Should We Perform Russian Music in 2023?
The war in Ukraine rages on, entering its second year. Just months ago, I was part of a "Tchaikovsky Spectacular" performance that featured the 1812 Overture with live cannons. The event led to some discomfort among the musicians. Questions of whether this was a tasteful move given the international circumstances were raised but never extended beyond an internal pensiveness within the organization. When it came to the performance, our wonderful conductor Damon Gupton had some moving words to share before the 1812 Overture. He expressed his own hesitation at the program, which had been planned and scheduled long before the war began (orchestras are often working on seasons 2-3 years in advance). To summarize (and hopefully accurately to his own true feelings), he stated that the work could be seen less as a celebration of Russian victory and more as a celebration of the end of war and peace for all. It was an effective and eloquent way of resolving a potential faux pas, but got me thinking about the complications we may see performing Russian music in general in the coming years.
Russian music is a mainstay on concert programs around the world. From Tchaikovsky to Rachmaninoff, from Shostakovich to Prokofiev, from Rimsky-Korsakov to Borodin, not to mention the dominant force that was and still is Stravinsky, there has been a long and meaningful classical tradition exported from Russia for several centuries now. It is a complex tradition and one that has regularly fallen under scrutiny, particularly in the U.S. The last time such scrutiny has been enacted was just before and throughout the Cold War. The popularity of Russian composers in America hit a high point in 1945 with the premiere of Prokofiev's 5th Symphony by the Boston Symphony Orchestra under the direction of Serge Koussevitsky. American performers had spent the early 1940's heralding modern Russian composers like Prokofiev and Shostakovich in an effort of support during World War II, but in the latter half of the 1940's there was a change in tone. As tensions between Moscow and Washington grew, the classical music world became less sure of what to do with Russian music.
Ultimately, Americans were able to justify their fandom of contemporary Russian composers like Shostakovich because of news concerning the Stalin Regime speaking out against, threatening, or even overtly punishing these artists. To Americans this made them heroes, and every trip Russian artists made to the U.S. – no matter what they said in public or in speeches – resulted in an enormous amount of positive attention. Constant claims of unity and commonality were made by the likes of Menuhin and Koussevitsky. While few of these positive relations had any tangible impact on the relationship between the two governments, it was at least one source of unity between the peoples of those governments.
Our current international circumstances have yet to find an answer to what place Russian culture has in 2023 America. The conversation in the Cold War era revolved mainly around Communism and the Soviet Union, and less around Russian culture itself. With Communism out of the picture, we are grappling with Russia in a different way: as an ancient country with a vast geographical, cultural, religious, industrial, and financial impact on the world. So how do we recognize this vastness and find a place for it when the spearhead that is its current government is acting with such malice and aggression?
The initial reaction at the start of the war was predictable. It became individual Russian artists' responsibility to either denounce the war or fail to do so and lose work in Europe and North America. Many swiftly and appropriately did so, although it should be recognized that they also faced great consequences for it, losing work in Russia, relationships, and even homes in the process. During the Cold War era, such decisions would have probably resulted in death under Stalinism, but a modern denunciation still holds a heavy price to pay. Some commentators have seen this as the beginning of the end of truly great Russian classical music and musicians, as there may not be anyone of true value left to take on such a heavy gauntlet. Others describe the threat of Western arts organizations to fire Russian artists who do not denounce the war as a complex and potentially self-harming move, from a financial perspective. Emily Richmond Pollock, an associate professor of music from M.I.T. recently had this to say in an interview for The New Yorker:
There is an interesting tension with the place of classical music in the United States. It connects to the inferiority complex that America sometimes has about not actually being European, but most of the repertoire that we play in our major symphony orchestras is from Europe. And so we both sort of fetishize and idealize really excellent musicians from abroad and kind of have our own kind of, Oh, but what about our homegrown soloists? There is tension there, and that’s about nationalism in the United States as much as anything. So, then, when we have certain artists who are really important to American institutions, like the way that Anna Netrebko has been a star at the Met every single season for nearly twenty years, that feels like a loss. She has bought a lot of cultural capital for the Met. Because, when I go and hear a Russian piece at the Met, the Russians who live in New York come out for that. And that’s something that the Met has capitalized on. There is a way in which the Met has really benefitted from the artistic influence of Russian artists over the past some-odd years. And, now that they’re giving it up, it’s also like they aren’t necessarily facing the truly complicated politics of who they hire and why they hire them, and how they program what they program, that has a lot to do with the Met’s identity as a company in the United States with lots and lots of ties to institutions in the U.K. and in Europe and in Russia. That’s a fact of the international classical-music ecosystem that I think we could pay a lot more attention to.
While no such exodus from Russia occurred during the Cold War, a similar series of events happened after the Revolution of 1917 and the beginnings of the USSR. This is when the likes of Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, Grechaninov, and even Glazunov emigrated out of the country. Obviously, Russian music recovered from these losses, and I'm sure it will do the same in the future, but it is a time of change without question. And the music by these ex-pat composers is surely fair game despite the international climate, just as they were welcomed to the U.S. in the 1920s and 30s, right? Just as surely welcomed are those artists that have denounced the current administration's actions against Ukraine, yes? Maybe not, as the reality of our political landscape is that being anti-communist no longer equates to being anti-Russia, and being anti-Russia does not necessarily equate to being pro-Ukraine.
The only question left untouched now is whether we continue to perform music by respected Russian composers of the past that wrote music celebrating Russia and Russian values and traditions. This could include Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and many others. Doing so may create discomfort among listeners who feel the weight of the travesties in Ukraine. Would it not be better to feature the work of Ukrainian composers like Glière, Vedel, or Kapustin? Perhaps so, but many of the Russian composers mentioned above have close ties to Ukraine before it gained its sovereignty in 1991. For example, Prokofiev studied with Glière for two years in Ukraine. Tchaikovsky's paternal family came from Ukraine and he spent several months every year there to garner inspiration for his music, even frequently incorporating Ukrainian folk music into his own work. On top of that, it must be addressed that these composers tend to sell tickets. What would a ballet season be without The Nutcracker? What would Orchestras use to successfully replace Tchaikovsky's Symphonies or Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade?
At first glance, it seems like continued performances of their works would not be antithetical to the support of Ukraine as well as important to the health of American orchestras. But what do Ukrainians have to say about it? The Ukrainian Minister of Culture, Oleksandr Tkachenko, wrote an Opinion piece for The Guardian in December of 2022 asking the world to boycott Tchaikovsky and other Kremlin-approved music, at least until the end of the war. In his words, "Boycotting Russian culture is an important step. We’re not talking about cancelling Tchaikovsky, but rather about pausing performances of his works until Russia ceases its bloody invasion." His reasoning points to the Kremlin actively destroying so much of Ukrainian culture in occupied Ukraine, and anything that falls under the approval of the Kremlin unfairly supports one side of a culture war that is being waged alongside a real one.
His logic is not unsound, although it clearly comes from a place of raw passion and desperation. Ultimately, the point of writing all this is to say it is not terribly clear whether it is ethical to perform this music or not at this point in time. Even those composers that were considered anti-communism — either overtly (like Rachmaninoff and Stravinsky) or not (like Shostakovich) — don't land in a black or white spot, as Putin himself is avidly anti-Communist. More thought must be put into programming such works, especially considering we have no idea how much longer the bloodshed will continue. More explanation is also necessary, whether it be why we chose to continuing performing it or chose not to. In the meantime, let us at least look into the alternatives, and not just Ukrainian music and performers. Much of Eastern Europe has been affected by either the USSR or Nazi Germany (or both) at some point or another, and searching out under-appreciated and under-performed works by composers from such sovereign states would be an inarguably worthy endeavor.
-P