# Music, the 2 big superpowers & the 20th century. . .



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

With today's conversations on this thread, I thought I would do something going off that relating to music & 20th century history.

Years ago, there was a radio program here that compared what was happening music wise in the two superpowers of the 20th century, USA and USSR. It was a fascinating insight into various issues, highlighting differences and similarities between these countries.

In terms of music, the USA came of age in the 20th century. The USSR was similar in that its musical history was not as long as Western Europe. The first music conservatories where established there in the late 19th century.

The period between the two world wars, and the Second World War itself, meant a lot for these countries in terms of music too. You had the 'Americana' kind of populist aspect of things like Copland's music - eg. _Appalachian Spring, Rodeo, Billy the Kid _- building on myths of the past, of the pioneering days and the 'wild West.' In the USSR, you had a more modern concept of the pioneer - in terms of ballet, things like Khatchaturian's _Gayne (or Gayaneh)_, the agitprop story revolving around events on a collective farm. So they where both telling their stories and kind of creating mythologies of 'the nation.'

During the war, both countries produced symphonies dealing with it. Shostakovich's _Sym.#7 'Leningrad,'_ and Bernstein's _Sym.#1 'Jeremiah.' _One in a literal sense, the other metaphorically (again, going back in history to say things in the present, this happened quite often).

There where periods of political paranoia in both countries. There where Stalin's purges of the 1930's and the Zhdanov decree of 1948. Composers like Shostakovich (and Schnittke, Gubaidulina) made their 'bread and butter' through film scores - it was the equivalent of being sent to the salt mines - while lesser but more politically favoured composers more often than not got the big commissions (to write 'serious' music).

In the USA, in the 1950's you had the McCarthyist anti-Communist 'witch hunts' imaged so well (again metaphorically) in ARthur Miller's _The Crucible_. At this time, Copland's_ Lincoln Portrait_ was banned, he was a member of the American Communist Party. Hanns Eisler, the German emigre composer (a Communist) was deported back 'home,' which by this time had become East Germany (the GDR).

There where years important to both countries. 1968 was a big one. In that year, the Civil Rights ACt was passed in the USA. The man behind it, Martin Luther King, was also assassinated (and so was Bobby Kennedy). For the USSR, this year was a disaster in terms of publicity. As Soviet tanks entered Prague to crush the Prague Spring, it was like a case of them winning the battle but losing the war. Waging war on a small country and intervening in its national sovereignty was never a good idea, but the superpowers did it often. The USA did it too - Vietnam was an example of that.

So maybe 1968 was the end of the optimism of the post-war years, if it ever existed, for both superpowers? Paris was also in riot that year.

But as a result of the repression following 1968 - including in the USSR itself - a number of Russian musicians defected to the West. Rostropovich, Barshai and Kondrashin all left in the 1970's. The Brezhnev regime took away their freedom to work in the West and live at home at the same time. A similar situation existed in the USA with some musicians who where openly Communist. The singer Paul Robeson could not travel for a while, but eventually he was allowed to do so (he actually visited the USSR, and he came to Australia as well).

*Anyway, my aim doing this thread is to discuss parallels like these between these two giants of the 20th century. I think there's a lot to discuss in terms of music (and that's what I want this thread to stick to, not to be a political bunfight - so please keep it related to music, or at least culture or cultural policies, etc.).*


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

One parallel is that some of the most famous composers on both sides wrote popular lighter music as well (Shostakovich jazz suites, operetta, Bernstein musical, Gershwin songs, to name a few).


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> With today's conversations on this thread, I thought I would do something going off that relating to music & 20th century history.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Anyway, my aim doing this thread is to discuss parallels like these between these two giants of the 20th century. I think there's a lot to discuss in terms of music (and that's what I want this thread to stick to, not to be a political bunfight - so please keep it related to music, or at least culture or cultural policies, etc.).*


Given your quoted another thread to begin this new thread, is the purpose of your new thread here tyring to show how music was manipulated by the superpowers for their ideologys? I feel very suspicious that this thread itself is trying to show something maybe that music should not be used to spread ideology. It is because this thread started with quoting another about "bullying" ... 

Lukcily for the course of 20th and 21st C development, many great composers did not belong to either superpowers. Pierre Boulez for example.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

A few experimental composers aside, it has always surprised me how conservative the vast majority of American composers were at the time we're discussing. All the major experiments and developments in music were happening in Europe and being copied (to a greater or lesser extent) in the USA. The USSR of the 1920s was a hotbed of experimental music; it was only with the rise of Stalin and the first purges of the mid-1930s that composers were forced to be more conservative. In fact, in the USSR, the 1960s became quite experimental again.

If you look at a list of 20th-century composers in the USA and the USSR you might be surprised how similar composers were to each other on either side of the 'Iron Curtain'. Just for example:

USSR
Denisov
Gubaidulina
Kabalevsky
Khachaturian
Myaskovsky
Prokofiev
Schnittke
Shchedrin
Shostakovich

And a few experimenters:
Pärt (in his early days)
Roslavets
Ustvolskaya

USA
Bernstein
Copland
Creston
Diamond
Hanson
Piston
Schuman
Thomson

And a few experimenters:
Cage
Carter
Partch
Sessions


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Delicious Manager said:


> USA
> Bernstein
> Copland
> Creston
> ...


Don't forget Samuel Barber.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

In another classical music forum (separate website), a contributor made the assertion that because of Shostakovich, the Soviets won the classical composition cold war. I thought his assertion was spurious but did not think I had the wherewithal to dispute his observation. (I have found when individuals make such sweeping pronouncements, it is frequently difficult to carry on a conversation with them.) What do you guys think?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Andreas said:


> Don't forget Samuel Barber.


I _KNEW_ I'd left someone important off. Thank you :tiphat:


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

I found this quote in an article which seems to point to a cultural "arms" race between the USA and the USSR. I wasn't able to find corroboration.

_Fifty years ago, the philanthropic, political, academic, media and business leaders of the US set out to demonstrate that American high culture was equal or superior to that of any civilization- particularly the Soviets. Part of this plan was to have 50 full-time orchestras throughout the US. We succeeded spectacularly! We've gone from needing programs to produce qualified string players to raising perhaps 100 part-time orchestras to a level that rivals the largest major orchestras._

PS US is now down to 16-17 full-time orchestras and some of those are currently financially not in good shape.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lunasong said:


> PS US is now down to 16-17 full-time orchestras and some of those are currently financially not in good shape.


Indeed, 17 as of a couple of days ago, at least per this article on the Indianapolis SO: "In the first two seasons of the new contract, musicians have agreed to work eight weeks less than they've been used to, settling into a 38- to 42-week annual schedule. As a result, the ISO loses its position as one of 18 year-round American orchestras."


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> In another classical music forum (separate website), a contributor made the assertion that because of Shostakovich, the Soviets won the classical composition cold war. I thought his assertion was spurious but did not think I had the wherewithal to dispute his observation. (I have found when individuals make such sweeping pronouncements, it is frequently difficult to carry on a conversation with them.) What do you guys think?


While I don't think that he 'wins' it for the USSR, I really don't think that the US can match his talent as an individual with one of their own composers. But that's certainly just my opinion.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

arpeggio said:


> In another classical music forum (separate website), a contributor made the assertion that because of Shostakovich, the Soviets won the classical composition cold war. I thought his assertion was spurious but did not think I had the wherewithal to dispute his observation. (I have found when individuals make such sweeping pronouncements, it is frequently difficult to carry on a conversation with them.) What do you guys think?


I don't know who 'won,' but I think its more an ideological war than a musical one. I mean you had friendships between musicians either side of the Iron Curtain. Look at Britten and Shostakovich. Or when Bernstein visited the USSR to perform Shostakovich's music, and the composer was in the audience. Or indeed how the musos I mentioned in my OP - Rostropovich, Barshai, Kondrashin - with Khrushchev's more liberal regime they travelled and performed in the West a lot. But under Brezhnev, they where forced to leave home. So its more a matter of politics.

I liked Delicious Manager's list. Its a comparison worth making I think. But not for one to be put above the other, more to think about it, about similiarities and differences.

Re orchestras in the USA, I know that public funding of them was really boosted after 1945, with the National Endowment for the ARts. However there have been many changes since then, not least things like the Global Financial Crisis. & also what basically boils down to bad financial management of these groups. Many of them got into the habit of using funds coming in from yearly subscriptions to cover debts of 5 years previous to that. So they where really kind of living on borrowed time (& money). If you do that, eventually the bubble will burst. Couple that with the dieing off of the generations that where more into classical music, and the ageing demographic of classical concert audiences. Basically now the climate is that you have to spend less and make it go a long way.

Comparisons can be made here with the Russian Federation. After the demise of the USSR, funding for many things, including the arts, was cut back. & they of course went towards a more commercialised, market driven economy. So the so-called 'public good' was not as important as making a profit. But in the West, the profit incentive has always been there, for better or for worse. Now maybe its more important to keep cultural institutions afloat in these tough times. But the old Cold War type model is over, things have moved on, its a different ball game now.

Post-1945 I know that the USA State Department funded jazz musicians to go overseas and spread the word about American culture. The 'Jazz at the Philharmonic' series went all over the world. I have a recording of guys like Dizzy Gillespie and Coleman Hawkins doing this in Europe. I wonder if a similar things was done in the realm of classical music back then?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rapide said:


> Given your quoted another thread to begin this new thread, is the purpose of your new thread here tyring to show how music was manipulated by the superpowers for their ideologys? I feel very suspicious that this thread itself is trying to show something maybe that music should not be used to spread ideology. It is because this thread started with quoting another about "bullying" ...


I had no ulterior motives in setting up this thread. I tried to be balanced in my opening post as possible.



> ...
> Lukcily for the course of 20th and 21st C development, many great composers did not belong to either superpowers. Pierre Boulez for example.


Boulez was of course in broad terms on the Western side. He spent a lot of time in New York with the orchestra there. He was not neutral though. You must know his alarming opinions in those post war years. Like burn the opera houses (but he later went to conduct opera) and that composers not writing serially where useless (but he hardly wrote any 'total' serial works himself). He was, in those years, seen by many as a ruthless ideologue (and yes) a bully. But he did do good things for music, no doubt.

Anyway, Boulez per se has little to do with the overarching issues of this thread.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Yah, I said 16-17 because Norman Lebrecht of artsjournal.com reported in August there were 17. I've seen both numbers bandied about in arts reporting and I've recently seen an actual current list which I've been trying to find again.

In reference to the "fifty years ago" quote I posted above, ICSOM reminds us that it was founded in 1962.
_The past 50 years since the creation of ICSOM, it could be argued, have been a golden age for classical music in America. With the ability of musicians to earn a living, care for their families, and truly put down roots in their communities, America's orchestras of all budgets sizes have become recognized as the very best in the world. The musicians of our orchestras have elevated their communities, taught countless children, and enhanced the business environment for their towns._
More union and labor rhetoric here. http://icsom.org/news/2012_oct_ridge.php



Sid James said:


> & what basically boils down to bad financial management of these groups.


YUP.
http://www.artsjournal.com/slippedd...-merry-go-round-of-us-orchestra-managers.html


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Boulez was of course in broad terms on the Western side. He spent a lot of time in New York with the orchestra there. He was not neutral though. You must know his alarming opinions in those post war years. Like burn the opera houses (but he later went to conduct opera) and that composers not writing serially where useless (but he hardly wrote any 'total' serial works himself). He was, in those years, seen by many as a ruthless ideologue (and yes) a bully. But he did do good things for music, no doubt.


My point in response to your purpose of this thread (ie. not using music for ideology) is to show that Boulez was not using music to spread his "ideology" despite his opinions which are just opinions. Incidentally Boulez did more for serialism than many would be prepared to admit and of course the development of music after 1950. Whatever his opionion (in the past), he is a successful artist - composer AND condcutor - which is a respectable achievement today. That in itself says a lot more - people can appreciate his art by separating the artist IRRESPECTIVE of his opinion/"ideology".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lunasong, Mr. Ridge would naturally blame management for our orchestra' woes, given ICSOM's constituency. And perhaps he's right. But how much of the "financial mismanagement" consists of agreeing to player compensation levels that make the orchestras unsustainable in terms of what their communities are willing to pay?

Both art and economics are involved. Art is sometimes forgiving. Economics are not.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> I have found when individuals make such sweeping pronouncements, it is frequently difficult to carry on a conversation with them.


Best observation, ever!!:tiphat:

This comment by Delicious Manager, though, is puzzling: "A few experimental composers aside, it has always surprised me how conservative the vast majority of American composers were at the time we're discussing. All the major experiments and developments in music were happening in Europe and being copied (to a greater or lesser extent) in the USA." Aside from the apparent contradiction of putting American experimental composers to the side and then saying that all (all!!) the major experiments were happening in Europe, I'm wondering about "at the time we're discussing." I thought it was 1900-1999. Quite a span. Lots of things happened. Lots of things that happened first in the U.S.

Of course, with a word like "major," one is free to define it any way one wants or even to redefine it as the conversation goes on. And then we're back with arpeggio's difficulty (and mine).

Having said that, music has always been an international phenomenon, even with a few brief decades of German hegemony in the late 19th century (commonly taken to be a centuries old hegemony because of the age of the pieces that made up "the canon," itself a late 19th century thing. And it was international in the 20th century as well.

DM's dismissed list of experimenters is woefully short:

Cage
Carter
Partch
Sessions

And it includes only one experimental composer, Cage.

On the other hand, a lot of fairly well-known to concert-goers composers were fairly conservative; that is true. With just cause. The truly experimental (properly so-called) composers were not very well-known in symphony hall.

Symphony hall is not the only place music is made.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Lunasong, Mr. Ridge would naturally blame management for our orchestra' woes, given ICSOM's constituency. And perhaps he's right. But how much of the "financial mismanagement" consists of agreeing to player compensation levels that make the orchestras unsustainable in terms of what their communities are willing to pay?
> 
> Both art and economics are involved. Art is sometimes forgiving. Economics are not.


I see it as similar to how many companies are run today. The gap in pay between musicians in an orchestra and their conductors, esp. big name guest conductors, can be huge. Similar to the gap between a CEO and the 'lower' employees in his company. Its a sad reality now, it was not always as huge a difference as now. & unsustainable in the long term.

It is ironic how orchestras are not for profit, yet they pay huge amounts to conductors and guest artists. This has been papered over and covered up by 'creative' accounting. Eg. I know that one major opera company in the USA did not have to disclose exactly how much their conductor (I think cheif conductor) got because they listed him as a 'contractor.' If you do that, you don't have to disclose what you pay him. So the annual report did not show him as an employee getting that amount. Apparently it was an astronomical amount, about 2 million dollars. This was before the GFC.

This is beyond the scope of this thread, but still relevant in some ways. There is not much of a way to justify this sort of unsustainable spending. Ironic how the musicians in the orchestra would be unlikely to afford to go to the opera which they are playing for. Well, not for the better seats, at least.



Rapide said:


> My point in response to your purpose of this thread (ie. not using music for ideology) is to show that Boulez was not using music to spread his "ideology" despite his opinions which are just opinions. Incidentally Boulez did more for serialism than many would be prepared to admit and of course the development of music after 1950. Whatever his opionion (in the past), he is a successful artist - composer AND condcutor - which is a respectable achievement today. That in itself says a lot more - people can appreciate his art by separating the artist IRRESPECTIVE of his opinion/"ideology".


I largely agree with that. I have edited my earlier response to you to make it less reactive/emotional. Now we can move on with focussing on the topic at hand, not on Boulez who is kind of peripheral to this discussion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"I know that one major opera company in the USA did not have to disclose exactly how much their conductor (I think cheif conductor) got because they listed him as a 'contractor.'"

Non-profits have to file a form 990 each year to maintain their tax-exempt status. There is a section for major contractors. If a highly-paid conductor is not an employee, the information will normally be there. The amount shown will be that paid to the conductor's agency. 990s are usually available on line.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Sounds dodgy to me. Or the definition allowed by those rules of 'contractor' seems much wider than its common meaning. If a person is a chief conductor of an orchestra or opera company, they are a salaried employee of that company. Probably a full time employee, actually. I think that the reason they do this is to prevent putting the ludicrous amounts in the annual report of the company. 

Imagine this in the annual report:

Chief Conductor - Annual Salary: 2,000,000

Compared to the anonymity afforded by something like this:

Contractor - Annual Cost: 2,000,000

The latter looks better. Of course this is just a simplification. Maybe they can 'dice up' the 2 million into little bits to make it stand out even less.

I think the whole not for profit thing is kind of becoming a bit of a joke. Maybe it should be like the health industry - there is a government (public funded) system, and a private system. But in Australia, our orchestras are (to my knowledge) mostly funded by corporate donors and private sources, government funding provides I think less than half of their annual budget. I doubt there are any chief conductors here paid 2 million dollars though. I doubt our prime minister gets that amount, seriously its ridiculous.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Sounds dodgy to me. Or the definition allowed by those rules of 'contractor' seems much wider than its common meaning. If a person is a chief conductor of an orchestra or opera company, they are a salaried employee of that company.


This is not correct. Some orchestras retain their conductors through booking agencies, just as they retain guest soloists (but on a longer term of course). Technically and for purposes of taxes and benefits, the conductor is a contractor, in accord with IRS rules. Names are included in every form 990 I have seen.

If the conductor is an employee, as is more usually the case, the orchestra is (again) required to report his/her annual compensation on its form 990, along with the compensation of other highly-paid employees -- the CEO, the concertmaster, even the more senior musicians. Names are again included -- none of this is a secret. I have compiled this sort of data for the 20 largest (i.e., highest budget) US orchestras.

It is common for an orchestra's CEO to be paid more than the conductor. I know of one case where the concertmaster is paid more!

BTW I believe that in Australia most symphonies and chamber orchestras receive major taxpayer funding, unlike in the US where there is practically none.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> ...
> BTW I believe that in Australia most symphonies and chamber orchestras receive major taxpayer funding, unlike in the US where there is practically none.


They do, however the Australian Chamber Orchestra gets more funding from private sources (corporate/donations) than from government sources. Its often touted as a good model, a good example. It is covering its expenses, it is not running at a loss. Its run efficiently.

On the whole it appears to me that our system is working better than the USA type model you describe. That, but also my general reading about that, explains to me that the system in the USA is still kind of based on the mentality of the post-1945 'boom' decades. Now we've definitely had a bust, actually a series of them since the 1970's. However its listed on a form, paying extravagant amounts to those heading orchestras & opera companies comes across to me as like not acknowledging the current economic/financial climate.

I can go on but this is outside the topic of this thread. I am not game though to make a separate thread on it. I would be torn apart by some of the 'lions' on this forum. Alas.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes, the US system is kind of broken. The average ratio for income is 30-40% ticket revenues, 60-70% private donations. And no government subsidies. Audiences are dwindling in many places, and donations are down for economic and even more basic reasons -- and are IMO unlikely to recover even in a better economy.

As you say, Australia's seems to be a good model, for orchestras anyway. Here in the US, one of our presidential candidates has announced he will eliminate federal funding for the arts entirely, even for public broadcasting, on his first day in office. A sign of the times.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think popular music ofthe 20th century represents the American spirit much more than classical music does. The blues, jazz, country, rock n roll, pop music, rock music... That's the story of America right there.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bigshot, I suspect most of the world would agree with that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Yes, the US system is kind of broken. The average ratio for income is 30-40% ticket revenues, 60-70% private donations. And no government subsidies. Audiences are dwindling in many places, and donations are down for economic and even more basic reasons -- and are IMO unlikely to recover even in a better economy.


Yes, well that's again a reflection of what I've read, and it was happening before the GFC as I said.



> ...
> As you say, Australia's seems to be a good model, for orchestras anyway...


I think what helps maybe is that we're a much smaller population. So, going with the example of the Australian Chamber Orchestra, its like a national orchestra, they do tours all around the country. We do not have a chamber orchestra in every state or every big city. Not a full time one anyway (but we do have some other less high profile ones). So pooling resources has been the name of the game here for a long time I think.



> ...Here in the US, one of our presidential candidates has announced he will eliminate federal funding for the arts entirely, even for public broadcasting, on his first day in office. A sign of the times.


Well that's really throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Since you seem to know a lot about this topic, you might want to make a separate thread on it, drawing on relevant resources. Its up to you. I have been thinking of doing that for a while, I read a couple of books talking to this topic, but I am wary of some people's hostile reactions to this sort of controversial issue.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I love those governmental music (marches mainly) composed for USSR and Nazi Germany!

Ok for Sid's first comment I need to think more.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Even though I grew up in West Germany, I find that the national anthem of Soviet satellite East Germany, composed by Hanns Eisler, is my favourite of that genre. I like it lightyears better than West Germany's anthem, which was composed by Haydn, no less.

More to the topic, both the US and the Soviet Union were somewhat peripheral to the epicentre of classical music, which was Europe. However, the US was much more open to influence from Europe. Think of Dvorak. Think of Mahler and Sibelius, who took their music to the US. I'm sure there are lots more. But I don't think any of them played in St. Petersburg or Moscow. But that was before Stalinism and the Cold War, of course.

Totalitarian regimes tend to strive toward autarky, or self-reliance. First in terms of the economy, but secondly in a cultural way too. Shutting out all outside influence, cutting off all imports of ideas. The US didn't do that. The Soviet Union did. I'm not saying that leads to a kind of cultural incest. But I think being open to outside ideas is A Good Thing in itself, especially in terms of the arts.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

A history fact:
Qing Dinasty of china ruined the progress of previous three dynasties by closing the borders and following stagnation. So we read about the ill and weak China of 19th century, unike the powerful and open 16th and 17th century China.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I think popular music ofthe 20th century represents the American spirit much more than classical music does. The blues, jazz, country, rock n roll, pop music, rock music... That's the story of America right there.


Personally, I think certain classical composers like Ives, Copland, Bernstein and Cage really captured a different side of the American spirit as well, a vital part of the story that shouldn't be over-looked... A lot of the fads of the day will pass I think. Future generations may see our times a little bit differently than we do. I sure get bored with most of the music in those other categories quickly anyway. 'Longevity' is a trait more associated with 'classical' music, over many of those other forms.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andreas said:


> ...
> Totalitarian regimes tend to strive toward autarky, or self-reliance. First in terms of the economy, but secondly in a cultural way too. Shutting out all outside influence, cutting off all imports of ideas. The US didn't do that. The Soviet Union did. I'm not saying that leads to a kind of cultural incest. But I think being open to outside ideas is A Good Thing in itself, especially in terms of the arts.


Yes and its intriguing to think what would have happened had Stalinism not come into force in the USSR. Lenin was no saint but he had a much more moderate policy towards the arts. Roslavets was at least tolerated under Lenin, but turned into a nonentity under Stalin. When he died in the 1940's, Roslavets' name was literally left out of history. Its exactly like that famous photo of Lenin with Trotsky that Stalin had doctored. Trotsky was written out of the history of the events of 1917 (and of course, Stalin sent assassins to murder him in Mexico). The other thing is that under Lenin, there where two bodies (like two unions) representing composers/musicians of different ideologies. There was the more West oriented Association for Contemporary Music, and the more Communist oriented Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians. No prizes for guessing which group rose to prominence once Stalin came to power after Lenin's death in the 1920's.

So what I'm saying is that Stalin did represent this kind of closed off dictatorship. Lenin and Khrushchev, and Gorbachev where the more moderate and (more or less) 'open door' type leaders, and Brezhnev was another step back to the stone age (& I talked about him a bit and his effect on musicians in my opening post). So there was also this swing back and forth from reform. However, to this day, Stalin's legacy is so strong that I think Russians will struggle with it for a long time.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andreas said:


> Even though I grew up in West Germany, I find that the national anthem of Soviet satellite East Germany, composed by Hanns Eisler, is my favourite of that genre. I like it lightyears better than West Germany's anthem, which was composed by Haydn, no less....


Yes it is a great tune, here it is with the lyrics. I think it speaks to the optimism of the war being over, but of course the reality in the GDR did not turn out as rosy as the lyrics suggest. Its sad that Eisler became a depressive and alcoholic, quite disillusioned with the regime (& he was deported back to Germany from the USA as a result of the McCarthyist with-hunt, as I mentioned in my OP).


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Australian subsidies*

Sid James

Question. Do you know how much money the Australian Government uses to subsidues the arts?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

arpeggio said:


> Sid James
> 
> Question. Do you know how much money the Australian Government uses to subsidues the arts?


I think this is an interesting issue but this thread is not the place to discuss it. Yourself and two other members have talked about this issue on this thread. I'm also interested in the broad issue of arts funding.

Basically as I said to KenOC, if someone wants to make a separate thread on this, go ahead and do it. I am not willing to do it. I have made a number of threads on controversial topics like this and been pulled down by a minority of people. I've been on the wrong end of the stick with many people here for just stating my opinion. So now they win by stealth. I am not game to say things that would make me the target of their wrath.

Sorry.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Re classical musician production, I think the giants for the past thirty years and foreseeable future are several Southeast Asian countries. I have no idea if/how politics is related to any of this. Corporate sponsorship seems to me to be significantly greater than public funding.


----------

