T-p, if you are reading this, I wanted to ask something, that others might have some information/thoughts upon as well. I'm rather fond of the nick you use, it has a certain 'Soviet' quality, implying being a pianist is mainly an issue of 'skilled labour'. What I'm interested to know is whether musical education in the Soviet Union was conceived in such terms - that becoming a pianist or other instrumentalist, was essentially about good training to acquire the skills, rather than so much being the product of god-sent genius or the like? Certainly it seems like the average instrumental standard, from what I've heard both from musicians who travelled to the West in those times, and also from reports of those who heard, say, orchestras even in quite provincial towns, was extremely high, arguably higher than in much of the West. Was that type of egalitarian ethos ('most can do it with the right training and committment') a factor, or not really? If anyone else has ideas on this in the context either of the Soviet Union or other Eastern Bloc countries, I'd be very interested to know more. I've heard that the musical educational ethos in Japan is of this nature, also.

The Soviet hierarchy was structured in such a way that artists and scientists were on top of it (not business people or people that make money as it is in the West). As a result many people wanted their children to go to arts or science and admission to music schools and colleges was very competitive.
Music education started very early. Each city had many music schools. There were entrance exams. Talented children were picked up early.
The education was very well structured and children had to practice a lot. This was not expensive because government subsidized schools. But because teachers did not depend on tuition from students they demanded good work. If the child did not progress much his parents would be contacted and they made sure that the child would practice. In many instances children became musicians because parents’ decision and not their own.
After music school there were entrance exam into Music College which was four years. After that there was a conservatory (unless one went into ten years Central music school).
The mass participation insured that there were enough talented musicians to choose from and in fact there was a surplus of musicians and the average level was very high.

The hierarchy has changed since then and culture is not promoted as before. More talented people go to different areas now (not arts or science).

There was more idealism during Soviet era. There was guaranteed standard. It was not easy because the State had to give one a flat and everything else (job). Some times I feel nostalgic about that area and more relaxed relationships, but I am deviating.
May be that education was egalitarian because it was available. However, a lot depended on the family where one was brought up. Some parents were more supportive than other's. Here some parents can not afford music education.

Also the statue of teachers was high in music schools, they could take others children instead because there were so many who wanted to have a place in music school. We were never beaten, but could be verbally chastized (some times to the point of abuse).

t-p
At the risk of taking Ian's thread a little off topic, I wondered what you thought of Pletnev in this context. His style certainly isn't mass produced, although many seem to think it is wilfully idiosyncratic.

In the context of Ian's original question, I think it is worth pointing out the degree to which classical music was/is held to be a civilising influence and essential accomplishment of an averagely-educated person in Russia/USSR.

I was at a performance of LA TRAVIATA last night in St Petersburg (at St Petersburg Opera), and the back three rows were made up entirely of cadets (ie conscripts - Russia still has compulsory National Service for men) from the Naval College.  Not only were they impeccably behaved (and all in dress uniform for the occasion),  they took genuine interest in the performance, and had even brought a couple of bouquets to present to the Leading Lady and Flora.  (Without wanting to play the sympathy card, the pay these cadets get is close to the breadline, so to find some money to buy flowers for opera performers was not merely a passing whim).

Two weeks ago I was at a different TRAVIATA in Ulaanbaatar (aka Ulan-Bator), a far more remote outpost of the ex-soviet bloc, and the same thing happened - military cadets were brought along to the performance,  and apparently enjoyed it too.

I tried to imagine if anything similar could happen in Britain?  Would squaddies from Aldershot go willingly to LA BOHEME, and listen appreciatively to the performance?  I fear it wouldn't happen. (I don't exclude the possibility of individual soldiers wanting to go in their own time and for their own money, however).

I remain convinced that the difference remains the place which culture held/holds at the centre of Russian/Soviet society. The degree of mocking and satirising of "high art" forms like ballet and opera simply doesn't happen in Russia.  I don't say that it's placed on a pedastal, and good-natured lampoonery always has a place - it keeps performers on their toes about being over-precious.  (Moscow Nikulin Circus at the moment has a great spoof ballet routine in which clowns dressed as frogs jump on lily-pads with concealed hooters in them, honking-out the "Reed Dance" from "The Nutcracker" - great fun for all).  It's not in the slightest unusual for a classical performance (for example, a soprano singing an opera aria accompanied by a harp) to appear in a night-club in Moscow - and be listened to...  something which I can't imagine happening in a London or Manchester nightclub??

Performers remain a respected "breed" in society.  I was with a Tuvan throat-singer acquaintance in Moscow last summer, and we were on Red Square (he'd never been, and wanted to see it).  We were pulled-aside for routine Security (there was a security "scare" on at the time) so he pulled out his ID papers, on the top of which was his Honoured Artist of the Russian Federation card...  the cops didn't even dare open it,  but apologised for the inconvenience and ushered us forward at the head of the queue,  out of genuine respect for him.

Without my Hoffmann rose-tinted specs on, I'd even go so far as saying that the position helps prevent artistes becoming too "rarified", and since they feel like regular members of society,  they are rather more inclined to indulge in everyday pastimes such as vodka-drinking, singing national songs with gusto, going to sports matches etc.

I think non-professional music-making has a fairly distinguished pedigree in Russia, although I am not qualified to talk extensively about it.  Several of "The Five" had non-musical professions as their "primary" occupations, of course.  Savva Mamonov - who in his public life was an early railway tycoon prior to the interposition of the USSR - was a very cultured man in his private life, and founded the first private opera company in Russia,  in which he sang as a baritone.

Moving on into the Soviet era,  almost every workplace or profession would have had a "Dvorets Kul'tury" ("Palace of Culture" - the title doesn't sound so pretentious in Russian, where it means something nearer a "Hall" in this context).  The principle reason for such "Palaces" was to give workers access to concerts and performances by the best professional artistes, who would visit specially for the purpose.  However, performances by the workers themselves - along with access to coaching and rehearsal facilities - were an important secondary function of the "D/K"s  (the title swiftly moved to being referred to as "D/K", pronounced "DeKa").  Several of these still exist today as important performance venues - for example the Railway Workers Palace Of Culture is an important venue in Moscow, and although the name has a strangely quaint twang to it when translated, it's so commonplace in Moscow usage that noone really thinks about it.  (The "Railway Workers" DK was probably the best of its generation - it has a super large stage, excellent facilities and a super location,  so it has "everything going for it"). 

I don't wish to make any negative points about the subordination of "non-professional" to "professional" performances - this was more of a "demarcation" issue than one regarding the "quality" of the performance itself.  Rather like today, many medics and scientists were/are outstanding musicians too,  and performances at "Dom Uchennix" ("Hall of Educators") were always very good, regardless of the "status" of the musicians who were performing.  Then, as now, quite a few of the leading professionals emerged from the ranks of distinguished non-professional performers.  Ahmed Agadi, who is now a top operatic tenor in Moscow, was originally a civil engineer by profession.  By chance on Monday last week, at the home of some friends, we were watching a video made of an amateur performance of the Faure Requiem, 15 years ago....  we had fun "spotting" amongst the chorus people who are now opera soloists, and among the tenors Mikhail Granovsky - now the #3 conductor at the Bolshoi.

It's worth mentioning, of course, that the USSR's most famous diva, Galina Vishnevskaya, began as an amateur performer.  In fact she had auditioned for an Apprenticeship at the Bolshoi Theatre, and been rejected.  She then began singing as the soloist with a group from the Metalworker's Institute, and later joined a travelling circus to gain performing experience.  She always claimed "never to have a lesson in her life", and I'm quite sure this was broadly true.