Jazz and the West

When I think of jazz, the first thing that comes to mind is it’s connections to the working class and African American populations within the US. Jazz also has a reputation for being distinctly American, which is why I was surprised to see how influential it was in the Soviet Union due to their detest of the West.

A lot of the criticism around jazz and the New Soviet Person was that it was uncultured and decadent which is similar to the discourse in the West about jazz. American jazz was incredibly decadent and even could be called bourgeois with it’s connections to parties and clubs (literally just think of a party a la the Great Gatsby). Critics in the Soviet Union called the dancing ‘tasteless’ and others said it was a “roadblock on the path to socialist utopia” (3). Similar criticisms were echoed within the US when jazz gained popularity. The Soviet Union wanted the New Soviet Person to be cultured, much how like the West wanted American citizens to be cultured as well.

It is interesting to see how a lot of the same trends transcend political ideologies and country lines at the same time and face the same types of criticism. While the Soviet Union tried endlessly to create their brand of entertainment, they can’t change what interests the human mind, and for some that’s jazz.

Jazz and the New Soviet

On pages 4 and 5, Bereford presents his thesis of “Soviet ideology, [as] an expression of an alternative definition of Soviet culturedness. Jazz enthusiasts […] believed that jazz music, and the leisure practices associated with it, was a “cultured” activity that could contribute to the construction of the New Soviet Person.” I think this is a fascinating argument. As we have learned in the first few weeks, Soviet art is required to satisfy many requirements to be deemed “good.” In both the United States and Soviet Union, Jazz was something of a rebellion. It does not follow many standard meters, riffing is encouraged, and it conveys a different type of message – a source of contention. Perhaps it is because I am uncultured, but I found todays music selections much more compelling to listen to than Shostakovich (please do not haunt me Shostakovich). Are any of you in the same position? With this reflection, do you think that has something to do with Soviet interest in Jazz? I feel like many of us probably listen to music at the days end; what are we looking for in music after a long day? Do we think that is what the Soviet citizen of 1930-something was looking for?

Soviet Music

After reading Chaos Instead of Music showed what it was like for composers during this time with dealer with the Soviet people and trying to please them.

 At no time and in no other place has the composer had a more appreciative audience. The people expected good songs, but also good instrumental works, and good operas. The young composer, instead of hearing serious criticism, which could have helped him in his future work, hears only enthusiastic compliments. With the general cultural development of their country, Why do you think they grew the necessity for good music?

The composer apparently never considered the problem of what the Soviet audience looks for and expects in music. As though deliberately, he scribbles down his music, confusing all the sounds in such a way that his music would reach only the effete “formalists” who had lost all their wholesome taste. Why were the composers so worried about what the Soviet audience looks for and expects in music?

Stealing Jazz

Merriam Webster defines Jazz as “American music developed especially from ragtime and blues and characterized by propulsive syncopated rhythms, polyphonic ensemble playing, varying degrees of improvisation, and often deliberate distortions of pitch and timbre.” Noticeably in this definition first word is American, having come from the west. Jazz is a very western musical experience having arisen in bars and the African American experience. This leads to many issues when Jazz finds its way to the Soviet states, how can you make something so typically American into something Soviet. The answer seems to be that they could not.

“There was no clear-cut understanding of how the Soviet Union and its culture were supposed to relate to the West. Jazz amplified this problem and forced cultural elites, musicians, and to a lesser extent, audiences to come up with their own answers to these questions.” (Beresford 98). Beresford makes it clear that the Soviet Union did whatever it come to but transform Jazz and to excuse it as something that came out of the workers struggle in the states. They describe Jazz preformed by Jews as a “joyous expression of [their] liberation.” (Beresford 121) This, in their theory, follows the great liberating force of Jazz for marginalized people in the West.

Do you think that these justifications should have been enough to get Jazz past the critics in the Soviet Union? Do you think that you have remove the American qualities of something that is by definition American? Were the leaders of the Soviet Union forced into accepting Jazz because it was defiantly popular to begin with?

A look at Soviet Music

After reading “The Resolution of 1932” it is questionable to me how any person could have creativity during this time. Were the musicians forced at gunpoint? To please Stalin during this time because through so much sorrow a beautiful sense of music is found. What other forms of music were tested but found unsatisfactory by the Soviet Government?

Freedom in Expression

There was one quote in the reading that stuck out to me: “upholding the platform of the Soviet regime and striving to participate in Socialist construction”. It is interesting because it seems as though they wanted people to keep pushing to be better and become artistic but at the same time, it is all about censoring people and making only arts that they approve of. Even in the works we see that there is the ambition for great works but then it includes massive censorship and limitations on what they can even say. I often think of how much stuff was created that would have been disregarded and never published, simply because the officials did not like it, but now it is greatly values and sought after to some degree.

What other themes besides communism do you think showed up in popular soviet expression?

Soviet Music

1932 marked the inauguration of the second Soviet “Five Year Plan”. This second phase included the arts namely literature and music. “the organization of composers proceeded rather slowly; while the Soviet writers were able to mount their first national congress in 1934, the Soviet composer did not hold a national conference until 1948.” Why did it take the composers so much longer to organize?

What is Soviet music?

In Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, we read all about the Resolution of 1932 and the way that enabled the Party to take the primary role in determining the direction that Soviet composers would take when creating new music. This had a profound impact on the music being produced. Schwartz says, “advanced composers became commonplace. Young composers endeavoured to be inoffensive, and conservatism became a cherished virtue, while musical nationalism experienced a revival” (115). The Party’s desire to become more involved in music indicates that they felt it was an important aspect of Soviet society that deserved their attention. That leads me to my questions: Why was music so important to Soviet culture? Additionally, the quote I included mentions “musical nationalism.” What is that and why is it significant?

Shostakovich

Shostakovich, although a determined and avid composer was not to be pitied. He was strongly criticized for his work, although he can not be considered a trailblazer. He never strayed from the Marxist-Leninist aesthetic. He stated, “I consider that every artist who isolates himself from the world is doomed. I find it incredible that an artist should want to shut himself away from the people who, in the end, form his audience. I think an artist should serve the greatest possible number of people. I always try to make myself understood as widely as possible, and, if I don’t succeed, I consider it my own fault.” He blames the opinions of the public on himself. I personally disagree with his statement. I think he was ahead of his time, and the only reason his failures were critiqued so harshly was the political climate and country that he released them in. Do you believe that Shostakovich was right in taking the blame for his failures, or is it deeper than this?

This information is from Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia pages 109-140 by Boris Schwarz

Chaos Instead of Music

The article Chaos Instead of Music says that lot of the music in Stalinist Russia was left leaning. Much of the music composed during this time period was considered to be “leftist” rather than natural human music. Much like the theatre this is portrayed as the negative affects of “Meyerholdism”. Many blame the “petty-bourgeois” for allowing natural human arts and music to be revealed to the soviet citizens.

The article states.

“The composer of Lady Macbeth was forced to borrow from jazz its nervous, convulsive, and spasmodic music in order to lend “passion” to his characters. While our critics, including music critics, swear by the name of socialist realism, the stage serves us, in Shostakovich’s creation, the coarsest kind of naturalism.”

This shows us that the soviets were influenced heavily even in their music, arts, poetry and so much more. They never had naturalistic experiences.

css.php