few people. ;> Or at least restricted
viewpoints. But I wasn't talking about USSR history. I was
talking about the "experiment", or attempt, that USSR history is
(so far) the result of.
With the aim of unrestricting your viewpoints (and smugness) a
bit:
Zhou Enlai recently said, on being asked whether the *French*
revolution was a good thing:
"Too early to tell."
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
> what's
>_your_ basis for alleging forgery (as opposed to mere skullduggery -- which
>is what she claims to have established).
The first pages of chapters, that had DS's signature on them in
an attempt to make them seem authentic, turned out to be from
other documents. One of the definitions of forgery in my
dictionary is "Something counterfeit, forged, or fraudulent."
>
>>>When, however, are you going to let us know
>>>what "fraud" you accuse him [Ian MacDonald] of.
>
>>MacDonald claims to analyze music with without being able to
>>analyze music. It's like applying Prof. Harold Hill's "Think
>>System" to musicology.
>
>Writing a book without being adequately qualified hardly constitutes fraud. If it
>was, the jails in the US would be a lot more overcrowded than they already are.
>
Again I believe most of us in the group use dictionaries, not law
books. One of the definitions of fraud is "One who assumes a
false pose; an impostor."
(Both definitions American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Ed. v.3.6)
I certainly wouldn't want poor Ian behind bars any more than I
wanted the folks of River City to lynch the Music Man. As Wilson
implied (Meredith, not Elizabeth), maybe delusions are good for
people! :>
redrick
pt...@zot.io.org (Patrick TJ McPhee) wrote:
>(redrick wrote:)
>% If Mr. Kerpan is so innocent then it's interesting that he immediately
>% jumps in and identifies himself as one of the latter-day
>% tailgunners I mention.
>It was a reasonable conclusion that you referred to him. Let me ask you, if
>it wasn't him, then who, specifically, was it?
I mentioned no one specifically. If Kerpan (or you) finds that
the shoe fits, that's his problem.
Hiroyuki Tanaka
In article <4mu48s$h...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, ker...@ibm.net wrote:
-> There actually is a very good reason why a genuine DSCH memoir might
-> have "recycled" material in it. Given the fact (disputed only by Redrick, I
-> guess), that many of his articles and speeches were ghost-written and did
-> not necessarily reflect his views, DSCH may have wanted to set his seal of
-> approval on those items he did want to take historical responsibility for.
This may explain HOW Volkov got those signatures.
I wouldn't hestitate to admit that.
But that doesn't mean the whole book has to be authentic,
or worth believing, or call it "fiction based on truth."
For example:
Suppose I make up some manuscript that says something like
"I loved Russia(USSR), it's a dream of mankind,"
and suppose it was originally from a role that Ronald Reagan
played in an old movie.
And suppose I had managed to get Ronald Reagan to sign that
manuscript (first page only, of course) and have him write,
"Those are the words I spoke, truly."
(In order to get those words, I could say,
"I'm writing a book that will be titled 'Reagan the Movie Star'
so please write something to show its authenticity
if you will be so kind.")
And then I make up a lot of hocus-pocus and write about how
Ronald Reagan was an active KGB agent and a true communist,
and "Reaganomics" was an attempt to show that capitalism
would end up in chaos, fall hard on weak people, etc.
Would you consider the whole book authentic just because
it has some pages that hold Reagan's signatures?
And that "there's a ring of truth" in it?
How much would this "Reagan book" differ from the Testimony?
Oh, and don't forget; I would observe the "Volkov rule", i.e.,
I would NEVER answer any questions concerning
the authenticities of the hocus-pocus part, and of course
SOME people would come out of Hollywood and say that
McCarthyism caused Reagan to become silent about his belief ;-p
I'm sure I'd become pretty rich if I could get such a book published . . . <vbg>
--
Hiroyuki Tanaka dmi...@leo.bekkoame.or.jp
Representation and Culture
University of Tokyo
Jim Clow
redrick wrote:
> Perhaps you have read few people. ;> Or at least restricted
> viewpoints. But I wasn't talking about USSR history. I was
> talking about the "experiment", or attempt, that USSR history is
> (so far) the result of.
>
> With the aim of unrestricting your viewpoints (and smugness) a
> bit:
>
> Zhou Enlai recently said, on being asked whether the *French*
> revolution was a good thing:
>
> "Too early to tell."
>
>
> --
> red...@az.com
>
> "Lenin was the greatest man of our very complicated times."
> -Dimitri Shostakovich, 1959.
Was there "smugness" in what I wrote? I neither felt it, saw it,
nor intended it; OTOH, your response is replete with it.
Your (Zhou Enlai) quote is known to me, although I would not have
been able to attribute it. Didn't he die about 20 years ago? I
guess we are both old enough to consider 20+ years to be recent, or
did this quotation come from the hereafter?
Respect,
Jim
Simon Hawkin
Hi,
On 14 May 1996 07:53:09 GMT,
ber...@rainy.cems.umn.edu (Peter Berndt) wrote:
*> The doorbell rang, and it was... Mr. Volkov! "K
*> tscherty, Volkov, tschto tak rano? Podpiz nuschna? Dawaite, bystro! Fu,
*> tschernily net v rutschke! Ladno - krowju soidet?..."
@%< Profound allusions...
*> So we can say with
*> certainty: Mr. Volkovs volume has the same authencity as all the other
*> written statements by DSCH
'nuf said. Well put!
:-)
Simon
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
In <3199781b...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
>pt...@zot.io.org (Patrick TJ McPhee) wrote:
>
>>(redrick wrote:)
>>% If Mr. Kerpan is so innocent then it's interesting that he immediately
>>% jumps in and identifies himself as one of the latter-day
>>% tailgunners I mention.
>
>>It was a reasonable conclusion that you referred to him. Let me ask you, if
>>it wasn't him, then who, specifically, was it?
>
>I mentioned no one specifically. If Kerpan (or you) finds that
>the shoe fits, that's his problem.
You made a vague accusation against the general membership of AFS. I pointed
out that I was the _only_ person who had said anyting negative about Ms. Fay.
If you want to disagree with me, fine. Don't issue generalized smears.
By the way, do you really think that your propensity for flinging charges of
"paranoid", "right-wingers" and "McCarthyites" really adds to civil discussion.
Michael Kerpan
Stone Mountain
redrick
Jim Clow <jim...@cts.com> wrote:
>Henry Jackson contributed much to US security
>and to Boeing's coffers.
>Lenin seems indefensible; his promotion of war in support of
>political revolution can hardly fit the humanistic and principled
>views which I infer that you hold.
Oh, right. Jackson, the great supporter of Imperial America's
war of aggression in Vietnam (at the behest of the war-mongering
war-profiteer Boeing that filled his campaign chest) is a
"contributor to U.S. security." Lenin, defending a nascent
country under immediate and constant attack from the West,
including the U.S., is a promoter of war.
-Rick
"Lenin was the greatest man of our very complicated times."
-Dimitri Shostakovich, 1959 radio interview.
redrick
Jim Clow <jim...@cts.com> wrote:
>Was there "smugness" in what I wrote?
Sorry, I wasn't referring to that specific post. I was
specifically thinking of your (IMHO) warm patriot-capitalist
prideful paean to "Boeing, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Lockheed" (5/12
post) always saving the Free (read Western) World from the Bad
Guys.
>Your (Zhou Enlai) quote is known to me, although I would not have
>been able to attribute it. Didn't he die about 20 years ago? I
>guess we are both old enough to consider 20+ years to be recent, or
>did this quotation come from the hereafter?
>
Oops! 20 is right. He died in 1976. Some magazines just take
forever to publish some authors! :> I had happened to see it
recently in an unrelated article in the New York Review of Books.
I still have it here. It's p.19 from the article "The Chances of
Shimon Peres" by Avishai Margalit. Interesting article, even if
you aren't particularly interested in Israeli politics. It also
quotes David Ben Gurian on Trotski!
Regards, -Rick
redrick
ker...@ibm.net (Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.) wrote:
>>>(redrick wrote:)
>>I mentioned no one specifically. If Kerpan (or you) finds that
>>the shoe fits, that's his problem.
>
>You made a vague accusation against the general membership of AFS.
So what was vague about it? You seem to have understood it
perfectly! :>
>By the way, do you really think that your propensity for flinging charges of
>"paranoid", "right-wingers" and "McCarthyites" really adds to civil discussion.
>
What civil discussion? My intention was simply to expose your
intolerant and unfair denunciation of Fay as paranoid,
right-wing, and McCarthyite.
With thanks for all your help,
Cheers, -Rick