We wish to enquire of Member Grew and others of the assembled company whether they are aware of the statement by Comrade Dmitri concerning the good lady below:



in which he allegedly declared her to be a finer composer than himself? We would like to be made aware of whether this statement is indeed authentic, or falls into the category known as 'apocryphal'? Whichever of these situations is later uncovered by painstaking scholarship, Member Pace would like to endorse such a sentiment.

Member Hinton would like - no, sorry, HAVE - to endorse such a sentiment (by which he means yours, Bryn, not that of Member Pace on this occasion)...

Best,

Alistair

Member Pace believes that Comrade Ustvolskaya's music amply demonstrates the virtues of the musical attitude today known within the category of 'relative autonomy' (which, it should be noted, is a somewhat milder term than that of 'Absolute Music' as explored elsewhere on this good messageboard), in comparison to that of Comrade Shostakovich, whose frustrated attempts both to work within and without the system sadly demonstrate the truth of the sentiments expressed by Comrade Adorno in his essay 'Committment'. It is a testament not simply to the artistry of Comrade Ustvolskaya but also to the relative lack of insight on the part of the authorities inspired by Comrade Zhdanov that they were unable to perceive this aspect of her work.

Member Pace would like to point out that the misspelling of 'Commitment' was entirely due to his own erroneous typing, not to either Comrade Adorno nor his translator; this does not affect his own opinion that the penetrating insights of Comrade Adorno represent a greater contribution to thought, feeling, knowledge, and the articulation of force-fields between antinomic phenomena than is provided by the music of Comrade Shostakovich. With respect to number of string quartets, Comrade Pace wishes to draw an analogy with the numbers of operas produced by Comrades Berg and Leoncavallo, and ask whether a direct conclusion of the supremacy of the latter can necessarily be inferred by the very ratio?

Comrade Pace has many thoughts concerning Comrade Shostakovich's failure to realise to fruition the category of the subject as outlined by Comrade Adorno as having originated in the work of Comrade Beethoven as the expression of revolutionary bourgeois ideals (which later turned sour as part of a historically inevitable process), but rarely attained in the work of Slavic composers even after their society shifted from feudalism to state feudalism with only a seven-year hiatus (during which period this type of subject was in the process of development - and was later developed further by Comrade Ustvolsk'aya), but would suggest that to avoid this turning into an over-extended exchange (and also in light of the fact that we have not yet had a response from Member Grew), that this should be left for private exchanges between the two Comrade Members.

No it is not actually. A lot of people react in this way to what we write. We leave it as an exercise for other Members to work out why that should be.


If we may say so that does not surprise us. Indeed it is eminently credible. But does it help the music? It is is it not always better to take one's time when writing music? Bach and Mozart wrote very quickly, but Bach kept on tinkering with his movements for years afterwards, improving them in many ways. Mozart was an unique genius and S. was no Mozart. Many more recent composers such as Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikoffski, Elgar and Sibelius spent years on their symphonies - too long even, in some cases, where their first drafts and thoughts might have been better after all. Erwartung on the other hand was dashed off in a kind of trance state. We don't think S. was in a state of trance. But in general is not polish the great indispensability in all Art? In this Eighth Symphony polish appears more a desideratum. Which perhaps brings us back to something Member Time Is Now was saying.

Frankly I am too busy with the String Quartets at the moment (quite apart from other music that needs my attention in my working hours) to return to the Eighth for now...  on top of which I am away from home presently, and it's not one of the pieces I have with me.  I'd prefer to have a score in my hand - and refer to it - rather than cite the Moscow Menswear Monthly, or Amateur Psychology Today as primary source material in any kind of write-up.

Member Pace is entirely in agreement with Comrade Member Garnett (who utterly warrants such a title, and may be slightly confusing Member Pace's insistence on a 19th-century use of the term 'Liberal' with the entirely honourable, indeed urgently in need of maintenance, creed of Social Democracy) concerning the suggestion that no Comrade composer should be expected to simply fulfil someone else's theoretical template - indeed to do so would defeat the object of that which is being suggested here. The very category of the subject in question refers to a historical interpretation of a shift in the role of the composer inaugurated by Comrade Beethoven. Prior to this Honourable Comrade's work, the job of the composer was primarily to write that which his or her employer demanded, though this left some limited scope for such a composer to fulfil their own individual wishes and needs. With Comrade Beethoven, there is a marked shift in the independence and autonomy of the composer (though this is by no means total, for the composer still has to produce work that will 'sell', if they are to gain employment from their particular activity). In the Slavic countries during the 19th century, in large measure this shift was not yet effected, though one can find elements of such in the work of Comrade Mussorgsky and some others, or in the literary production of Comrades Pushkin and Dostoyevsky. With the advent of the events of 1917 (which, to this Member, have a significance that exceeds those of 1908, to which Comrade Member Grew often alludes), there came about for a brief period a new freedom for aesthetic activity, as was mirrored in the rest of society, allowing for a new assertion of compositional subjective autonomy in the process of their labours. During the terrible era from 1924-1951 (an era whose consequences were never truly undone in the period from 1951-1991), this advance was undone, and the Comrade composers were required to subjugate their subjective wishes to the proclaimed higher duties of the supposed collective will of the nation, as determined by a small group of individuals who purported to speak for such a nation. Comrade Ustvolsk'aya chose to opt out from this process altogether and produce work in relative obscurity according to deep passions and individual convictions. Comrade Shostakovich worked within the system, and indeed benefited from it (as witnessed by his high profile), thus necessitating that he must needs create in line with the pre-ordained demands of social function. Comrade Shostakovich (in a way that may even be compared with the approaches advocated by Comrade Brecht, albeit in much milder form) may have attempted to subvert such demands from within (though whether or not this was the case has been the subject of significant differences in scholarly opinion). However, inversion still constitutes indebtedness to social function, and it is perhaps for this reason that in large measure this Member hears a lesser degree of profound subjective individuation in Comrade Shostakovich's work than the lady Comrade of whom he apparently spoke so highly. The very ability and willingness on the part of Comrade Ustvolsk'aya to allow the free expression of such dark passions in her work itself constitutes a statement of the highest optimism.