SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Politics Of Opera

ALAN WOLFE MARCH 16, 2009

The Politics Of Opera

Yesterday's cover story in The New York Times magazine begins with the story of Valery Gergiev's decision to conduct a concert in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, in the aftermath of the Russo-Georgian war. Born in Northern Ossetia, Gergiev, the most dynamic Russian conductor of our times, took the side of Putin's Russia over the cause of the Georgians. Inevitably, therefore, the author of the article, Arthur Lubow, is led to reflect on the relationship between music and politics.

Those reflections make little or no sense to me. "Separating music and politics is seldom so easy in Russia," Lubow writes. But it is seldom easy anywhere. Classical music in general, and opera in particular, while embodying "high culture," still tends to be more accessible than poetry and serious literature. Worried about the reactions from audiences, rulers have long watched what composers write and stage. Don Giovanni was not deemed proper for Vienna and premiered in Prague. Verdi's A Masked Ball, in its original version dealing with regicide in Sweden, had its setting shifted to Boston, one reason it contains characters with the delightful names of Sam and Tom. (Other Verdi operas, including Nabucco and I Vespri Siciliani, had also faced issues with the censors). It is true, as Lubow writes, that Modest Mussorgsky needed approval of the censors to stage Boris Godunov, but there was nothing unusual about that in nineteenth century artistic and political life.

Lubow makes much of Gergiev's ambitions and strong nationalistic fervor. Once again, though, it is not clear what the point really is. To mount major productions, conductors cannot just publish something in samizdat; they need money and all kinds of permissions to get the opera or symphony on the stage. If Gergiev were not wildly ambitious, he might be a more honorable person but we would never have the chance to experience what he can do. (I saw him do Prokoviev's Betrothal in a Monastery with the Kirov Opera in New York years ago; it was spectacular).

Opera, because it is sung, is tied together with nationalism in ways that are almost impossible to disentangle. Czechs take all sorts of pride in The Bartered Bride just as Danes do in Maskerade. The mere fact that Gergiev has sought to perform so many of the operas of Prokoviev and Shostakovich is surely due to the words as well as the music.  It does not follow that Gergiev's position on the Russian war with Georgia was the right one. But it does follow that there is nothing sinister about loving one's country when one wants to bring its greatest cultural achievements to the attention of the world.

There are times when a musician will engage himself with a reprehensible regime as Richard Strauss did when in 1933 he accepted the position of president of the State Music Bureau under the Nazis. (He resigned in 1935). Yet if I opted never to listen to Strauss's Four Last Songs, I would only be punishing myself. And nothing done by Gergiev has come even close to that. He may be overextended and not everything he does is a success, but this is a man who deserves praise for his accomplishments, not insinuations that hold so little water.

Photo of Valery Gergiev courtesy of Getty Images

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 3 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

3 comments

The Times mag is  just now getting around to this?  Isn't this story getting a little wheezy already?  

And really, does the Times think no American composer or conductor has ever dabbled about in political involvement?  

That said, it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that pulling out Shostakovich 7 for the Ossetian concert isn't a statement.  Of course it is, and if that brings down heat on Gergiev so be it.  He's a big boy and I'm sure he can take whatever vitriol may be thrown his way.  Trying to protect him seems as pointless as trying to tear him down over it.  And frankly I'd be concerned more about his view of how Soviet authorities clamped down on Prokofiev and Shostakovich backintheday.  Is he trying to justify that?  

- cspencef

March 17, 2009 at 1:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shame The Bastards: A Feisty Proposal To Keep Executive Pay in Check , by Pepper D. Culpepper How Much

- Anonymous

March 17, 2009 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, the whole debate about the separation of art and politics is silly.  Art is born from politics and vice-versa.  And the artists that create art can't be expected to be apolitical.  Reading the NY Times magazine piece (and finding it disappointingly pedestrian) it's clear that Valery Gergiev enjoys his own overt emotionalism and enjoys his own feelings of efficacy.  I'm not sure his concert in South Ossetia was anything more than a Tchaikovsky-esque surge of emotion for his homeland and perhaps a somewhat overly dramatic response to what he thought an assault on his mother country.

I did not hear the concert, or his remarks, but I would hope that Mr. Gergiev acknowledges the losses on both sides of the battle and would be willing to admit (in private surely) that Russia's aggressive tendencies are rightfully alarming to the region and the larger world.   It is always a dangerous game when you cozy up to authoritarians of any stripe, and Mr. Gergiev would be best served to choose his associations carefully.

I was actually at the concert in San Francisco on March 15 that kicked of Gergiev's and the London Symphony Orhcestra's tour of the US.  The orchestra's playing was exquisite. Ironically, the piece that came off the best was Prokoviev's Symphony No. 1 ("Classical") which is a nod of the head to Mozart and Haydn and all of the elegance and charm of their era's musical output. And the possibilities that can be found in order and structure.

While Gergiev's passion and gusto made the rest of the program bracing and energetic, it was Prokoviev's tribute to the emotion that can be found within structure that showed off the London Symphony Orchestra to be the amazing ensemble it is.  

- shaw-man

March 17, 2009 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close