The performance and reception of Western classical music in Soviet Russia

这项研究项目将探索苏联音乐和文化生活的一个领域，这个领域一直被历史学家忽视：1900年前西方艺术音乐的表演和接受。虽然这些曲目最初似乎站在西方/苏联现代主义的主要冲突区域之外，但在苏联，没有任何音乐被视为意识形态中立，J.S.巴赫、莫扎特和贝多芬等作曲家都必须承受一定程度的政治审查。在某些情况下，就像文艺复兴时期和巴洛克时期的神圣音乐一样，禁令最终到位，以阻止进一步的表演，而像莫扎特的《安魂曲》这样的神圣作品可以在整个苏联时期演出。这个项目首先整理了演出数据和关于接受的著作，重点放在三个主要领域：从苏联曲目中移除大多数神圣的音乐，并在20世纪60年代和70年代逐步恢复它；20世纪20年代和30年代以无产阶级群体为目标的西方古典音乐；以及对苏联时期“大众经典”项目的全面分析。接待巴赫、贝多芬和瓦格纳等西方音乐史上的重要人物，对于评估苏联文化是如何随着西方音乐传统的演变而演变的，具有最大的价值。西方音乐传统仍然主导着俄罗斯音乐厅。由于20世纪20年代反对过去文化的激进呼声被政策制定者忽视，最紧迫的问题是，应该如何看待资产阶级西方艺术音乐：作为社会主义历史进程中的一个必要阶段；作为不合时宜和无关紧要的东西，还是应该作为一种珍贵的遗物保存下来，与大众分享？对某些剧目的接受或拒绝，并不令人惊讶，是由更广泛的政治力量决定的。一个明显的例子是瓦格纳--最初被认为是一位革命性的作曲家，但他的歌剧在第二次世界大战后突然被放弃了。但剧目选择的其他变化不是很明显的原因，确定这些变化是这个项目的一个重要部分。莫斯科爱乐乐团和列宁格勒爱乐乐团在某些音乐会上发放了观众问卷，这可能会产生几个影响：他们被要求这样做是为了证明他们选择的曲目是合理的，还是他们只是从选定的订阅系列中确定了特定社会群体的意见？目前尚不清楚为什么一些作曲家和作品在1917-1991年期间不受干扰地保留在曲目中，而一些作曲家和作品则被悄悄删除或被禁，这项研究将解决我们知识中的这一差距。该项目的更广泛的影响是重要的。它将探索自觉的新文化和旧文化之间的复杂关系，旧文化是它的基础，也是它最初完全依赖的基础。通过这样做，它将调查苏联政权是如何将一些看起来无伤大雅的东西作为维护对其西方遗产的控制的一种方式。它还将探索“高雅艺术”的保管人和无产阶级群体之间的关系：如何选择适合他们的剧目，作为一种建立他们的文化水平的方式，同时转移他们对流行文化的注意力，因为流行文化不那么“进步”，不容易监测和控制，因此更具颠覆性。这项研究还将评估那些真正希望分享他们认为是苏联无产阶级合法遗产的音乐的掌权者和那些希望利用这些遗产实现更直接政治目的的人之间的利益冲突。这可能包括一定程度的强制执行，包括爱乐乐团在工厂和俱乐部的‘外展’活动，或者激进地断言苏联作曲家的浪漫主义和古典模式，以此来引导他们远离西方现代主义的危险。

This research project will explore an area of Soviet musical and cultural life that has been ignored by historians until now: the performance and reception of Western art music pre-1900. While this repertoire seems initially to stand outside the main conflict zone of Western/Soviet modernism, no music was regarded as ideologically neutral in the Soviet Union, and composers such as J.S. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all had to bear a degree of political scrutiny. In some cases, as with Renaissance and Baroque sacred music, bans eventually came into place to block further performance, while a sacred work such as Mozart's Requiem could be performed throughout the whole Soviet period. Initially collating performance data and writings on reception, this project will focus on three major areas: the removal of most sacred music from Soviet repertoire and its gradual reinstatement in the 1960s and 70s; the targeting of proletarian groups with Western 'classical' music in the 1920s and 30s, and an overall analysis of the 'Classics for the Masses' project in the Soviet period. The reception of major figures from Western music history such as Bach, Beethoven and Wagner is of the greatest value in assessing how Soviet culture evolved in response to the Western music traditions that still dominated the Russian concert hall. Since militant calls to reject past culture in the 1920s were ignored by policy-makers, the most pressing question was how bourgeois Western art music should be regarded: as a necessary phase in the historical advance to socialism; as anachronistic and irrelevant, or as a precious relic that should be preserved and shared with the masses? Acceptance or rejection of certain repertoire was, not surprisingly, shaped by wider political forces. An obvious example is Wagner - initially favoured as a revolutionary composer, his operas were abruptly dropped after the Second World War. But other changes in repertoire selection occurred for less obvious reasons, and identifying what these were is an important part of this project. The Moscow and Leningrad Philharmonias issued audience questionnaires at certain concerts, which could have several implications: were they required to do this in order to justify their choice of repertoire, or were they simply canvassing opinion from specific social groups, which they identified from the selected subscription series? Nothing is currently known about why some composers and works remained in the repertoire undisturbed from 1917-1991 while some were quietly dropped or banned, and this research will address that gap in our knowledge.The wider implications of the project are significant. It will explore the complex relationship between a self-consciously new culture and the old on which it was based, and on which it initially depended entirely. In so doing, it will investigate how the Soviet regime 'managed' something as apparently innocuous as mainstream concert repertoire as a way of asserting control over its Western heritage. It will also explore the relationship between the custodians of 'high art' and the proletarian groups: how repertoire was selected as suitable for them as a way of building up their level of culture while distracting them from the popular culture that was less 'improving', less easy to monitor and control and which was therefore more potentially subversive. The research will also assess the conflicts of interest between those in positions of power and influence who sincerely wished to share the music that they believed was the rightful heritage of the Soviet proletariat, and those who wished to use that heritage to more direct political ends. This might include a degree of enforcement, including the Philharmonias' 'outreach' activities in factories and clubs, or the aggressive assertion of Romantic and Classical models for Soviet composers as a way of steering themfrom the dangers of Western modernism.