Part One: Musicology, Psychology, and Censorship of Classical Music in the Soviet Union

*Disclaimer: This post is not peer-reviewed. I do have experience in historical research and writing, and my goal here is to analyze, not to compare.

The formation of musicology as a separate field of study did not evolve until the mid-1800s, when a curiosity to explain the relation between music and culture, ideology, race, ethnicity, and nationality emerged. It is a field that attempts to explain the “fundamentals” of a person and how they influence their creations. 

In the establishment of the Soviet Union, it was not uncommon for several musicologists to become music critics, where they enforced expectations of the ideal Soviet music. Initially, these groups of critics and composers were local and small, but later developed into the Union of Soviet Composers in 1932. A wave of skeptical optimism grew in the music critic community; they feared the then-theoretical and perceived boundless influence music had on the masses, and they sought to control that influence. 

Some critics and music researchers believed that music could affect the nervous system as early as the 1920s. It was not yet a popular theory in that decade as a whole, nor was it clinically proven. Along with these theories came pseudoscience, believing that a composer’s health or appearance could directly affect the quality of their music. This would later be used as a propaganda tool, especially in relation to Jews or Westerners whom the Russians historically distrusted.

Unfortunately, music critics and composer societies, which were originally established to support creators and music lovers, became tools of the government to control such composers. Music critics often were tools of confusion and paranoia with composers by using vague terms such as formalism. The regime could coerce compliance from these composers and musicians with career consequences, blacklisting, and in worst case scenario, political prison camps if not obeyed by using these vague critiques. 

Formalism was a serious critique in the Soviet Union, meant to generally describe music associated with the West or bourgeois sympathizers. However, there were no concrete or consistent examples that defined formalism, and it was a constantly shifting definition. At times, it was used to criticize compositions that did not convey the political message of the time.

In the context of the Soviet Union, this Western music included music such as jazz and jazz-inspired harmonies, “indecent” music, along with other music considered too “dissonant” or “ugly”. Many Slavic cultures have historically attempted to balance communal values with individualism, which created contention in the Soviet environment where  “Culture was no longer the handmaiden of the revolution; it had become the Party's servant”(1) when that culture was initially used to unite the masses against the oppressive Imperial regime.

(From left to right: Sergei Prokofiev, Dimitri Shostakovich, Aram Khachaturian)

Stalin began dictating ideal Soviet culture, especially in the late 1920s-early 1930s, the government quickly targeted and censored composers, filmmakers, and artists. However, after he died in the 1950s, creative limitations lessened but were not eliminated with the next leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, and his advancements toward “de-Stalinization”. 

Non-voice classical compositions do not typically contain words (some contemporary and modern works do), so the reception of these wordless works was limited by subjective interpretation, often by many music critics who were not accomplished musicians or composers and sometimes not musicians at all. Additionally, much of this music had to be reviewed by the Union of Soviet Composers, sometimes personally by the General Secretary of the Union at that time.

         When discussing the correlation between composers and their music, it is essential to recognize that psychology was a relatively young field from the early to mid-1900s. Early Soviet criminologist theories affected even musicologists in the 1920s. There was a particular theory that considered how an individual's personality is embedded in their nervous system. Musicologist Aleksandr Veprik analyzed the composer Arnold Schoenberg and built a physical association with his compositional style. 

This reinforced a preexisting negative perception toward certain demographics in the Soviet Union. Arnold Schoenberg belonged to three of the demographics most distrusted by Soviet authorities: the Jews, Germans, and the West. The complex history between Eastern Europe, the Jews, Germany, and the broader West is long and chaotic, and still influences politics today.

As found in James Taylor’s article, Veprik described Schoenberg as, “‘small, with a nervous face, with sharp gestures and big probing eyes, he gives the impression of a tormented man […] his mannerisms convincingly suggest […] despotism and cruelty.’” Thus began a wave of influence that built an association: if the composer looked untrustworthy, unhealthy, or had certain features, they were naturally predisposed to create a certain type of music.

The Soviets saw how atonal music gathered appeal in Western Europe, and the thought process behind the psychology of music only stimulated the fear that the Soviets experienced. (2) However, it is unclear if Veprik didn’t like 12-tone music and used that to justify such perceptions of Schoenberg, or if his dislike of Schoenberg justified his disapproval of 12-tone music. 

         Since the psychology behind music caused great debates among musicologists and politicians in the 1920s, believing that music could alter or affect the nervous system and could stimulate an emotional response, an opportunity to control and influence emerged, along with the concern of what and who. (3)

The obvious infectiousness of music heightened that concern, because music circulates quickly among a population, which is dangerous to a controlling regime if that music endorses disapproved behaviors or values. Especially since they theorized that music can potentially dictate an audience’s emotions, so control was prioritized.

Hypothetically, if composers with unhealthy minds or anti-communist beliefs could implement “dangerous” qualities in their music, then that would create potentially disastrous consequences. However, some musicologists saw potential for a positive and uniting opportunity with music if it was wielded with finesse and intention.

      (Boris Asafyev)

   Musicologist Boris Asafyev took a near-idealistic and philosophical approach to his studies. He believed that society underrated music and that it should be equally valued to the visual and literary arts because, like the others, it provides a different lens to view the world. 

Elina Viljanen explains, “Asafyev saw music (or sound in general) as a complete spiritual expression of one’s active and ‘sympathetic’ (Asafyev uses empathetic) existence in the world, on the one hand, and an act of communication on the other—an aspiration to attain spiritual communion with other beings”. Although Asafyev may have shown compassion and idealism, wanting to show the relationship between music, culture, and politics, it instead continues to fall in line with the propaganda.

Interestingly, more recent studies have emerged about how music affects the brain and the mood of a person. Composers around the world, following the Great War, were altering music significantly, with culture exchanging more broadly and quickly at this time with the help of the radio. 

The Slavophilic cultural wave that circulated in the Soviet Union, which reared its head on occasion, desired political conservatism and traditionalism. Musically, they implemented traditional folk songs to support this culture. But the dreaded term formalism surged again, especially between 1938 and 1948, when Stalin exerted more control over the population.

(1) Kevin V. Mulcahy, “Official Culture and Cultural Repression: The Case of Dmitri Shostakovich.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 18, no. 3 (1984): 73.

(2) James Taylor, “Revolutionaries or Delinquents: The Biopsychological Appraisals of Composers and Their Music in Early Soviet Russia.” The Slavonic and East

European Review 97, no. 1 (2019): 39–44.

(3) Taylor, James, “Revolutionaries or Delinquents,” 45.

Bibliography

Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party, “Against Formalistic Tendencies In Soviet Music.” February 10, 1948. Seventeen Moments in Soviet History

Mulcahy, Kevin V. “Official Culture and Cultural Repression: The Case of Dmitri Shostakovich.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 18, no. 3 (1984): 69–83.

Khruschev, Nikita, Declaration on Music in Soviet Society. March 8, 1963. Seventeen Moments in Soviet History.

Sumbur vmeste muzyki (Chaos Instead of Music), Pravda, 28 January 1936. Seventeen Moments in Soviet History.

Taylor, James. “Revolutionaries or Delinquents: The Biopsychological Appraisals of Composers and Their Music in Early Soviet Russia.” The Slavonic and East European Review 97, no. 1 (2019): 39–72.

Viljanen, Elina. “The Formation of Soviet Cultural Theory of Music (1917–1948).” Studies in the East European Thought 72, no. 2. (2020): 135–59.

Weickhardt, George G. “Dictatorship And Music: How Russian Music Survived The Soviet Regime.” Russian History 31, no. 1/2 (2004): 121–41.