|
David
Fanning's Testimony or Travesty: A Conflict of Interest Allan
B. Ho and Dmitry Feofanov An edited version of this original letter was published in BBC Music Magazine following Fanning's review of Shostakovich Reconsidered. This original version was posted by the authors on DSCH list and includes additional comments.
In fairness to us, the author-editors of Shostakovich Reconsidered, as well as to the readers of BBC Music magazine, it would have been proper for David Fanning to acknowledge, upfront, his very real conflicts of interest in reviewing our book. For example, he does not make clear that five of the principal contributors (himself, Laurel Fay, Richard Taruskin, Manashir Yakubov, and Eric Roseberry) to his own book, Shostakovich Studies, are the very ones whose scholarship is challenged in Shostakovich Reconsidered, nor does he mention that Ian MacDonalds article Naive Anti-Revisionism, which Fanning criticizes, is, in large part, a negative review of his own book. Fanning, unfortunately, distorts the truth on the specific issues he raises. He accuses us of using Richard Taruskins description of Shostakovich as perhaps Soviet Russia's most loyal musical son out of context, claiming that the original context (New Republic, 1989) shows that Taruskin's judgement was meant to apply only with reference to Shostakovichs perceived political stance before the notorious Pravda Muddle instead of Music article of January 1936. In fact, what we and Vladimir Ashkenazy clearly reject in Shostakovich Reconsidered (pp. 11 and 172) is the notion that Shostakovich was ever perhaps Soviet Russias most loyal musical son. Even Taruskins colleague, Malcolm Hamrick Brown, has acknowledged that An interest in modernist devices, love of irony (both in choice of subject and its treatment), and commitment to personal creative vision brought him [Shostakovich] repeatedly into the center of controversy. His opera The Nose, produced in Leningrad in 1930 [i.e., six years before "Muddle Instead of Music,"] was withdrawn under attack for its bourgeois decadence (Groliers Encyclopedia; CD-ROM, 1995). In what conceivable way could this ironic modernist -- whose personal creative vision caused repeated conflicts with the Soviet authorities (bringing him a ban for bourgeois decadence!) -- at the same time have been Taruskins most loyal musical son? Indeed, we wonder if Fanning actually shares, and can support with facts, Taruskins view or is merely defending a star contributor to his own book. Fanning also accuses us of exaggeration in our statement that Maxim and Galina Shostakovich endorse both Testimony and Volkov. Let us examine just a few of their statements in Shostakovich Reconsidered, not mentioned by Fanning: I am a supporter both of Testimony and of Volkov (Maxim); I am an admirer of Volkov. There is nothing false there [in Testimony]. Definitely the style of speech is Shostakovichs -- not only the choice of words, but also the way they are put together (Galina). And what about Maxims vouching for the authenticity of the generous selection of excerpts from Testimony reproduced in Josiah Fisks Composers on Record (1997)? If anything, it is Fanning who downplays the significance of Maxims and Galinas endorsements, not we who exaggerate them. Similarly misleading is the caption to a photograph accompanying Fannings review (p. 32): He [Maxim] later expressed his doubts about the picture of the composer presented by Volkov. Fanning well knows that while Maxim did at one time express such doubts, particularly when he was in the USSR or still had family there, he has for many years now confirmed the accuracy of the portrait of his father in Testimony, as have, according to Fanning himself, an overwhelming majority of those who worked with or were friends of the composer. Fanning further criticizes our statement that "We trace Shostakovich's recurring thoughts of emigration (and, implicitly, his internal dissidence) to as early as 1928". We do exactly that. We cite a phone conversation between Joseph Schillinger and Shostakovich's mother, who in 1928 asked Schillinger to help her son to emigrate. We quote Maxim Shostakovich stating, in public, at a Shostakovich Festival in New York in 1992, that his father thought of emigrating in the 1950s-60s. And we quote Serge Tcherepnin, who recalls his father Alexander receiving a letter from Shostakovich around 1955 seeking his aid in emigrating. This information actually is a revelation, found not even in Fanning's Shostakovich Studies. Rather than dismissing it, Fanning and other Shostakovich scholars would do well to investigate the matter further. As before (see Shostakovich Reconsidered), Fannings presentation, which persistently quotes out-of-context, is hardly even-handed. For example, in order to cast aspersions on Ian MacDonald, he observes that he and presumably MacDonald will be putting references to Volkovs dishonesty on ice as a result of the case we present in favour of Volkovs probity -- a case which, elsewhere, he insinuates is unconvincing. If our case is unconvincing, why did it make him change his mind about Volkov? As for Ian MacDonald, he himself makes his pro-Volkov, pro-Testimony position clear on page 117 of our book. Fanning, who rebukes other participants in this debate for mud-slinging, has contrived to overlook this -- much as he fails to acknowledge that his reference to Volkovs well-known dishonesty (on page 4 of his own book Shostakovich Studies) entailed overlooking clear evidence to the contrary in the very source to which he (Fanning) was then referring. Lest our readers overlook it, this matter is also prominent in Shostakovich Reconsidered (p. 686). Fannings accusation that we are guilty of ungentlemanly conduct is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, we do quote Volkov saying Only stupid people couldnt understand that. But there are still a lot of these stupid people around. He said this and we did not censor him, just as Fanning did not censor Richard Taruskin, in the preface to Shostakovich Studies, referring to Ian MacDonald a vilse trivialiser, Stalinist, and McCarthyite. And yes, we do state that some people seem to have difficulty in reading plain English. Consider the evidence. Volkov stated that Shostakovich signed each part (i.e., chapter) of Testimony, but Christopher Norris claims that Volkov said each page. Volkov says, four times, that the significance of his production of Rothschilds Violin in 1968 was that it was staged, but Laurel Fay twists this, saying the Volkov strongly implies that this was the first and only performance. (There is, of course, a significant difference between staging an opera, which is what Volkov did, and performing it in a concert version, as was done before 1968). Fay also finds the statement that Shostakovich was planning the Seventh Symphony before the war contradicted a page earlier by the statement that he was writing it during the war. (Planning a work and writing it, of course, are not the same things: as Shostakovich often said, I think long, I write fast). It appears clear to us that at least some people are having difficulty reading plain English. As for our heading Fools, Holy and Regular, we leave it to the reader to decide who is which. Richard Taruskin first proclaimed Laurel Fay a yurodivaya (female holy fool; i.e., one who can see what others cannot). We merely observe that holiness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And one mans holy fool may be another mans fool. Finally, Fanning asks why we did not reproduce Volkovs shorthand notes as one of our exhibits. The answer is because these were left hidden in the USSR, in the care of Volkovs mother-in-law, when Volkov and his wife emigrated in 1976. Obviously, with the KGB snooping for any trace of Testimony, carrying such notes with them could have been hazardous to their health. After his mother-in-law passed away, Volkov attempted to track down his notes, but without success. He did learn, however, that she had been harrassed by the KGB. Conceivably, the notes now are in the KGB archives; perhaps, in bearing out Testimony to the letter, they were destroyed. David Fanning might have had greater courage and have smuggled out his notes were he in Volkovs position, even as the KGB attempted to wring the information from himself or his wife. Let us hope he is never in that position. Respectfully,
Notes from the author: This response to Fannings review of Shostakovich Reconsidered (reprinted in DSCH Journal 10, pp. 64-66) was originally written for publication in BBC Music (footnotes, however, include new material). Due to space constraints in the latter, only a revised, shorter version appeared in print. It is worth noting that, in contrast to Fanning, Allan Ho declined an invitation by MLA Notes to review Elizabeth Wilsons Shostakovich: A Life Remembered because, despite his great admiration for her book, he knew that Shostakovich Reconsidered would include a few criticisms of her work. Tamara Bernsteins hostile review of Shostakovich Reconsidered (reprinted in DSCH Journal 10, pp. 60-61) also may reflect a conflict of interest. Having in 1993-94 produced a CBC radio documentary in conjunction with and sympathetic to the anti- Testimony forces, she remains in such close contact with Richard Taruskin that a personal email message sent by Dmitry Feofanov to Bernstein was forwarded immediately by the latter to Taruskin, who responded in her stead. In his paper at the AMS meeting in Boston (31 October 1998), David Fanning seemed unwilling to defend Taruskin's phrase: Now I have already begged to differ from Professor Taruskins views on Shostakovichs opera as expressed in this particular article, and I dont approve his choice of words at this point, not least because the phrase in question echoes Pravdas official obituary. Even Richard Taruskin would not support his words with facts, but, surprisingly, claimed that he was merely being ironic. If Taruskin were being ironic, his irony was lost not only on us, but on three of his friends and colleagues, Malcolm Hamrick Brown, David Fanning, and Tamara Bernstein, all of whom attempted to defend Taruskins phrase as seriously pertaining up to the time of Lady Macbeth. Moreover, if Taruskin were being ironic, why did he feel the need to add till then the second time he used this phrase (in the New York Times, 6 November 1994, p. 34)? And was he also being ironic in stating, immediately afterwards, in the same sentence, and certainly its most talented one? At best, Taruskin would seem to be a lousy writer, misunderstood by even his friends and supporters; at worst, he emerges as an incredibly insensitive person, who would joke about Shostakovich being perhaps Soviet Russia's most loyal musical son, twice, in print. (For more on Taruskins phrase, see Ian MacDonalds piece in this issue.) After his paper at the AMS meeting in Boston, David Fanning stated that he was not responsible for the photograph or caption accompanying his review. Or was he, too, being "ironic"? An article by Galina Drubachevskaya in Muzykal'naya Akademiya (1992, No. 3), in which she admits knowing about the Volkov-Shostakovich meetings as they were taking place and of reading chapters of the manuscript of Testimony after they had been reviewed by Shostakovich. (Since Shostakovich Reconsidered was published, we learned of still other people who read the Russian manuscript before Volkov emigrated in 1976.)
Home | Back to contents | Top |
