Ora, lege et labora

Shostakovich's Thirteenth: A Project Prospectus

Shostakovich’s Thirteenth: a project prospectus

The question

TL;DR: what did the symphony do to the people who heard it? My working reading: it made a community of its listeners.

The work

My question

What did the symphony do to the people who heard it?

My working reading

That is a working reading, not yet a finding.

Where it started

TL;DR: an undergraduate thesis, a talk and two essays; now taken up again at full length.

The history

WhenWhat
As an undergraduateA thesis, at a conservatory of music, toward a Bachelor of Music; presented as a talk at a humanities symposium
A few years laterTwo short essays
NowTaken up again, at full length, as I experiment with the life of an independent scholar

What the talk argued

The symphony as a monument: poet and composer together moving two suppressed pasts, antisemitism and Stalinism, into public speech.

Two observations I’m still carrying into my research

  1. The music avoids the “Jewish” idiom Shostakovich used elsewhere, which leaves it open.
  2. The chorus sings in unison, like the Soviet mass song.

What the essays added

What this project brings

TL;DR: the theory read in the original, the first receptions, two recordings, the audience itself, and the method in the open.

The theory, read in the original

This is the line of thought the Thirteenth’s first critics stood in. I’m reading it in Russian and German, translating the key texts myself.

The immediate receptions

Each work arrived into a reaction that is itself evidence. I treat that first reception as a critical envelope around the work, to investigate and analyze in its own right.

WorkIts first reception
The poem (1961)Its attacks in the press, and the readers’ letters that defended it
The symphony (1962–63)The Party’s meetings with the intelligentsia; the one short notice after the premiere and the editorial that followed; the changes made to the text under pressure in 1963; a letter from the performances in Minsk that year reporting how the audience reacted

Two recordings, two rooms

RecordingWordsRoom
Kirill Kondrashin, live, December 1962, during the premiere runThe original wordsIts first audience in the hall
Kondrashin, in the studio, 1967The revised wordsNo audience at all

Everything I can learn about how those performances differed, and about the audiences who heard the work in those years, feeds one question: does the music mean differently when the words, and the room, change?

The audience itself

Method in the open

How the work is organized, what the tools do, and where the line sits between my judgment and an AI research assistant’s help are set out on how this research works.

The argument, as it stands

TL;DR: each part of the argument, at its level. None is a claim yet.

PartLevel
The symphony uses the symphonic form to make an identity community among its listeners, joining Jewish suffering to their ownWorking reading
Poet and composer erect a monument, bringing two suppressed pasts, antisemitism and Stalinism, into public speechHypothesis (argued in the thesis)
The absence of a borrowed Jewish idiom leaves the music open, making room for the Stalinist subtextHypothesis (argued in the thesis)
The unison chorus takes up the idiom of the mass song, which declaims identity as truthHypothesis (argued in the thesis, extended since)
Movements 2 to 5 extend the reading to the suffering of Shostakovich’s fellow citizensWorking reading
The single bass voice is meaningfulWorking reading
Khrushchev-era cultural politics, its antisemitism and Soviet self-fashioning, are central, not backgroundWorking reading
The work sits on the line between the sincere and the ironic Soviet generationsWorking reading

The path ahead

TL;DR: one ordered path, the event first and the writing last. It will change as I learn.

The order

  1. The ground: setting up the citation and translation tools, and one hearing of the whole symphony, score shut, before I read anything about it.
  2. The event: the poems, the premiere, and the documents of 1961 to 1963, read before any theory.
  3. The theory: Bekker, Asafyev and Sollertinsky, then the Mahler bridge from their theory to Shostakovich, then the theory of community, memory and many voices.
  4. The Soviet reading of the symphony, as its own critics and scholars wrote it.
  5. The contexts: the Jewish question in Shostakovich and in Soviet policy, and the Thaw and Soviet self-fashioning.
  6. The other voices: recent studies of the Thirteenth, read as sparring partners.
  7. The score and the recordings, analyzed in full once I know what to listen for.
  8. The writing: a first short essay once the theory is read, and at the end a long study built from the argument as it stands then.

Alongside: two translation projects

Follow along