In the review of Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk published in Pravda, the anonymous critic writes, “From the first minute, the listener is shocked by deliberate dissonance, by a confused stream of sound. Snatches of melody, the beginnings of a musical phrase, are drowned, emerge again, and disappear in a grinding and squealing roar. To follow this ‘music’ is most difficult; to remember it, impossible.” As I was watching the performance, I noticed that melodic and memorable musical sequences often accompanied scenes of sex or violence. For example, at 44:00, when Sergey and Katerina first consummate their relationship, the music grows increasingly loud and fast, finally culminating in a melodic, repetitive, circus-like theme. I would imagine that this is the kind of stylistic choice the critic was referring to in the quote above. By making the sexually explicit and violent scenes more accessible musically, Shostakovich invites the audience to remember these scenes, the same way that propaganda music effectively becomes an “ear-worm” for whoever is exposed to it. I’d love to hear your thoughts about why Shostakovich chose to make the scores for these particular scenes more melodic and repetitive than others.
Additionally, I’m curious about the censorship of a literary adaptation.The critic mentions that Shostakovich gave the story on which the opera was based “a significance which it does not possess.” If we are thinking about the issue of censorship in the Soviet Union, it might be useful to discuss why the operatic adaption of the story was banned, but the story itself (as far as I understand) was not. Does this have to do with the audience of the opera? The accessibility of opera versus literature?
I would also like to add lyrical repetition to this point. During the more sexually explicit and violent scenes, certain phrases are emphasised. For example, in what was the most shocking and upsetting scene for me (the sexual assault of Aksinya), “what a pretty voice” and “she is good” are sung repeatedly (from 20:50). There is a phrase repeated during Sergei and Katerina’s wedding (approx. 2:00:00) that has a similar effect. I do not remember what the phrase is and am unable to find out because the subtitles do not appear on the online version and I returned the DVD copy, but as with the previous example, the repetition is of a ‘compliment’ amidst distress/ violence.
I am also curious as to why the lead characters’ names have two spellings and pronunciations (Sergei/Seryozha, Katerina/Katya) and whether this has any significance or is just a trivial detail.
“Additionally, I’m curious about the censorship of a literary adaptation.The critic mentions that Shostakovich gave the story on which the opera was based “a significance which it does not possess.” If we are thinking about the issue of censorship in the Soviet Union, it might be useful to discuss why the operatic adaption of the story was banned, but the story itself (as far as I understand) was not. Does this have to do with the audience of the opera? The accessibility of opera versus literature?”
I think this question might have something to do with a sort of paradox within the criteria for the censorship of music versus literature between RAPM and RAPP. On the one hand it is mentioned that, “unlike their literary counterparts in RAPP, none of the RAPM leaders seem to have had pull with the party leadership” (Fitzpatrick 190). This distinction is further elaborated on in Nelson’s “Peculiarities of the Soviet Modern,” back from Week 4, where the author writes, “unlike literature, which had obvious ideological significance and attracted interest from the Party’s highest echelons, or film, which Lenin recognized as a powerful tool for the education and political indoctrination of a largely illiterate population, music was commonly recognized as a low priority among other third front missions… the intractability of identifying musical “content” made their creativity seem more ideologically “neutral” than that of writers and visual artists…” (Nelson 46). Music was considered simultaneously both benign and dangerous because of its lack of straightforward interpretation. By adding music to the original story Shostakovich, in the eyes of RAPM’s mission, corrupts and pollutes the original, human, comprehensible story with “‘leftist” confusion instead of natural human music” (“Chaos Instead of Music,” Pravda ). It seems that in later changing the title of the opera to Katerina Izmaylova, Shostakovich attempts not only to absolve his opera of its connection with Lady Macbeth, which might have been dangerous, considering her status as a cultural figure of the west, but also of any connection with Leskov’s original book, thus shielding himself from the “corruption” criticism. As for why the literary work itself wasn’t banned, I think, again, the main object of fire in Pravada’s piece was Shostakovich’s ill-treatment of a novel that was likely considered important because of its ability to represent part of a great Russian literary canon.
That being said, I still do think it’s very important to consider the role of accessibility here. In addition to comparing the different audiences between opera and literature, I’d also ask that we consider who comprised the audience of this censorship. Is it a different group than the actual consumers of the censored culture?
“The singing on the stage is replaced by shrieks. If the composer chances to come upon the path of a clear and simple melody, he throws himself back into a wilderness of musical chaos – in places becoming cacophony” (Pravda, Muddle Instead of Music).
Ray,
The way I interpreted the lyrical and musical repetitions was in a way a “reference point” against claims like Pravda’s. Yes, Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk does get “chaotic” frequently and switches musical themes quickly (for example, minute 39). However, Shostakovitch does not do this without a semblance of continuity. Repeating musical and lyrical passages is a way to connect the opera into one musical art piece, rather than be a string of un-harmonious excerpts. However, as you and Will point out, the most prominent repetitions are in moments of violence. Does this mean that Shostakovitch believes violence itself is the binding force on both the micro and macrocosmic scale? In this vein, I have a lot of issues with Pravda saying this opera is apolitical*, since it depicts several very political messages. I think by saying this opera is apolitical, it is denying “women’s issues” i.e. autonomy, rights, sexuality etc. as a social issue, not a political one. Which, as moderns, we see this separation as false, and leaning towards the censorship of women in politics.
*”Lady MacBeth is having great success with bourgeois audiences abroad. Is it not because the opera is non-political and confusing that they praise it? Is it not explained by the fact that it tickles the perverted taste of the bourgeois with its fidgety, neurotic music?” (Pravda, Muddle Instead of Music).