Customer Reviews

Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Instead of flaming one another on the topic of 'Testimony' based on our political preference, we might do better looking at the quality of the text itself. Because whether it is Dmitri Shostakovich' own story or a first-person novel by Volkov, this is a deeply engrossing, chillingly emotional and intensely tragic tale about the cost of fame in the Stalin years. And whether the precise details of the story are accurate or not, I have little doubt - also based on other 'testimonies' - that in that respect this one hits the nail on the head. The matter of its relation to Shostakovich' music is more problematic. Statements often quite explicitly contradict earlier opinions by Shostakovich, even if there seems no political reason for doing this. See, for instance, his description of the first symphony. I can hardly imagine any conspiracy being at work here - there are far more explicit condemnations of the Soviet Union to be found. As a document of cultural history, this is a very important text, and anyone interested in Shostakovich, his life, and his work, will be forced to form an opinion about 'Testimony'

Dmitri Shostakovich, now over thirty years removed from his death in 1975, represents one of the greatest virtues in art: that it can break painful silences and transcend an oppressive few for the good of many. Unlike the minor roles that classical composers hold in society nowadays, the premiere of a Shostakovich symphony, string quartet, or song cycle was a major, socially relevant happening. In extraordinary instances like his Seventh and Eighth Symphonies (written in 1941 and 1943), Shostakovich's work attracted millions of listeners throughout the world. It is a separate issue as to whether or not the composers of today have isolated themselves from the masses, but Shostakovich's music was certainly a willing and able contributor to the betterment of mankind.

By the time that Shostakovich and musicologist Solomon Volkov are said to have begun work on 'Testimony' in 1971, the 65-year-old composer was much a living record of Soviet cultural history. Shostakovich's pensive look was conditioned by the Bolshevik Revolution, its difficult aftermath, the Second World War, persecutions at the hands of Josef Stalin, and a continuous siege on Russian artists of every medium. According to Volkov, these experiences had grown cobwebs in Shostakovich's mind; no Soviet citizen discussed history under the Stalinist regime, which was equally heart-wrenching and dangerous. Letters, diaries, and other written records were destroyed to prevent 'guilt by association' and avoid one's sentence to the Gulag. Fear and paranoia were inevitable results: even during the slow 'Thaw' under Nikita Khrushchev, Shostakovich remained largely silent (except for his music) and kept memories under wraps.

Volkov claims a strong bond with Shostakovich through two pivotal events: the suppression of 'Rothschild's Violin,' an opera written by Shostakovich's late pupil Veniamin Fleishman, and the censoring of historical information provided by Shostakovich for Volkov's book on young Leningrad composers. Experiencing another generation's worth of censorship is what supposedly gave Shostakovich the longing to dust those mental cobwebs off and begin work on 'Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich As Related to and Edited by Solomon Volkov.' Arguably the most controversial book in world musical literature - save for the philosophical writings of Wagner - 'Testimony' has managed to survive fierce attack from critics and is still looked upon as a vivid portrait of the man and oppressive society he was immersed in.

Originally published by Harper & Row in 1979, 'Testimony' won the ASCAP-Deems Taylor Award for distinguished music writing and has enjoyed several later impressions. Limelight Editions, who released its first paperback edition in 1984, has now commemorated Testimony's 25th anniversary with a 2004 printing, which contains the brief foreword of conductor-pianist Vladimir Ashkenazy. Ashkenazy, a staunch supporter of 'Testimony,' credits Volkov with elucidating Shostakovich's persona and breaking the myth of Shostakovich as a willing Soviet propagandist. He also extends Testimony's support to Rudolf Barshai, who conducted the premiere of Shostakovich's Fourteenth Symphony and claims 'Testimony' as '100 percent correct.'

Those who read 'Testimony' for the first time will perhaps judge it a fascinating tome on Soviet cultural and social history. The book opens with a preface by Volkov that explains how the working relationship developed between Shostakovich and himself. Volkov's lengthy introduction follows, placing Shostakovich's career in striking relief to the conditions under which he lived. Trailing the Ashkenazy foreword are 273 pages of Shostakovich's 'recollections and opinions,' said to have been compiled in shorthand and later edited by Volkov. The memoirs are in loose chronological order: Shostakovich first touches upon his 'uninteresting' childhood (though interesting from an outsider's point of view), his conservatory studies, and personalities he met at a young age. According to Volkov, Shostakovich found it easier to discuss his life in relation to others - a 'mirrored style.' Of the many people he knew in his earlier years, three names stand out: Alexander Glazunov, a well-known composer and head of the St. Petersburg/Petrograd Conservatory; Vsevolod Meyerhold, the famed dramatist whose company employed Shostakovich in his early twenties; and friend Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Marshal of the Soviet Union, who was executed on treason charges drummed up by Stalin.

Middle sections deal with Shostakovich's nightmares in 1936 and 1948, when he was reproached by the Soviet Communist Party for 'formalism' and 'bourgeois decadence.' The Leningrader paints a disgusting scene of tribunals for composers, writers, and other artists who looked to pass blame onto their colleagues and avoid a death sentence. Shostakovich only goes so far in discussing these events, apparently too repulsed to describe matters for long. The remaining pages alternate between Shostakovich's thoughts on Soviet life, his compositions, and his attitudes toward the West. Particularly engaging are his reorchestration of Mussorgsky's 'Boris Godunov' and how the USSR oppressed culture in national republics such as the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Shostakovich often delves into the process of writing music, which is both fascinating and instructive for any young musician.

'Testimony' is written in a conversational language, which gives the pseudo-memoirs an intimate feel. The book was translated by Antonina W. Bouis, highly regarded for her work on Soviet authors, including poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko and nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov. There is much idiosyncratic language, which is unavoidable, but the writing maintains flow and balance. The text also conveys plenty of wry humor that Shostakovich was known for. Stalin and his apparatchiks are never free from Shostakovich's vitriol and the composer can unearth a joke in describing his worst hours. It was Shostakovich, after all, who wrote the sarcastic Thirteenth Symphony and 'Rayok,' a cantata that spat upon the 1948 anti-formalist campaign and was not heard publicly until 1989.

Volkov was in his late twenties when compiling 'Testimony' and admits to his relative inexperience as a writer. The recollections are mostly chronological, but Volkov could have arranged them more sensibly. Shostakovich's discussions of Glazunov pop up at tangential moments when all of these recollections could have been grouped together. In fact, Glazunov is discussed far too often: Shostakovich's opinions of Tchaikovsky are hardly noted, while Rachmaninov and modern Czech composers such as Martinu and Suk are not mentioned in the text at all. There is also not enough said about musical performance; Shostakovich hardly discusses his technique for playing piano and says nothing about exceptional instrumentalists like Sviatoslav Richter, David Oistrakh, and Leonid Kogan. One wonders if Shostakovich chose not to discuss these men or if Volkov decided to omit the conversations. It's moments such as these when Volkov is disappointing as a young biographer.

The nagging question, of course, is how much of 'Testimony' contains pure Shostakovich (if any) and how much consists of Volkov and Soviet gossip. Disputes over 'Testimony' have reached a level of farce in American academia, both sides trying to preserve their scholarly reputations. If alive today, Shostakovich might very well have a laugh (and perhaps even write an operetta) over what has raged since Testimony's appearance. American musicologist Laurel Fay heads the anti-Testimony camp, citing articles written by Shostakovich years earlier that match the openings to each 'Testimony' chapter (excluding the first). Allan Ho and Dmitri Feofanov support 'Testimony' in their book 'Shostakovich Reconsidered,' using psychological evaluation (who's next, the optometrists?) to back a claim that Shostakovich read these articles for historical context and could rehash such passages from memory. The 'Testimony' debate has grown so ugly between these two camps that Shostakovich is now something of a football for academics to kick around.

Significant names besides Vladimir Ashkenazy have supported 'Testimony:' Shostakovich's two children, cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, and soprano Galina Vishnevskaya have all backed Testimony's general sentiment, though none would accept it as 'absolute truth.' Certainly, Volkov's book cannot be taken as gospel, but 'Testimony' was written by a young journalist with first-hand experience of the Soviet system. Volkov was, in many ways, better equipped to understand Shostakovich's dilemmas than plush academicians of the West who look to discredit him.

Shostakovich's ability to write was limited by a muscular disorder in his final years, which placed the task of his memoirs in a secondary writer's hands. Even if compiled by an older, more experienced journalist, 'Testimony' would still not have originated from Shostakovich's pen and its controversy as a second-hand (and explosive) tome may have been equally apparent. Decades of confusion over Shostakovich's place in Soviet art - the belief in his role as a compliant celebrity - may require decades of adjustment. Ignorance of Soviet reality continues to linger in the worst places.

It must be said that 'Testimony,' even in Limelight's 25th anniversary edition, is completely unchanged from the original 1979 printing. In Volkov's essays and footnotes, 'Soviet affairs,' for instance, are still discussed as current and now-deceased figures are still mentioned as living. Occasional typographic errors also remain intact. It is perhaps in the best interests of 'Testimony,' however, to leave these sections unaltered and as they were originally conceived. While outdated, the book keeps a certain historical authenticity and shows that Volkov has refused to compromise in the face of those questioning his journalistic integrity.

And to fully appreciate Shostakovich's inner workings, there is no better source than his music, which continues to grow in popularity. 'Testimony' offers a remark that no listener or scholar of any persuasion can dispute: 'I write music, it's performed. It can be heard, and whoever wants to hear it will. After all, my music says it all.' 'Testimony,' in the meantime, remains widely circulated at bookstores, in libraries, and on the Internet.

Testimony: The Memories of Dmitri Shostakovich has undergone a lot of scrutiny since it was published in 1979. It was accepted as authentic by many at the time, was treated as a fraud and by others and with skepticism by people like Maxim Shostakovich. Seventeen years later, I think that we can accept this book as memories related to Solomon Volkov by the composer; this year a new edition of the book will appear in Russia with a foreword by Shostakovich's daughter Galya and Maxim. Their acceptance of the book has helped to convince me that it is authentic.

However, this is hardly a comprehensive book of memories. The book covers Shostakovich's professional life rather than his personal life; there is little mentioned about the composer's family. His wife Nina is mentioned only once in noting that Lady Macbeth was dedicated to her. The important people in Dmitri Shostakovich's professional life, like Glazunov, Tukhachesvsky and Meyerhold are much more fully portrayed, and there are some interesting anecdotes about them and many of Shostakovich's colleagues. But perhaps what is most fascinating parts of the book deal with the frustration and horror with which Shostakovich describes life under Stalin. I found this part of the book chilling and reading it gave me a fuller understanding of what life is like not only without freedom but to live with fear.

The book reads like an interview but without the questions that are being asked of the composer. It is as if a series on anecdotes were collected together to form each chapter. But what has always convinced me that the majority of Testimony reflected the composer's thought is that these anecdotes square with encounters with the composer that were recorded by his friends and colleagues. Compare the information from Elizabeth Wilson's book on Dmitri Shostakovich to Testimony and similarities can easily be found. Mstislav Rostropovich considered this book to be a collection of anecdotes made by the composer.

I find that the text flows nicely and the informal tone makes for fast reading. Although Testimony may not be the perfect book of memories it does represent an important source of Shostakovich's thoughts on his career and many of the people he worked with.

From 1992 to 1998, Dmitry Feofanov and I thoroughly researched the authenticity and accuracy of Testimony, including conducting interviews with Solomon Volkov, Maxim and Galina Shostakovich, and many others. In a forthcoming book, Shostakovich Reconsidered (Toccata Press, 1998), we reveal how opponents of the Shostakovich memoirs have failed to report all of the facts, have taken things out of proper context, and, above all, have remained curiously silent on the wealth of information that corroborates Testimony. (Allan B. Ho)

Testimony is 276 pages of a "shackled genius" (as Solzhenitsyn described him) being truly and 100% candid for the first time in his adult life. Compiled through interviews with the much-maligned Solomon Volkov, Shostakovich requested that they be published "after my death, after my death" for good reason.
For the more casual reader, a fabulous read; gripping, powerful, shattering. And educational, too.
For the historian or musicologist, one sees through "Testimony" the society Shostakovich and his colleagues lived in, and composed in.
For the musician, the groundwork is laid for gaining insight to Shostakovich the person, and thus the basic aspects of the composer's music: bitterness, sarcasm, satire, quotation, and a very direct, pointed language.
To consider the controversy regarding this book's "authenticity," I direct your attention to Ho & Feofanov's "Shostakovich Reconsidered," which is a truly enlightening work, both about "Testimony" and Shostakovich in general. Elizabeth Wilson's book is remarkable, too.

Although numerous assaults have taken place against testimony, as if Dmitri Shostakovich had offered his heart on a platter in his film scores but not in the 4th quartet, _Testimony_ has managed to come out the victor amidst the barrage. In addition to the fact that Shostakovich's (or "Shostakovich's", if you skeptics prefer) words coincide so well with the music, I have read various collections of evidence pro Testimony- I think that dozens and dozens of quotations from colleagues of Shostakovich (including his daughter and son) attesting to the truthfulness of Testimony are better evidence than the pedantic date-mincing of cynics who had never met the man.

With all of this further defense of the book aside, I must say that this is a fine book, and it is finer still if you will accept the words within as fact. Read all of the mud-slinging regarding Testimony first if you wish, but with all of it aside this book is a fine work of fact, and would even be a fine work of fiction.

Although pedants may be quite blind to the fact, this book is rather moving, at times humourous, at times starkly observant... One who does not adore Shostakovich's music would do well to read the book, for one gains a great psychological perspective into what are merely very good works when viewed as 'absolute music'.

I bought this used from an Amazon vendor for the Shostakovich year about the same time I bought the new set of symphonies by Kitaenko and the Cologne Gurzenich Orchestra. I didn't expect I would listen to all the symphonies before finishing the book, which I expected -- from everything I'd read about it for 20 years -- to be a riveting engagement.

Sad to say, it was not. The book is a set of professional memoirs from the author at the end of his life, presented through the voice of Solomon Volkov, who knew the composer as editor of a Soviet musical publication.

Since the book covers Shostakovich at the end of his life -- he told Volkov not to publish it while he was alive -- it is a tome of his bitterness built up over the decades. Shostakovich goes on for pages about other musicians, people lost to the Stalin purges, his teacher Glazunov and others in the Soviet artistic intelligentsia. The book covers virtually no personal ground for the composer; there is nothing in it about his children other than a few photos.

Many of the famous quotes attributed to Shostakovich, including "my symphonies are tombstones" are included in the text. You have to get about halfway through the thing before it goes into any detail in the important matters about Shostakovich's music, its hidden messages only legible to those who knew him at the time, and what he had to do to publish these works during the era of Stalin's Soviet realism.

Shostakovich's famous wit and cynicism appear much earlier in these pages. His distaste for Toscanini is recited in the first 25 pages. He's onto a split view of Stravinsky 5 or 6 pages later. Not much later, he says Prokofiev had the soul of a goose and a chip on his shoulder. A few pages later he called Russian conductor Alexander Gauk "a rare specimen of stupidity." He has even harsher words for other composers and artists.

I was a little disappointed by all this, to be honest. I expected more of a polemic on Soviet society and less of a laissez faire view of the composer's artistic life and friends. The book spends more time on Shostakovich's trip to New York in 1947 and his disdain of American reporters than it does on any aspect of his childhood, marriages, or life with his children. And that wasn't much, either.

Still, this is an important perspective on the 20th century's most important and accomplished symphonist, whose music has been celebrated this year. Through its discussion of Shostakovich fulfilling the Russina "yurodivy" role, we intrinsically understand the finale of his great 5th Symphony is the joy of forced labor. We have an idea the noisy and cacaphonous sections of his 4th Symphony are his fear of the secret police taking him away. We know his 8th symphony is more about ther rigors of totalitarianism than Russia's Great Patriotic War.

For this, the book is an enduring view into the mind and artistic life of the composer that probably best illuminated life in Soviet Russia. There is no mirror of the composer that was considered a faithful communist and wunderkind after composing the wonderful and joyous 1st Symphony. That person does not exist in this book and his memoirs are not included.

Shostakovich's terrible memories brush a dark and desolate picture of the living conditions under Stalin's leadership in the Soviet Union, with memorable portraits of the dictator himself, of friends and enemies: `I thought of all my friends. And I saw only mountains of dead bodies. I am not exaggerating, just mountains.'

Stalin
Stalin was a spider. Anyone who was trapped in his web had to die. Some even didn't deserve a sparkle of mercy. They really wanted to be so close to him to get pats on their back. Defiling themselves with blood of innocent people was absolutely no problem.
Stalin had no ideology, no convictions, no ideas or principles. Stalin's only aim was to tyrannize people, to make them fearful and obedient in order to consolidate his power. People literally sh.t in their pants when they had to appear before him and they considered this to be an honor!
Stalin ruled by ukases. One day the leader and teacher said this and the next day something completely different. It was pure madness. He was a man full of black envy for those who had more fame than himself (Zhukov, Akhmatova).

Atmosphere in the USSR under Stalin
In those days everybody wrote denunciations. Composers wrote it on their scores and musicologists on plain paper. And not even one of them repented. Blind folk singers were executed, because they sang songs with a dubious content: one couldn't correct texts of blind people.
Why did Shostakovich survive unlike his friends Meyerhold or Tukhatchevski? Because he wrote good film music and Stalin considered movies as important propaganda tools.

Cynicism about artists and politicians
He is extremely harsh for Solzhenitsyn (the so-called humanist), Sakharov, Shaw, Malraux, Romain Rolland, Lion Feuchtwanger (he never really saw Moscow) or Mayakovsky (power was for him the great moral law).
His advice is: do not try to save mankind. Try to save one man; that's much harder. Saving the whole of mankind nearly always turns into genocides.

These memories contain excellent information on Russian musical life: Glazounov, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov.
The whole book bathes in blood, in innocent blood, in a Kafkaesque atmosphere full of terror and dead bodies. And what about music in these horrific times? It came also under attack ... for formalism.

This tragic work is a must read for all those interested in music and the history of mankind.

I read this 30 years ago when it first came out and somehow lost my copy.

How anyone could think that Volkov made all this stuff up or cribbed it from previous publications is amazing in itself.
Ho and Feofanov destroy this idea in The Shostakovich Wars (downloadable at [...]

There has been great controversy surrounding the truth and accuracy in this book. Allegedly his last wife claimed that he never spoke with Solomon Volkov, but there is a photo in the front cover of Mr. and Mrs. Shostakovich with Volkov and Tishchenko, Shostakovich's favorite student, so I don't know what the basis of her comment was. Maxim and Galya Shostakovich, his children, both agree that the book is factual, so that's good enough for me. With that said, the book is by no means an autobiography. Volkov assembled this volume after compiling his notes from his interviews with the composer. He could not record their discussions, as Shostakovich shied away from microphones.

Most of the pages are filled with Shostakovich's musings about the people in his life, and little about his own life experiences. He was well cultured, and makes frequent references to important Russians in theater and literature, as well as in music and history. This results in many footnotes so the average reader can understand what is being discussed!

With that said, one can learn much about the composer's beliefs and personality by reading this, much as a literary character can be characterized through their interactions with other characters. I regret that he does not speak more about his music, but I suppose he is right when he says that his music is meant to speak for itself.
It is lamentable that this musical genius did not live a more fulfilling life. The last section of the book implies that he has always lived a very troubled and melancholy life, but perhaps that is why his music was so brilliant.

I rate this 4 stars instead of 5 because of the lack of discussion about his life.