# Truth and Testimony



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The questions about _Testimony_ aren't about its trueness in the sense of whether it actually reflects some of Shostakovich's views. It _is_ interesting to read. But it is wholly unreliable; one can't assume that any particular statement attributed to Shostakovich was actually spoken by the composer. The evidence of fraud in its production is really strong. And how on earth could there be a different manuscript used for the Finnish and Swedish editions? _Testimony_ is allegedly the transcription of Shostakovich's words from a very small number of conversations. In any case, Fay repeatedly asked to examine the actual transcript of the conversations from which both versions were supposedly taken. Volkov was never willing to produce it - for reasons I take to be obvious. And many have pointed out the interesting fact that a work consisting, allegedly, of nothing but the words of Shostakovich, has a single copyright holder who is not the composer or the composer's estate.

I, personally, despise _The New Shostakovich_ by Ian MacDonald because his interpretations of the composer's works are just so absurd and ham-fisted. Every two-note or three-note motive becomes a "Stalin motive." Taruskin, in "Public Lies and Unspeakable Truth," dissects his interpretive methods really well.

I haven't read the collected correspondence with Glickman - thanks for that![/QUOTE]


----------

