Shostakovich and the LASM

7/25/2019 Shostakovich and the LASM

1/6

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Tempo.

http://www.jstor.org

Shostakovich and the LASMAuthor(s): Ludmila Kovnatskaya

Source: Tempo, New Series, No. 206, Power, Politics, Religion.... And Music (Sep., 1998), pp. 2-6Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/945501Accessed: 10-11-2015 14:20 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 217.73.171.82 on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:20:52 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/945501http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/945501http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/6

Ludmila

Kovnatskaya

Shostakovich and the LASM

In

the 1920s there were

plenty

of new

opportun-

ities

for

young composers

to

meet

colleagues

of all

ages

in

the

many

circles,

societies and

associations which were

then

in

existence.

The

most

interesting, though

short-lived of

them was

the

Leningrad

Association

of

Contemporary

Music

(LASM),

which declared itself to be

'a

gathering

of

everyone

connected

with

music

today'.1

The

Association was

planned

as a local

branch of the International

Society

of

Contemp-

orary

Music

(ISCM)

and

of

the

central Moscow

association. But

in

fact the LASM acted

quite

independently.

Its founders were

people

who

were

already

well-placed

and even

high-ranking

in the

country's

musical life: the

musicologists

and critics Boris

Asafyev (Igor

Glebov),

Vyacheslav Karatigin,

Alexander

Ossovsky

and

Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov,

he

composers

Yuliya

Weysberg,

Alexander

Zhitomirsky,

Andrey

Paschenko,

Yuriy Tyulin,

Maximilian

Shteinberg,

Lyubov

Shtreikher-Bikhter

and Vladimir

Shcherbachev.

Their first

meeting

took

place

on

15

April

1925 at the home of

Rimsky-Korsakov

and

Weysberg.

On

Sunday

24

January

1926,

53 musicians

were elected members

of

the

Association.Most of

them

can

still

be found

in

music

encyclopaedias.

Number 16 in the list was Shostakovich.

Dmitri

Shostakovich,

at this time about to start

his

post-graduate

tudiesat the

conservatoire,

was

already

a member of severalsocieties.

As a

student

he

had

continually

presented

his

works

in

the

Conservatoire's

Composers'

Club.

He

was

a

member of

the

Friends

of

Chamber

Music

Circle:

the

minutes

of

1

March 1923 lists

Shostakovich,

brotherand sister

Mariya), mong

the

performing

members.2 On 7

January

1925 he

joined

the

Leningrad

branch of the

Moscow

Society

of

Drama Writers and Composers (MODPiK).3

He was a keen attender of the

open

concerts

given by

the New Music

Circle

at the Fourth

(later

Central)

Musical Technical

College.4

'TsGA

(St.Pb.)

-

(Central

State Archive of St.

Petersburg),

f.

(fund)

555,

op.

(opis=inventory)

.,

d.

(delo=file)

65,

1.

(list)

5.

2TsGA

(St.Pb.),

f

1000,

op.50,

d.

26,

1.

9.

3Ibid.

On

15

February,

at a board

meeting

of the

LASM,

plans

were

made

for

a

'closed

session'

(i.e.

auditions of

compositions)

which

included,

as

the

first

item,

Shostakovich's

recently

written

Symphony.

Between his

graduation

from the

Conservatoire

and

the

first concert

performance

of this work Shostakovich

played

the

piano

version to various

groups

of listeners. He

was

now due to

present

it

at the Association.

This

took

place

on 8 March

(Shteinberg

recorded

his reaction

in

his

diary:

'...I

distinctly

didn't

like

the

slow

movement with

its

tortured

lyric-

ism'5).

The result

of

this

audition became

clear three weeks

later,

on

29

March,

when

the

Association'sArtisticCommission

(Weysberg,

Ossovsky,

losif

Shillinger,

Shteinberg,

Yuri

Karnovich,

Ekaterina

Bortkevich and

Nikolay

Malkov)

discussed

and

agreed

on

a

programme

for

the

May

concert

in

the

Great Hall of the

Philharmonia

(the

Association's

first to

take

place

there,

and so

of

particular

importance).

This was to include

a

performance

of the

Symphony

under the baton of

Nikolay

Malko.

In

his

diary

Malko recorded

the rehearsal

process

from

Saturday

8

May

to the

premiere

itself on

Wednesday

12

May.

He was

extremely

sceptical

about

Shillinger's

orchestral

Procession

from Marchof the East ('a curiosity,and nothing

more',

'it

will

work

somehow')

and

critical

about

Weysberg's

cantata The Twelve

et

to

Alexander

Blok's

poem

('a

mass

of

errors

and

mistakes,

the

orchestral

parts

are

in

a

terrible

mess').

But

the conductor

was

extremely

sympathetic

to

Shostakovich's

work: 'Shostakovich's

Symphony

is

turning

out

delightfully

(only

the third

movement

is

doubtful).

The

parts

are

fine

-

no

more

than

ten mistakes.

The orchestra

grumbled

a

little but

applauded

him.'6

It seems

that

comparison with the music of other Leningrad

composers

only

served

to

enhance

the

impression

of the

Symphony.

4Druskin

M,

Issledovaniya,

Vospominaniya

Studies,

Memoirs),

Moscow, 1977,

p.192.

RO

RIII

(Manuscript

Department

of

the

Russian

Institute

of Art

History,

St.Pb.),

f.

28,

op.1,

d.

1106,

1. 37.

"RO

RIII,

f.

47,

op.1,

d.

148,

1. 83.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

Shostakovich and

the

LASM

3

The

social

context

of

this

premierestrengthened

the

significance

of the event: LASM's first

major

promotional

act,

the

culmination

of which was

Shostakovich's Symphony, took place as the

closing

concert

of the season

(by

traditionsome-

thing

of a

celebration)

n the

city's

most

prestigious

concert

hall.

Incidentally

the

composer

himself,

recalling

in 1956 the

Symphony's

successful

premiere,

whose

'birthday'

he celebrated each

year

throughout

his

life,

noted that it was received

'extremely

coolly by

the LASM circles'7.

A

comment

which

surely,

however,

does not

diminish

the Association's role

in his life.

In

their

report

for 1925/6

(3

June

1926)

the

board of the Philharmonia, under their director

(and

outstanding

choral

conductor)

Mikhail

Klimov,

included this

concert as one

of

the

season's

greatest

achievements,

and even the

enormous loss of

668 roubles and 14

kopecks8

could

not reduce the

significance

of the event

in the

eyes

of

the

management.

At

first

the LASM concerts

had an

extensive

social

resonance,

and

composers

could

not

fail

to

appreciate

the

prospects

offered

by

member-

ship

of this

organization.

Young

musicians

broughtto it theirpersonalaspirations,while their

older

colleagues

were intent on

confirming

their

role

in

creating

new music

by

demon-

strating

their

understanding

of

the

concept

of

contemporaneity.

But

the

struggle

which had

blown

up

at

the time

in

the Conservatoire

concerning

the

reforms in

the

teaching

of

composition

and

musicology,

and in the Kirov

Theatre

in

connexion with Pavel

Lamm's

edition

of

Mussorgsky's

Boris

Godunov

which

was

called

'genuine',

as

opposed

to

Rimsky-Korsakov's

criticized edition) threw a dark shadow over

musicians

in

every

institute and union

including

the LASM.

The

new

organization's

quiet

life

came to an

end

comparativelyquickly.

The Association was

in

ferment. At the end

of

September

1926 a

debate

developed

over a

question

which was to

become crucial

to the fate of the

Association:

should

it

merge

with the New Music

Circle,

where

many

young

members of LASM had

become

involved

(mostly

the

supporters

of

Asafyev,who by this time had officially resigned

from

LASM)?

On

31

October 1926 a

general

meeting

was held which

was

supposed

to decide

matters.

The

chairman

on this

occasion was no

7Shostakovich

D,

Dumi:

o

proydennom uti

(Thoughts

bout

my

passed

path).

In: D. Shostakovich vremeni o sebe

(...

on

Time

and about

himself):

1926-1975,

Comp.

by

M.

Yakovlev.

Moscow, 1980,

p.197.

"TsGA

(St.Pb.),

f.

2555,

op.1,

d

1015,

1. 98.

longer

a

supporter

of

the

Rimsky-Korsakov

camp,

as

had

alwayspreviously

been the

case,

but

Yuri

Shaporin,

unaminously

elected

by

those

present.The pressurefrom the young members

was

hard

to

restrainand the

meeting promised

to

be

stormy.

Andrei

Rimsky-Korsakov prepared

n

advance

for

the

meeting

and

jotted

down a resume of his

speech

in

the

form of

propositions

and

separate

comments.

Its

angry

and sarcastic one

might

give

an

impression

of

the strained

relationships

and

overheated

passions:

Firstand foremost rom

previous

negotiations....

The

desire o take

charge.

.. This is

not

simply

a

business

deal. .. Once theclawsaredrawn heycanbe hidden

but no

forgotten.

..

Why

on earthall this fuss

and

bother,

ll

his

beating

f

drums

nd

blatantnterference

with the

regulations?

..

Have

the

grace,

once

you

are

seated

at

the table as friends

and

guests,

not

to

put

your

hands on the table

immediately

...

Ah,

the

regulations

re

nothing

but a

piece

of formalism. he

young

blood

is

surging

n

our veins.We'll

tear

up

the

regulations 9

What

appeared

to

be

discussions about

various

forms

of

collaboration between two

voluntary

societies was in fact the struggle between the

generations

and

cliques

(the

supporters

of

Rimsky-Korsakov

and

Asafyev):

a

struggle

for

power

within the

LASM,

an

organization

which

had much to offer

in

artistic and social

terms,

and

a

struggle

for the

victory

of

various aesthetic

ideals.

The

meeting

went

on

until late.

The minutes

do

not

indicate

any

contribution from

Shosta-

kovich to the debate.

The

composer

poured

out

his attitude to what

happened

in

his

letters

to

the

Moscow-based Boleslav Yavorsky, an authority

in

musicology.10

In

the

gaps

between

meetings

he

though

carefully

about

how

best to

formulate

his

position.

So

on 8

November,

at

the

next,

extraordinary eneral

meeting

(in

effect a contin-

uation of the

first)

amidst he heated

atmosphere

of

debates,

protests,

and

mutual accusations

32

members of LASM

and

the

New

Music

Circle

found themselves

listening

to

two

statements.

One

of

them was from a

group

of

19 LASM

performing-members

who

had

fallen

into

partic-

ularly hard times as a result of the composers'

conflict,

while

the second was

personal:

'...

from

comrade Shostakovich

regarding

his

resignation

as member of

LASM' The text reads

as follows:

"RO

RIII,

f.

8

(la),

d. 3.

"'A lot of

very

interesting

information on this

topic

is

found

in Laurel

E.

Fay's

article

in

the

collection

of

studies:

D.D.

Shostakovich.edicatedo his 90

anniversary,

d.

by

L.

Kovnatskaya.

St.

Petersburg,

Kompozitor',

1996.



4/6

4 Shostakovich and

the LASM

To the Board

f

Management

f

the

Leningrad

ssociation

f

Contemporary

usic.

FromDmitriShostakovich.

In

view

of

thefact

hat he task

ofpropagandizing

he deas

of

contemporaryusicandcontemporaryusic tself,matters f

extreme

importance

t

the

present

ime,

canbe carriedut

only

if

all musicians ork

together

n

afriendlyfashion,

nd

giving

due

recognition

o

the

significantctivity

ndcorrectdeas

of

the

Circle

of

New

Music,

I

consider

t

impossible

o remaina

member

f

LASM.

As

concerns

he

performancef my

sonata,

planned

or

25 November

next,

despite

certain

difficulties

connected ith recent

vents,

I

do

not considert

possible

o

retract

my

promise,

o as not to

bringany personal

onsider-

ations into a matterwhich

or

me

is

purely

a

questionof

principle.

D. Shostakovich

Leningrad,

6 November1926

The document

(unknown

till

now)

is

type-written,

as indeed

is

the

composer's

name.

The

original

seems

certainly

lost,

while

the

copy

bears the

comment 'True

to the

original:

V.

Bogdanov-

Berezovsky'.

The

signature

of the

meeting's

secretary

is

genuine,

confirmed

as the writer's

own."

The authorized

copy

was

forwarded

to

higher

authorities.

So

Shostakovich,

with

a maximalist's

mpetu-

osity, accepted

the

challenge

of the moment and

alone came

forward to

engage

in

single

combat.

There

is

nothing

self-seeking

in

this action:

neither before

the

'outburst',

nor

later,

did

Shostakovich

ever seek

a

position

of

power;

he

was

never voted

member of

any

boards

of

management,

organizational

committees,

artistic

councils

or

auditing

commissions

of either

organization;

it seems

that

nobody

who took

part

in the

conflict,

whether

young

or

old,

even

thought

of

suggesting

him for

any

post,

large

or

small;

as

such,

his name is not mentioned once

in

the minutes

of

any organization

which he

belonged

to

at the time.

Perhaps

sensing

his

vulnerability

n social

terms,

the

young

musician

wrote

in

his

post-graduate

report

(under

the

obligatory

section

'Voluntary

Work')

that

he had

been the

secretary

of 'a

post-graduate

assoc-

iation'

(which

one

exactly?

there is

no mention

of this

in

any

of the Conservatoire's

party-

related

archive12),

and

he

subsequently

crowns

the

argument

with

the

hardly

serious

comment:

'At the

present

time

(1929

-

LK)

I have been

nominated

for election

to the board

of the LO

(Leningrad

ociety

Division

-

LK)

of

MODPiK'3.

Inasmuch

as Shostakovich

remained

firmly

in

the

shadow

of LASM's

socialand

organizational

ork,

TsGA

St.Pb.)

.

2555,

op.1,

D.

1097,

1.

43.

12

TsGAIPD

St.Pb)

(Central

Archive

of

Historical

arty

Documents),

169,

op.1,

d.

19.

"TsGA

St.Pb.),

.

2556,

op.9,

d.

267,

1. 3.

in

the view

of

those

to whom his statement

or

as

we would now

say,

his

'open

letter')

was

addressed,

he

20-year-old

former

student's

self-

appraisalmighthaveseemedexaggerated.From his

point

of

view,

though,

as

for

every

active member

of the Association's

rtistic

ife,

the

struggle

which

had

developed

was

an

ideological

struggle,

and

in

this

respect

he

seems to have estimated

himself

completely

adequately.

In

the

following year,

1927,

there

were

plenty

of

events

of

particular mportance

n

Shostakovich's

rapidly

advancing

career.14

Inspired

by

the

Symphony's

uccess

he wrote

in his

autobiography

the

following impulsive,

impetuous

and

lofty

promise, 'If I am only able to support myself

sufficiently,

then

I

shall dedicate

my

whole

life

to music and work

tirelessly'.'5

His

burst

of

activity

as

a concert

pianist

and

composer

brought

with it

certain material

rewards.

Shostakovich's

works

began

to be

published

by

the State

Publishing

Music

Department,

which

acted as

something

of a benefactor.'6

We find

his

name

appearing

more and more

frequently

in

the record

books of the

Leningrad

Philharmonic,

where the size

of his fees

speaks

of the musician's

professional prestige. In the period 1927-29

Shostakovich

was

paid

75 roubles for

his

parti-

cipation

as

pianist

in

concerts.

To

give

a

comparison,

in

September

1929,

75

roubles was

the

equivalent

of two week's

pay

of

Ivan

Sollertinsky,

who worked at

the

Philharmoniaas

editor.

We learn

from a note

entered

on

1

November

1927 that Shostakovich

received

the

extremely

modest

fee of 15

roubles

'for

playing

from orchestral

cores

at the

committee

meeting

on

26 October 1927'

7.

An

excellent

score-reader,

he was most likely familiarizinghe Philharmonia's

artistic council

or

board of

management

with

recent

works

by

Leningrad

and

Moscow

composers

which were

to

be

performed

during

the festive

concerts

to

mark the 10th

anniversary

of the October

Revolution.

Immediately

after

taking

part

in the LASM

conflict

Shostakovich

immersed

himself

in

his

piano

studies

-

he was

preparing

or the

Chopin

Competition.

His

style

as

a

performer

was

already

formed.

Just

as

poets

reveal

their own

poetic

style in their manner of reading (whether their

1

It seems

very

significant

hat

Sofya

Khentova

separated

927

as

an

independent

chapter

in her

book:

Shostakovich-pianist

(Leningrad,

964).

'"Shostakovich

,

O

vremeni o

sebe

..,

p.11.

"ShulginL.V.,

Stat'i.

Vospominaniya

Articles,

Memoirs),

Moscow,

1977,

pp.58-61.

17

sGALI

(St.Pb.)

-

(central

Archive

of Literature nd

Arts),

f.

279,

op.1,

d.

20,

1. 115-117.



5/6

Shostakovichnd LASM

5

own

poetry

or other

authors),

so a

composer,

when

performing,

makes a declarationof his own

poetics,

whether

the

composition

is his own or

by

someone else. (We have detaileddescriptionsof

Shostakovich's

idiosyncratic piano-playing

from

Valerian

Bogdanov-Berezovsky

and the

writer

Konstantin

Fedin.18)

Although

his

trips away

to

Leningrad

to Warsaw

and

Berlin

were

short,

Shostakovich

no

longer

consideredLASM events

so vital and their

significance

for him

sharply

diminished.

So it is not

surprising

hat

during

the

next six months

his name is not mentioned once

in

the LASM

minutes.

At this

point,

when the

composer

was

working

on the score of his Second Symphony and his

opera

The

Nose,

the world of

avant-garde

heatre

and cinema

began

to take an interest and

approached

him.

(At

the

end of the 1920s

Shostakovich

was

planning

to take

part

in

three

productions,

The Nose based on a

story by

Gogol,

Columbus

with music

by

Dressel and The Crucian

after

Oleinikov.19)

He worked

brilliantly,

polish-

ing

his

technique

with

every problem

solved,

adding

to

his

virtuosity

and

concentrating

those

elements which

were to become characteristicf

his style.

As Shostakovich's circle

of

acquaintances

increased,

so

the

group

of his closest

friends

changed.

He had

previously

been attracted

by

adolescent love and exalted admiration

(the

young Bogdanov-Berezovsky

saw him

as

'...a

sixteen-year-old genius

whose

every

note

pierced

the heart

...',

'...

my

adoring, loving

and

only

friend,

Mitiusha the

genius...'20);

now

he

preferred

a more mature and critical

approach,

as

Sollertinsky

noted.21

In the autumn of 1927 LASM decided to

organize

a

retrospective

of the achievements of

contemporary

music

in

Leningrad

to mark the

tenth

anniversary

of the

October Revolution.

The

programme

was to include cantatas

by

Mikhail Gnesin

(The Monument),

Alexander

Krein

(The

Ballad

of

Lenin)

and losif

Shillinger

(October).

nstead of the Cantata

by

Deshevov,

his ballet suite The Red Vortexwas

performed.

It

was

quite

natural that the list should

include

To

October,

a work for orchestra and

choir,

by

the young post-graduate conservatoire student

"

See:

Bogdanov-Berezovsky

V.,

Dorogi

skusstva

Paths

of

Art),

Leningrad,

1971,

p.54-58;

Fedin, K.,

Gorki redinas:

Kartini:

iter-

atumoizhizni

(Gorki

among

us: tableaux

f

literaryife),

Moscow,

1967,

p.117.

'"TsGALI

St.Pb.),

f.

290,

op.1,

d. 1-5.

2"RO

RIII,

f.

82,

op.1,

d.

247,

writings

at 21

April

1923 and 16

January

1924.

21Imean

mainly

his reviews on

ballet

see:

Sollertinsky

.

Statio

balete

Articles

bout

ballet),Comp. Leningrad,

1973.

Dmitri Shostakovich. Three months

previously

Shteinberg

had written

in

his

diary,

'Mitya

Shostakovich was here and

played by

heart the

start of the chorus from his new "rrrevolution-

ary"(sic)

piece,

which didn't seem at all bad'.22f

one is to

compare

the evidence of

Shteinberg's

and Malko's diaries with the

composer's

own

post-graduate report

of

his Second

Symphony

and his

letters

to

Shulgin,

then a broad

picture

emerges

both of

the

composer's

political

engagement

and how his

concept

was

perceived

by

those who came to know

his new work at

first hand.

Thus,

his

teacher could not fail to

react

to the

inspired

skill of the

pupil

whom

he

so valued, while being unable either to accept

the work as a whole or believe that

it

represented

the

'truly

new art'. The

conductor was

occupied

with the

task of

staging

the

Symphony,

but

remained dissatisfiedwith the

young composer's

impatience

in

describing

Shostakovich's ehaviour

at rehearsals he word 'demanded' is used several

times).

The

composer

himself was

undergoing

that

metamorphosis

which so

astonished the

writer

Fedin when he

observed

him

at the

piano,

'...

by

some kind of

inexplicable

law of contra-

diction this skinny boy at the piano was rebor as

the most

daring

of

musicians,

with a

manly

touch

and an

enthralling

ense of

rhythm'.23

The

manuscript

of the

introductory

speech

which the critic Malkov

gave

at the festive

LASM

concert on 25 November

has survived. It

deals

with the

composers

Scherbachev,

Shaporin,

Deshevov,

Tyulin

and

Shillinger

and with

the

trends of

contemporary

Soviet

composition.

For

Malkov

there is a clear

contradictionbetween

the

realizationof

revolutionary

deas and

images

using

limited resources,and the artisticallyconvincing

realization of

images

disconnected with real life.

'The

clash of these two

tendencies

in

musical

thought

is

taking shape.

Recently, during

the

October

celebrations,

we heard a work

at the

Philharmonia

in

which

contemporary

music

portrayed

a

revolutionary

subject

matter

in

a

convincing

manner both

ideologically

and

artistically.

I

am

talking

about

Shostakovich's

symphonic

dedication To

October...'.24No

other

composer

of

Shostakovich's

generation

or from the LASM circles was referred to in

such

a

flattering

context.

Meanwhile

LASM was

entering

its final

stage

of existence.

It

planned

and

organized

concerts

and

published

its books.

But there was not

2RO

RIII,

f.

28,

op.1,

d.

1106,

1. 62.

23

Fedin, K.,

Ibid.

24RO

RIII,

f. 76,

op.1,

d.1.



6/6

6

Shostakovichndthe LASM

enough

money.

The board

was

impelled

to

revise its deeds of

association

in

order to

expose

its

angry

debtors.

Shostakovich was

among

those

owing money,

which was

paid

out of fees

due for

performances.25

On

13

May

1928 at a

LASM board

meeting

Mikhail

Druskin announced

that on

1

June

Shostakovich would

perform

two

acts from his

new

opera

The

Nose at the

Contemporary

Music

Committee

in

the

Institute of Art

History26

(organized

by

the same

LASM members

who remained

closest to their

teacher

Asafyev).

The summer of

1928 was

approaching.

On

2

July

the

LASM treasurer

Nikolay Engalichev

reported on the membership fees still owing,

and all

55 members

involved were

expelled

from the

ranks. Number 44 in

the list was

Shostakovich.27 It was to be

the Association's

last

board

meeting.

When indeed

the

Regional

Department

of the

Administrative

Inspectorate

issued,

according

to the NKVD's

directive

number

1247 of

21

July

1928,

the instruction to

re-register

with

threat

of

immediate closure all

art research

societies,28

no-one even

thought

to

fight

for

the existence of LASM.

Thus Shostakovich passed swiftly through

LASM. He was neither

given

favour there nor

hindered.

In

supporting

talent and innovation

the Association

guaranteed

him

support

as much

as

any

other.

Under the

aegis

of

LASM

Shostakovich's music met with success at the

city's

best

concert venues. The

Association

gathered

together composers

keen to become

acquainted

with the

latest music both

in

their

own

country

and

in

Europe.

It

seemed as

though only

at LASM could a

young composer

gauge his real potential, not in the conservatoire

class but

in

his

professional

milieu. Nowhere

was the idea of the

contemporary

championed

more than in

the

Association;

this is what stimu-

lated the

spiritual courage

and

professional

2'TsGA

(St.Pb.),

.

2555,

op.6,

d.

1097,

1. 87.

2'TsGA

(St.Pb.),

2556,

op.6,

d.

6,

1.

14.

27TsGA

(St.Pb.),

.

2556,

op.6,

d.

6,

1. 16.

2'TsGA

(St.Pb.),

?2556,

op.2,

d.

310,

1.

38, 40,

78.

searching,

as

exemplified

in the works

of

Shostakovich. He

gained

his

place among

com-

posers,

a

place

which shifted closer

and closer

to the centre of the world of culture, thanks to

his

quintessial artistry.

Sometimes Shostakovich

would become more

involved

in

the artisticand

concert-giving aspects

of LASM's

activities,

at

others he would

keep

himself

to himself. In

general

he felt less restricted

by obligations

either to his former teachers

or former class-

mates.

In

the

early days

his assaults n

the bastion

of music were

characterized

by

their blatant

decisiveness. He moved within the

world of

contemporary

art as

though listening

to an inner

call directing him from above.

In

the

years

when he and Shostakovich

spent

much time

together

and shared their

deepest

thoughts

and

feeling,

Bogdanov-Berezovsky

noted

in

his

diary

an

outburst of unashamed

inspiration

from his friend:

No,

I

am no brother o all those

composers

who have

gone

before;

we are linked

only

by

our

spiritual

affinity

and

general

aristocraticense of

power

and

unlimited isolation

[among?

-

LK]

our

contemp-

oraries,

but these

8

or

10

years

have

separated

me

even from Skriabinby a century. I am a genius, not

of

that

previous epoch,

the

epoch

of

Tchaikovsky,

Skriabin and

Wagner

(my

roots),

and even less am

I

a "red

composer".

No,

I

am he who has

enshrined

in

music these

changes

and

extraordinary

develop-

ments which

perhaps

foretell

the

coming

of

Apocalyptic

events.29

Bogdanov-Berezovsky

was fortunate

enough

to

describe

in

suitably

romantic

terms the

sense

of

life

so

characteristic f

young composers

n

an era

which found its herald

in

Dmitri Shostakovich.

The article is written with the

support

of

the RSS

(grant

1319/1997)

of

the

Open

Society

Institute

(the

Soros

Foundation).

"RO

RIII,

f.

82,

op.l,

d.

247,

1. 13

(writings

at 5

September

1922).
