What do you think?
Rate this book
賲匕賰乇丕鬲 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮: 賲毓丕賳丕丞 毓亘賯乇賷 賲亘丿毓 賮賷 廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 丕賱乇毓亘
卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 賴賵 賵丕丨丿 賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷賷賳 丕賱乇賵爻 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳貙 賵鬲賲賷夭鬲 賲賵爻賷賯丕賴 亘丕亘鬲毓丕丿賴丕 毓賳 丕賱卮毓亘賷丞 賵丕賱乇賵賲丕賳爻賷丞貙 賲賳丕賯囟丕賸 亘匕賱賰 鬲毓賱賷賲丕鬲 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞貙 賵賲孬賷乇丕賸 睾囟亘 爻鬲丕賱賷賳. 賵賮毓賱丕 鬲賲 丕毓鬲亘丕乇 賲賵爻賷賯賶 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 睾賷乇 賱丕卅賯丞 亘賲賵爻賷賯賷 乇賵爻賷. 賵賲賳 賴賳丕 亘丿兀鬲 兀夭賲丞 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 丕賱丨賷丕鬲賷丞 賵賲毓丕賳丕鬲賴貙 賮賴賵 賱賲 賷賰賳 賯丕丿乇丕賸 亘兀賷 丨丕賱 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賵丕賱 鈥� 賱丕爻亘丕亘 卮禺氐賷丞 鈥� 毓賱賶 賲睾丕丿乇丞 丕賱亘賱丕丿貙 賲孬賱 爻鬲乇丕賮賷賳爻賰賷貙 兀賵 亘乇賵賰賵賮賷賷賮貙 兀賵 乇禺賲丕賳賷賳賵賮貙 亘賱 馗賱 賮賷 乇賵爻賷丕 賵丕囟胤乇 兀賳 賷禺囟毓 賵賷鬲賲丕卮賶 賲毓 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱囟睾賵胤. 賱賰賳賴 賰鬲亘 賲匕賰乇丕鬲賴 賴匕賴 爻乇丕賸 賵賴乇亘賴丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱氐丨賮賷 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 爻賵賱賵賲賵賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮.
358 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
68 people are currently reading
1,976 people want to read
About the author
Solomon Volkov
17听books27听followersSolomon Moiseyevich Volkov (born 17 April 1944 in Uroteppa, Tadzhik SSR) is a Russian journalist and musicologist. He is best known for Testimony, which was published in 1979 following his emigration from the Soviet Union in 1976. He claimed that the book was the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich, as related to himself.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
May 3, 2020
丕賱亘賯丕亍 丨賷丕賸 賮賷 毓賴賵丿 丕賱賯賲毓 賵丕賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 賷毓賳賷 兀賳 鬲毓賷卮 賮賷 丕賳賰爻丕乇 賵禺賵賮 賵鬲乇賯亘
賲匕賰乇丕鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 丕賱乇賵爻賷 丕賱卮賴賷乇 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮
兀丨丕丿賷孬 賵匕賰乇賷丕鬲 毓賳 丨賷丕鬲賴 亘賲乇丕丨賱賴丕 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞, 賵兀毓賲丕賱賴 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷丞
賷丨賰賷 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳,毓賱丕賯丕鬲賴 亘丕賱兀氐丿賯丕亍 賵丕賱兀丿亘丕亍 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷賷賳 賵兀毓賲丕賱賴賲
毓丕卮 丨賷丕丞 賯賱賯丞 賷爻賵丿賴丕 丕賱丨夭賳 賵丕賱禺賵賮, 賵毓賱丕賯丞 賲囟胤乇亘丞 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 毓賴丿 爻鬲丕賱賷賳
賮賷 馗賱 丕賱鬲賴丿賷丿 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丨賲賱丕鬲 丕賱賴噩賵賲 毓賱賷賴 賵丕毓鬲賯丕賱 賵賲賵鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀氐丿賯丕丐賴 賵賲毓丕乇賮賴
丨丕賵賱 毓丿賲 丕賱禺囟賵毓 賰賱賷丕 賱賱爻賱胤丞 賱賰賳 賲毓 丕賱丕亘鬲毓丕丿 毓賳 丕賱賲賵丕噩賴丞
賵乇睾賲 丕賱賳噩丕丨 賵丕賱卮賴乇丞 賵丕賱廿亘丿丕毓 廿賱丕 兀賳 丕賱胤睾賷丕賳 賷氐亘睾 丕賱丨賷丕丞 亘丕賱賲乇丕乇丞 賵丕賱亘丐爻
丕賱賲匕賰乇丕鬲 賳卮乇賴丕 丕賱氐丨賮賷 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 爻賵賱賵賲賵賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮 亘毓丿 賵賮丕丞 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮
賲匕賰乇丕鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 丕賱乇賵爻賷 丕賱卮賴賷乇 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮
兀丨丕丿賷孬 賵匕賰乇賷丕鬲 毓賳 丨賷丕鬲賴 亘賲乇丕丨賱賴丕 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞, 賵兀毓賲丕賱賴 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷丞
賷丨賰賷 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳,毓賱丕賯丕鬲賴 亘丕賱兀氐丿賯丕亍 賵丕賱兀丿亘丕亍 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷賷賳 賵兀毓賲丕賱賴賲
毓丕卮 丨賷丕丞 賯賱賯丞 賷爻賵丿賴丕 丕賱丨夭賳 賵丕賱禺賵賮, 賵毓賱丕賯丞 賲囟胤乇亘丞 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞 賮賷 毓賴丿 爻鬲丕賱賷賳
賮賷 馗賱 丕賱鬲賴丿賷丿 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丨賲賱丕鬲 丕賱賴噩賵賲 毓賱賷賴 賵丕毓鬲賯丕賱 賵賲賵鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀氐丿賯丕丐賴 賵賲毓丕乇賮賴
丨丕賵賱 毓丿賲 丕賱禺囟賵毓 賰賱賷丕 賱賱爻賱胤丞 賱賰賳 賲毓 丕賱丕亘鬲毓丕丿 毓賳 丕賱賲賵丕噩賴丞
賵乇睾賲 丕賱賳噩丕丨 賵丕賱卮賴乇丞 賵丕賱廿亘丿丕毓 廿賱丕 兀賳 丕賱胤睾賷丕賳 賷氐亘睾 丕賱丨賷丕丞 亘丕賱賲乇丕乇丞 賵丕賱亘丐爻
丕賱賲匕賰乇丕鬲 賳卮乇賴丕 丕賱氐丨賮賷 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 爻賵賱賵賲賵賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮 亘毓丿 賵賮丕丞 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮
September 15, 2022
亘毓丿 乇賵丕賷丞 #囟噩賷噩_丕賱毓氐乇 賱賱毓馗賷賲 #噩賵賱賷丕賳_亘丕乇賳夭貙 毓乇賮鬲 亘兀賳賻賾 毓賱賷賻賾 兀賳 兀賯乇兀 賲匕賰乇丕鬲 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 丕賱鬲賷 亘賳賷鬲 毓賱賷賴丕 鬲賱賰 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞.
賰丕賳鬲 賮乇氐丞 賱賰賷 兀鬲賯乇賾亘 賲賳 賲賵爻賷賯丕賴 毓賱賶 賳丨賵賺 兀賰亘乇. 爻賲毓鬲 爻賷賲賮賵賳賷鬲賴 丕賱禺丕賲爻丞 賵丕賱爻丕亘毓丞 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞貙 賵兀丨亘亘鬲 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 - 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯丕 - 賲夭丕噩賴 丕賱賲毓鬲賲 賵爻禺乇賷鬲賴 丕賱賲乇賾丞 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 丕賱睾乇賷亘丞 毓賱賶 丿賮毓賰 賱賱鬲亘爻賾賲 賲乇丕乇賸丕.
賷乇賶 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 亘兀賳賴 丕賱賮賳 賳賯賷囟 丕賱賮馗丕馗丞貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 賮馗丕馗丞 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 兀賵 丨鬲賶 鬲賵爻賰丕賳賷賳賷. 賵賷賮賳賾丿 丕賱亘乇賵亘賵睾丕賳丿丕 丕賱賳丕夭賷丞 毓賳 丨亘賾 賴鬲賱乇 賱賱賲賵爻賷賯丕. 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 丕丨鬲賮賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱乇賴丕賮丞 賵丕賱賮胤賳丞貙 禺丕氐丞 賲毓 睾賵睾賵賱 賵鬲卮賷禺賵賮 賵兀禺賲丕鬲賵賮丕 賵亘賵乇賷爻 亘丕爻鬲乇賳丕賰 賵禺丕鬲卮賵鬲賵乇賷丕賳 賵賱賷爻鬲 賵乇賷賲爻賰賷 賰賵乇爻丕賰賵賮 賵睾賷乇賴賲..
賱賯丿 兀賲賱賶 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 賲匕賰乇丕鬲賴 毓賱賶 爻賵賱賵賲賵賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮 亘丕乇鬲賷丕丨賺 亘丕賱睾貙 賱兀賳賴 賷毓乇賮 亘兀賳賴丕 賱賳 鬲賳卮乇 廿賱丕 亘毓丿 賲賵鬲賴.
賵賴賰匕丕 爻賯胤鬲 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱爻賰賾乇賷丞 毓賳 "賲賵爻賷賯丕乇 爻鬲丕賱賷賳" 丕賱匕賷 賳丕賱 噩丕卅夭丞 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 佟佗 賲乇賾丞 亘丨爻亘 丕賱噩丿賵賱 丕賱賲乇賮賯 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賱賳乇賶 丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇 賵丕賱毓亘賯乇賷. 賵賱賰賷 鬲賳賰卮賮 丕賱爻匕丕噩丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 鬲睾鬲賮乇 賮賷 鬲毓丕胤賷 丕賱睾乇亘 - "丕賱丨購乇" - 賲毓 廿卮賰丕賱丕鬲 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賱賷爻 賮賷 乇賵爻賷丕 賮丨爻亘貙 亘賱 賮賷 丕賱卮乇賯 亘乇賲賾鬲賴.
賰丕賳鬲 賮乇氐丞 賱賰賷 兀鬲賯乇賾亘 賲賳 賲賵爻賷賯丕賴 毓賱賶 賳丨賵賺 兀賰亘乇. 爻賲毓鬲 爻賷賲賮賵賳賷鬲賴 丕賱禺丕賲爻丞 賵丕賱爻丕亘毓丞 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞貙 賵兀丨亘亘鬲 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 - 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯丕 - 賲夭丕噩賴 丕賱賲毓鬲賲 賵爻禺乇賷鬲賴 丕賱賲乇賾丞 賵賯丿乇鬲賴 丕賱睾乇賷亘丞 毓賱賶 丿賮毓賰 賱賱鬲亘爻賾賲 賲乇丕乇賸丕.
賷乇賶 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 亘兀賳賴 丕賱賮賳 賳賯賷囟 丕賱賮馗丕馗丞貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 賮馗丕馗丞 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 兀賵 丨鬲賶 鬲賵爻賰丕賳賷賳賷. 賵賷賮賳賾丿 丕賱亘乇賵亘賵睾丕賳丿丕 丕賱賳丕夭賷丞 毓賳 丨亘賾 賴鬲賱乇 賱賱賲賵爻賷賯丕. 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 丕丨鬲賮賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱乇賴丕賮丞 賵丕賱賮胤賳丞貙 禺丕氐丞 賲毓 睾賵睾賵賱 賵鬲卮賷禺賵賮 賵兀禺賲丕鬲賵賮丕 賵亘賵乇賷爻 亘丕爻鬲乇賳丕賰 賵禺丕鬲卮賵鬲賵乇賷丕賳 賵賱賷爻鬲 賵乇賷賲爻賰賷 賰賵乇爻丕賰賵賮 賵睾賷乇賴賲..
賱賯丿 兀賲賱賶 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 賲匕賰乇丕鬲賴 毓賱賶 爻賵賱賵賲賵賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮 亘丕乇鬲賷丕丨賺 亘丕賱睾貙 賱兀賳賴 賷毓乇賮 亘兀賳賴丕 賱賳 鬲賳卮乇 廿賱丕 亘毓丿 賲賵鬲賴.
賵賴賰匕丕 爻賯胤鬲 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱爻賰賾乇賷丞 毓賳 "賲賵爻賷賯丕乇 爻鬲丕賱賷賳" 丕賱匕賷 賳丕賱 噩丕卅夭丞 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 佟佗 賲乇賾丞 亘丨爻亘 丕賱噩丿賵賱 丕賱賲乇賮賯 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賱賳乇賶 丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇 賵丕賱毓亘賯乇賷. 賵賱賰賷 鬲賳賰卮賮 丕賱爻匕丕噩丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 鬲睾鬲賮乇 賮賷 鬲毓丕胤賷 丕賱睾乇亘 - "丕賱丨購乇" - 賲毓 廿卮賰丕賱丕鬲 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賱賷爻 賮賷 乇賵爻賷丕 賮丨爻亘貙 亘賱 賮賷 丕賱卮乇賯 亘乇賲賾鬲賴.
Read
February 6, 2017Ah, I read this long ago - borrowed from the town centre library which was located at a convenient middish point between school and home. At the time I listened to a fair bit of Shostakovich, mostly symphonies and thought he was the bee's knees but this is the kind of thing that happens to you, or maybe just me, when one listens to Radio 3 as it seeks to relentlessly educate you and maybe I don't want to be learnt to appreciate Harrison Birdwhistle and so eventually I found that my diet of Bach and Buxtehude was mostly sufficient for my needs, supplemented by occasional gorging on Beethoven and Kurt Weil
Anyway, getting on to the subject of this review this is a moderately mysterious work, a guy called Solomon Volkov popped up in the USA with a manuscript claiming that the work was the memoirs of the composer Dmitri Shostakovich, but given that no autographed manuscript or notes of conversations have appeared to date there has been some scepticism over the claim. The composer conveniently had allegedly urged that publication be delayed until after his own death, and one notes in passing that this meant that Dmitri Dmitrivich was unable to wave his fist and say 'stop, whipper-snapper, I'm gonna drag you through every court I can appeal to'. But one can then hold a variety of views about it - from that it is the true and unadulterated words of the composer or a fiction cooked up out of Leningrad gossip and public knowledge, to everything between those two points. If reading it sounds too much like hard work somebody did make a film out of it too, I remember that I did watch it, but don't recall the contents.
The work contains some interesting vignettes such as Marshall Tukhachevsky on the eve of the Great Purge wishing that he was just a violinist sawing away at his instrument, suggesting a desire to get away from the developing political situation - the composer was a bit sniffy about the expressed wish, feeling it was a derogation of responsibility. Though probably he could only have saved himself by becoming a fiddler in a factory band in Alma-Ata, well probably not.
The main point as with possibly 72.763% of my reviews is as Montaigne observed, you start drinking white wine, then you became a fan of red, at somepoint you wander back to white. When Decartes said cognito ego sum he found in his ability to think and in absolute faith in God fixed points. Yet when I live within myself, like Montaigne, I find a shifting mass of change, what was once significant is later forgot.
Anyway, getting on to the subject of this review this is a moderately mysterious work, a guy called Solomon Volkov popped up in the USA with a manuscript claiming that the work was the memoirs of the composer Dmitri Shostakovich, but given that no autographed manuscript or notes of conversations have appeared to date there has been some scepticism over the claim. The composer conveniently had allegedly urged that publication be delayed until after his own death, and one notes in passing that this meant that Dmitri Dmitrivich was unable to wave his fist and say 'stop, whipper-snapper, I'm gonna drag you through every court I can appeal to'. But one can then hold a variety of views about it - from that it is the true and unadulterated words of the composer or a fiction cooked up out of Leningrad gossip and public knowledge, to everything between those two points. If reading it sounds too much like hard work somebody did make a film out of it too, I remember that I did watch it, but don't recall the contents.
The work contains some interesting vignettes such as Marshall Tukhachevsky on the eve of the Great Purge wishing that he was just a violinist sawing away at his instrument, suggesting a desire to get away from the developing political situation - the composer was a bit sniffy about the expressed wish, feeling it was a derogation of responsibility. Though probably he could only have saved himself by becoming a fiddler in a factory band in Alma-Ata, well probably not.
The main point as with possibly 72.763% of my reviews is as Montaigne observed, you start drinking white wine, then you became a fan of red, at somepoint you wander back to white. When Decartes said cognito ego sum he found in his ability to think and in absolute faith in God fixed points. Yet when I live within myself, like Montaigne, I find a shifting mass of change, what was once significant is later forgot.
February 2, 2022
賲孬賱 爻賲賮賵賳賷丞 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 丕賱孬丕賲賳丞 賲賱卅 亘丕賱賲毓丕賳丕丞 賵丕賱噩孬孬貙 賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賲賵爻賷賯丕賴 卮賵丕賴丿 賯亘賵乇
賱賯丿 毓丕賷卮 賮鬲乇丞 丕賱賯賲毓 賵丕賱丕禺鬲賮丕亍 丕賱賮噩丕卅賷 賵丕賱丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲乇丨賲 丨鬲賷 丕賱賮賳 貙 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶貙 賮賴賵 賷氐賮 禺賵賮 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯丕乇 丨鬲賷 賲賳 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 賮賷 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 丨鬲賷 賱丕賷鬲賴賲 亘丕賱卮賰賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 囟乇賷亘鬲賴丕 丨賷丕鬲賴 貙 丕賱禺賵賮 賲賳 丕賱丌乇丕亍 賵丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 兀孬賳丕亍 賯賲毓 爻鬲丕賱賷賳
賱丕 賷賰賮賷 兀賳 鬲丨亘 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱爻賵賮賷賷鬲丞 亘賱 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲丨亘賰 兀賷囟丕 貙 賴匕丕 賴賵 賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱賲丨丕賮馗丞 毓賱賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱賵賯鬲
賱賯丿 毓丕賷卮 賮鬲乇丞 丕賱賯賲毓 賵丕賱丕禺鬲賮丕亍 丕賱賮噩丕卅賷 賵丕賱丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲乇丨賲 丨鬲賷 丕賱賮賳 貙 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶貙 賮賴賵 賷氐賮 禺賵賮 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯丕乇 丨鬲賷 賲賳 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳 賳賮爻賴 賮賷 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 丨鬲賷 賱丕賷鬲賴賲 亘丕賱卮賰賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 囟乇賷亘鬲賴丕 丨賷丕鬲賴 貙 丕賱禺賵賮 賲賳 丕賱丌乇丕亍 賵丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 兀孬賳丕亍 賯賲毓 爻鬲丕賱賷賳
賱丕 賷賰賮賷 兀賳 鬲丨亘 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱爻賵賮賷賷鬲丞 亘賱 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲丨亘賰 兀賷囟丕 貙 賴匕丕 賴賵 賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱賲丨丕賮馗丞 毓賱賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱賵賯鬲
July 30, 2011
This is an insightful look into the nature, history, and past of one of classical music's most mysterious figures. Volkov's picture of Shostakovich is bright and forthcoming, and after the reading of Testimony one can walk away feeling as if they have come to know Shostakovich a great deal better. Though there is much controversy surrounding this publication, for whatever reason, I feel it has great literary and entertaining merit. Four stars for the composer's lack of interest in the music of Milhaud.
December 10, 2020
Although there is some controversy over the role Volkov played in compiling these memoirs, the book is a work of moral genius. While Testimony includes some music history, its real subject seems to be the moral challenge of Stalinism. I鈥檝e never yet encountered a Volkov book I didn鈥檛 like, but this was one of my favorites. I underlined so many passages that I began to think I should only underline the very few passages that weren鈥檛 interesting to me.
February 21, 2020
Can music attack evil? Can it make men stop and think? Can it cry out and thereby draw men鈥檚 attention to various vile acts to which he has become accustomed? to the things he passes without any interest?
Shostakovich spent a large part of his creative life in the oppressive environment with which Stalin blanketed the Soviet Union. That he managed to endure is an impressive accomplishment; that he managed to write such passionate, uplifting and above all humanistic music is a real testament to his fortitude and his genius both as a man and as a composer. The answer to the above question he posed is, given his example, a resounding 鈥榊es鈥�.
This memoir, although told in first person and detailing only what Shostakovich himself actually said, would not have been possible without its editor, Sergei Volkov, whose patient note taking throughout innumerable talks with the then-dying composer allowed him to amass its amazing collection of anecdotes, memories and feelings. Jotting down quotes in pencilled shorthand since Shostakovich, like everyone in the Soviet Union at that time, distrusted tape recorders, what emerges if a thoroughly chilling account of what it was like to like in a thoroughly authoritarian society in which whether or not the 鈥榞reat leader and teacher鈥� liked your work was literally a question of life and death.
Shostakovich felt a strong sense of affection and respect for Meyerhold and for Tukhaschevsky: the former a theatrical impresario, the later a military leader. They both were killed (the euphemistic term is 鈥榙isappeared鈥�) in Stalin鈥檚 purges of the late 1930s, at which time Shostakovich was under a cloud after the Great Leader鈥檚 distaste for his opera Lady Macbeth lead to an article 鈥楳uddle Instead of Music鈥�. The nebulous and meaningless term 鈥榝ormalism鈥� was later applied to the work of Shostakovich and that of many others in a draconian clamping down on individualistic expression and the imposition of a moribund, grey, soul-stultifying orthodoxy during which one went into bathrooms and turned on taps to whisper jokes to one another, so real were the fears of denunciation and the secret police.
The glories of Shostakovich鈥檚 many symphonies, string quartets, operas and song cycles is a true testament to his strength of artistic integrity to have been produced during such a chillingly totalitarian period in the history of his country, which has for far too long suffered from the knout of authoritarian power and arbitrary rule all in the name of keeping the current power holders in power: a situation which, sad to say, exists in all its terrifying awfulness up to today. (Yes, I mean you, Mr. Putin!)
Along the way, Shostakovich鈥檚 observations are, to say the least, quite pithy and pointed. Scriabin knew as much about orchestration as a pig knows about oranges. Prokofiev was virtually impossible to become friends with since he was always looking to please the higher ups. He had the soul of a goose and always went around with a chip on his shoulder. Rimsky-Korsakov had to wait for Tchaikovsky to die before he could compose opera, so daunted was he by his rival鈥檚 apparent mastery. Stravinsky鈥檚 constructions in his compositions stick out like scaffolding: there鈥檚 no flow, no natural bridges.Thus, much of his The Rite of Spring was designed for external effect and lacks substance. He did admire Glazunov鈥檚 consummate mastery of music, as well as his ability to play the piano while holding a fat cigar between his fingers. The 1948 resolution against formalism was 鈥榯he delirium of a purple cow.鈥�
His admiration of Glazunov, Chekhov, Gogol, Sollertinsky, Zoshchenko, Akhmatova and Mussorgsky is offset by the disdain he expressed for Mayakovsky, Eisenstein, Sakharov, Tarkovsky and Solzhenitsyn. Truly, Shostakovich was his own man, and made up his mind independently, largely on a moral basis: was this person good and kind, or was he a toady or somehow dishonest in the persona he presented to the world?
The story is not without humour. Explaining how he was not always adverse to participating in the national Russian addiction to alcohol in general and vodka in particular, he comments 鈥楢t a certain period in my life, I was greatly liberated by expanding my knowledge in that fascinating area.鈥� On the relationship of talent to money, Shostakovich was told that 鈥楾alent is like money: either you have it or you don鈥檛', to which he replied: 鈥楬owever,if you have no money, you may get some later, while if you have no talent, you will never get any.鈥�
I鈥檝e just watched the 1987 movie by Tony Palmer based on this book, with Ben Kingsley as Shostakovich, and highly recommend it as a two and half hour extravaganza presenting a vibrant collage of images and music.
This book is a truly remarkable testament to the integrity of a great artist living in a truly horrifying time. Highly recommended.
Shostakovich spent a large part of his creative life in the oppressive environment with which Stalin blanketed the Soviet Union. That he managed to endure is an impressive accomplishment; that he managed to write such passionate, uplifting and above all humanistic music is a real testament to his fortitude and his genius both as a man and as a composer. The answer to the above question he posed is, given his example, a resounding 鈥榊es鈥�.
This memoir, although told in first person and detailing only what Shostakovich himself actually said, would not have been possible without its editor, Sergei Volkov, whose patient note taking throughout innumerable talks with the then-dying composer allowed him to amass its amazing collection of anecdotes, memories and feelings. Jotting down quotes in pencilled shorthand since Shostakovich, like everyone in the Soviet Union at that time, distrusted tape recorders, what emerges if a thoroughly chilling account of what it was like to like in a thoroughly authoritarian society in which whether or not the 鈥榞reat leader and teacher鈥� liked your work was literally a question of life and death.
Shostakovich felt a strong sense of affection and respect for Meyerhold and for Tukhaschevsky: the former a theatrical impresario, the later a military leader. They both were killed (the euphemistic term is 鈥榙isappeared鈥�) in Stalin鈥檚 purges of the late 1930s, at which time Shostakovich was under a cloud after the Great Leader鈥檚 distaste for his opera Lady Macbeth lead to an article 鈥楳uddle Instead of Music鈥�. The nebulous and meaningless term 鈥榝ormalism鈥� was later applied to the work of Shostakovich and that of many others in a draconian clamping down on individualistic expression and the imposition of a moribund, grey, soul-stultifying orthodoxy during which one went into bathrooms and turned on taps to whisper jokes to one another, so real were the fears of denunciation and the secret police.
The glories of Shostakovich鈥檚 many symphonies, string quartets, operas and song cycles is a true testament to his strength of artistic integrity to have been produced during such a chillingly totalitarian period in the history of his country, which has for far too long suffered from the knout of authoritarian power and arbitrary rule all in the name of keeping the current power holders in power: a situation which, sad to say, exists in all its terrifying awfulness up to today. (Yes, I mean you, Mr. Putin!)
Along the way, Shostakovich鈥檚 observations are, to say the least, quite pithy and pointed. Scriabin knew as much about orchestration as a pig knows about oranges. Prokofiev was virtually impossible to become friends with since he was always looking to please the higher ups. He had the soul of a goose and always went around with a chip on his shoulder. Rimsky-Korsakov had to wait for Tchaikovsky to die before he could compose opera, so daunted was he by his rival鈥檚 apparent mastery. Stravinsky鈥檚 constructions in his compositions stick out like scaffolding: there鈥檚 no flow, no natural bridges.Thus, much of his The Rite of Spring was designed for external effect and lacks substance. He did admire Glazunov鈥檚 consummate mastery of music, as well as his ability to play the piano while holding a fat cigar between his fingers. The 1948 resolution against formalism was 鈥榯he delirium of a purple cow.鈥�
His admiration of Glazunov, Chekhov, Gogol, Sollertinsky, Zoshchenko, Akhmatova and Mussorgsky is offset by the disdain he expressed for Mayakovsky, Eisenstein, Sakharov, Tarkovsky and Solzhenitsyn. Truly, Shostakovich was his own man, and made up his mind independently, largely on a moral basis: was this person good and kind, or was he a toady or somehow dishonest in the persona he presented to the world?
The story is not without humour. Explaining how he was not always adverse to participating in the national Russian addiction to alcohol in general and vodka in particular, he comments 鈥楢t a certain period in my life, I was greatly liberated by expanding my knowledge in that fascinating area.鈥� On the relationship of talent to money, Shostakovich was told that 鈥楾alent is like money: either you have it or you don鈥檛', to which he replied: 鈥楬owever,if you have no money, you may get some later, while if you have no talent, you will never get any.鈥�
I鈥檝e just watched the 1987 movie by Tony Palmer based on this book, with Ben Kingsley as Shostakovich, and highly recommend it as a two and half hour extravaganza presenting a vibrant collage of images and music.
This book is a truly remarkable testament to the integrity of a great artist living in a truly horrifying time. Highly recommended.
July 18, 2008
I give Shostakovich himself 5 stars, but I can only give this 3 because of the sketchy circumstances under which it was "written." Really I have no idea what the truth is at this point, but certainly enough people have talked about it. The idea is that Solomon Volkov may have made up a lot of it, but even if it was stuff Shostakovich said, it was at the very end of his life when he was really cranky and in a lot of pain. I would say depressing stuff I didn't mean in that case, too. So although it's an interesting read from a historical debate standpoint, don't take it as the gospel truth from The Man Himself.
February 9, 2022
Dignity, Integrity, and Artistic Genius Under Tyranny
A Review Dmitri Shostakovich's Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich, edited by Solomon Volkov
November 10, 2021
We Americans have no idea of what it鈥檚 like to live in tyranny, true tyranny, in a country where rule of law and due process do not exist, where authorities and their secret police justify anything, where you can stand accused for anything, where neighbor informs on neighbor, where dissent is a death sentence, where fear of surveillance, arrest, and disappearance at any time hangs over everyone. Composer Dmitri Shostakovich, his friends and family, and his Soviet comrades lived through these conditions, through what stands as the longest and most brutal tyranny of the 20th century, through unimaginable suffering in the systematic eradication of millions of innocent citizens in the system known as 鈥渢he Gulag.鈥� Few people can read through Solzhenitsyn鈥檚 , the chronicle of this system, before succumbing to the stomach-churning, mind-bending cruelty that human beings are capable of, and having to put it aside. Reading about it is one thing: living through it quite another.
Dmitri Shostakovich is one of the great composers of all time. Although he worked in the worst of circumstances, often in fear of his life, he enjoyed international success and adulation for many of his compositions. Some of those works however, got him into deep trouble with the Soviet authorities. At times his works were banned. Other times they were praised as the greatest of any. So much of his music is powerfully poignant, filled with emotion that words cannot express. He鈥檚 an extremely complex and interesting character, without doubt a musical genius but also a man of deep compassion, dignity, and integrity. I read Volkov鈥檚 presentation of Shostakovich's recollections because of how much I and my family love his music. The copy I read was passed from my father to my mother and then to me. The 5th Symphony was one of my top five symphonies when first began to follow and collect classical music, but I鈥檝e also grown to love dozens of other works of his.
Volkov is a Russian musicologist and journalist who met Shostakovich as a youth, copied down his conversations with the composer in the last years of his life, and edited them into this book which is written in Shostakovich's voice. The book consists of Volkov鈥檚 preface and intro, then his presentation of Shostakovich鈥檚 memoirs which are divided into eight unnumbered sections that are not chronological and a somewhat random order of topics, events, and people; it includes two sections of black and white photos, and ends with a chronology of his compositions, titles, awards followed by an index.
The book was published (1979) only four years after Shostakovich died and so became the first book to reframe western perceptions of who Shostakovich was and how he thought鈥攆rom being a good communist and advocate of Soviet social realism to being a tormented anti-communist and secret dissident composer. His stories tell how he pretended to go along with the Party and authorities and often was forced into saying and doing things at odds with his values, but all of it was all done only to survive the times and maintain some sense of artistic integrity and human dignity.
From its inception, the uncensored views of Shostakovich presented by Volkov in Testimony created controversy and engendered an entire culture of Shostakovich interpretation 鈥� who really was he, what does his music really say, what did he actually think, etc. Both of Shostakovich鈥檚 children, Maxim and Galya, as well as dozens of musicians, conductors, composers, and friends of the composer vouch for the book鈥檚 accuracy and say the book not only reflects his true feelings and thoughts but is true to his humor, character, and wit. Subsequent books have presented further research into Shostakovich鈥檚 life, corroborating much of Volkov鈥檚 book. Elizabeth Taylor鈥檚 extensive presents the memories of people who knew Shostakovich, and Ian MacDonald鈥檚 outstanding is the most extensive reevaluation based on the revelations from Testimony. Other books worth mentioning are Stephan Johnson鈥檚 lovely tells how Shostakovich鈥檚 music helped him with his struggle with bipolar disorder and Glickman鈥檚 .
By the 1990s, two camps had formed in reaction to Testimony, the revisionist camp which took the book as the true, uncensored Shostakovich, and the anti-revisionist camp which went out of its way to debunk, discredit, or otherwise attack Volkov and the authenticity of Testimony and instead uphold the official Soviet view of him as a loyal communist. The latter camp consists primarily of a handful of western academic musicologists, chief among them Richard Taruskin, Laurel Fay, and Malcolm Hamrick Brown, who have gone to great lengths to counter how Shostakovich presented himself when he wasn't censored by the Soviet system (as he does in Testimony). Needless to say, the anti-revisionists come out of western academic Marxist-socialist Soviet sympathizer culture which, consciously or not, influences the views they expound. The revisionists consist of Soviet dissident culture and those who, like Shostakovich, clandestinely resisted and later openly resisted (like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov) the Soviet system. The book that most thoroughly upholds the authenticity of Testimony and delivers a final blow to the machinations of these few academics is Ho and Feofanov's massively researched and meticulous presentation . So well presented as Ho & Feofanov's book is, with so much evidence by so many observers, that the only thing that followed it was silence.
Unfortunately anti-revisionist views continue to mar the landscape of Shostakovich interpretation so those who play, listen to, and love Shostakovich's music need to be aware that contained within liner notes, articles, books, as well as films, lurk misrepresentations and misinformation about his life. For example, the oft-cited line in response to his 5th symphony, "A Soviet artist's creative response to just criticism" was not his, but a journalist's. Another example is the anti-revisionist camp's (particularly Fay's) downplaying of Shostakovich's sympathy for the suffering caused by anti-Semitism, making the works he wrote in solidarity with Jews and Jewish culture sound trivial. There are numerous attempts to paint Shostakovich as a loyal communist since he wrote pro-Soviet film music scores when those who do so are unable to acknowledge an artist tortured and forced by a totalitarian system to "produce or else." What lengths would you go to if your and your family's lives were on the line? Not figuratively, but literally, as Shostakovich watched dozens of his friends and colleagues arrested and disappear into the Gulag.
Back to the book, there鈥檚 really no structure to the way Volkov presents Shostakovich鈥檚 recollections; the topics drift from one to another, often with sustained focus on a single individual or a particular event in his life. Shostakovich mostly likes telling stories about others in order to reflect on himself. Along the way you meet many of the great artists and writers of Russia and the Soviet era, some which he praises, others which he criticizes: Chekov, Gogol, Pushkin, Glazunov, Prokofiev, Glinka, Meyerhold, Sollertinsky, Rostropovich, Zoshchenko, Yudina, Akhmatova, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Sakharov, Tarkovsky, Mayakovski, Wienberg, and Solzhenitsyn. Throughout, 鈥渢he leader and teacher鈥� himself, Joseph Stalin, is presented in numerous anecdotes as a complete uneducated buffoon, a mad man, a mindless, self-absorbed butcher, without a whit of feeling for anything or anybody, a man so feared that when he 鈥済ave people the eye鈥� they literally soiled their pants. Shostakovich gives one poignant example he witnessed. One of the most interesting facts to emerge from Shostakovich鈥檚 narrative is the unique regard Stalin held for him and his genius, a favoritism that kept him from suffering the fate of many of his friends and allowed him to keep composing.
In many parts of the book, Shostakovich鈥檚 humor comes through as he recounts incidents and stories, often sardonic and mocking of the situation鈥檚 absurdity or the foolishness of those involved. One of the last stories in the book is the hilarious recounting of his involvement in the competition to rewrite the Soviet national anthem, of how he and four others were called into Stalin鈥檚 presence as their compositions were evaluated by the Great Gardener. Ridiculousness abounds.
In the introduction, Volkov identifies Shostakovich as a Russian yurodivy, a jester-trickster type who 鈥渉as the gift to see and hear what others know nothing about. But he tells the world about his insights in an intentionally paradoxical way, in code. He plays the fool, while actually being a persistent exposer of evil and injustice鈥� (xxv). The role of the yurodivye is to provide concealed criticism and protest in times when overt criticism gets you executed. But it鈥檚 clear that Shostakovich always held genuine compassion for the common people, for the innocent and oppressed, for those who suffered at the hands of the Soviet regime. So many instances of his compassion appear in the book such as his love for his family, the way he helped many of his friends and colleagues, his favorite poem by Vladimir Mayakovski, 鈥淜indness to Horses,鈥� and the fearless compassion he demonstrated towards Jews in his 13th Symphony, Babi Yar, and his vocal work From Jewish Folk Poetry.
A short list of words that describe Shostakovich and his memoirs in this book are irony, sarcasm, secrecy, mockery, praise, scorn, criticism, dark humor, grim, anxiety, dread, sensitivity, compassion, kindness, fearlessness, contradiction, wit, calculating intelligence, social aptitude, musical genius, literary competence, survival, torment, perseverance. No list can describe the man's complexity of character.
There鈥檚 much to enjoy in Volkov鈥檚 presentation of this great composer, itself an excellent supplement to listening to Shostakovich鈥檚 music. But, by all means, listen and get to know his music. I recommend symphonies 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 (particularly 5, 7, 8, 10 , 11), all the string quartets, the op. 87 preludes and fugues for piano, the six concertos, his vocal works The Execution of Stepan Rizan and Suite on Verses by Michelangelo Buonarroti, and, and鈥擮MG鈥攕o much to discover. There鈥檚 also plenty of excellent YouTube videos explaining and performing his works. Enjoy!
Edited 1-28-22
A Review Dmitri Shostakovich's Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich, edited by Solomon Volkov
November 10, 2021
We Americans have no idea of what it鈥檚 like to live in tyranny, true tyranny, in a country where rule of law and due process do not exist, where authorities and their secret police justify anything, where you can stand accused for anything, where neighbor informs on neighbor, where dissent is a death sentence, where fear of surveillance, arrest, and disappearance at any time hangs over everyone. Composer Dmitri Shostakovich, his friends and family, and his Soviet comrades lived through these conditions, through what stands as the longest and most brutal tyranny of the 20th century, through unimaginable suffering in the systematic eradication of millions of innocent citizens in the system known as 鈥渢he Gulag.鈥� Few people can read through Solzhenitsyn鈥檚 , the chronicle of this system, before succumbing to the stomach-churning, mind-bending cruelty that human beings are capable of, and having to put it aside. Reading about it is one thing: living through it quite another.
Dmitri Shostakovich is one of the great composers of all time. Although he worked in the worst of circumstances, often in fear of his life, he enjoyed international success and adulation for many of his compositions. Some of those works however, got him into deep trouble with the Soviet authorities. At times his works were banned. Other times they were praised as the greatest of any. So much of his music is powerfully poignant, filled with emotion that words cannot express. He鈥檚 an extremely complex and interesting character, without doubt a musical genius but also a man of deep compassion, dignity, and integrity. I read Volkov鈥檚 presentation of Shostakovich's recollections because of how much I and my family love his music. The copy I read was passed from my father to my mother and then to me. The 5th Symphony was one of my top five symphonies when first began to follow and collect classical music, but I鈥檝e also grown to love dozens of other works of his.
Volkov is a Russian musicologist and journalist who met Shostakovich as a youth, copied down his conversations with the composer in the last years of his life, and edited them into this book which is written in Shostakovich's voice. The book consists of Volkov鈥檚 preface and intro, then his presentation of Shostakovich鈥檚 memoirs which are divided into eight unnumbered sections that are not chronological and a somewhat random order of topics, events, and people; it includes two sections of black and white photos, and ends with a chronology of his compositions, titles, awards followed by an index.
The book was published (1979) only four years after Shostakovich died and so became the first book to reframe western perceptions of who Shostakovich was and how he thought鈥攆rom being a good communist and advocate of Soviet social realism to being a tormented anti-communist and secret dissident composer. His stories tell how he pretended to go along with the Party and authorities and often was forced into saying and doing things at odds with his values, but all of it was all done only to survive the times and maintain some sense of artistic integrity and human dignity.
From its inception, the uncensored views of Shostakovich presented by Volkov in Testimony created controversy and engendered an entire culture of Shostakovich interpretation 鈥� who really was he, what does his music really say, what did he actually think, etc. Both of Shostakovich鈥檚 children, Maxim and Galya, as well as dozens of musicians, conductors, composers, and friends of the composer vouch for the book鈥檚 accuracy and say the book not only reflects his true feelings and thoughts but is true to his humor, character, and wit. Subsequent books have presented further research into Shostakovich鈥檚 life, corroborating much of Volkov鈥檚 book. Elizabeth Taylor鈥檚 extensive presents the memories of people who knew Shostakovich, and Ian MacDonald鈥檚 outstanding is the most extensive reevaluation based on the revelations from Testimony. Other books worth mentioning are Stephan Johnson鈥檚 lovely tells how Shostakovich鈥檚 music helped him with his struggle with bipolar disorder and Glickman鈥檚 .
By the 1990s, two camps had formed in reaction to Testimony, the revisionist camp which took the book as the true, uncensored Shostakovich, and the anti-revisionist camp which went out of its way to debunk, discredit, or otherwise attack Volkov and the authenticity of Testimony and instead uphold the official Soviet view of him as a loyal communist. The latter camp consists primarily of a handful of western academic musicologists, chief among them Richard Taruskin, Laurel Fay, and Malcolm Hamrick Brown, who have gone to great lengths to counter how Shostakovich presented himself when he wasn't censored by the Soviet system (as he does in Testimony). Needless to say, the anti-revisionists come out of western academic Marxist-socialist Soviet sympathizer culture which, consciously or not, influences the views they expound. The revisionists consist of Soviet dissident culture and those who, like Shostakovich, clandestinely resisted and later openly resisted (like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov) the Soviet system. The book that most thoroughly upholds the authenticity of Testimony and delivers a final blow to the machinations of these few academics is Ho and Feofanov's massively researched and meticulous presentation . So well presented as Ho & Feofanov's book is, with so much evidence by so many observers, that the only thing that followed it was silence.
Unfortunately anti-revisionist views continue to mar the landscape of Shostakovich interpretation so those who play, listen to, and love Shostakovich's music need to be aware that contained within liner notes, articles, books, as well as films, lurk misrepresentations and misinformation about his life. For example, the oft-cited line in response to his 5th symphony, "A Soviet artist's creative response to just criticism" was not his, but a journalist's. Another example is the anti-revisionist camp's (particularly Fay's) downplaying of Shostakovich's sympathy for the suffering caused by anti-Semitism, making the works he wrote in solidarity with Jews and Jewish culture sound trivial. There are numerous attempts to paint Shostakovich as a loyal communist since he wrote pro-Soviet film music scores when those who do so are unable to acknowledge an artist tortured and forced by a totalitarian system to "produce or else." What lengths would you go to if your and your family's lives were on the line? Not figuratively, but literally, as Shostakovich watched dozens of his friends and colleagues arrested and disappear into the Gulag.
Back to the book, there鈥檚 really no structure to the way Volkov presents Shostakovich鈥檚 recollections; the topics drift from one to another, often with sustained focus on a single individual or a particular event in his life. Shostakovich mostly likes telling stories about others in order to reflect on himself. Along the way you meet many of the great artists and writers of Russia and the Soviet era, some which he praises, others which he criticizes: Chekov, Gogol, Pushkin, Glazunov, Prokofiev, Glinka, Meyerhold, Sollertinsky, Rostropovich, Zoshchenko, Yudina, Akhmatova, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky, Sakharov, Tarkovsky, Mayakovski, Wienberg, and Solzhenitsyn. Throughout, 鈥渢he leader and teacher鈥� himself, Joseph Stalin, is presented in numerous anecdotes as a complete uneducated buffoon, a mad man, a mindless, self-absorbed butcher, without a whit of feeling for anything or anybody, a man so feared that when he 鈥済ave people the eye鈥� they literally soiled their pants. Shostakovich gives one poignant example he witnessed. One of the most interesting facts to emerge from Shostakovich鈥檚 narrative is the unique regard Stalin held for him and his genius, a favoritism that kept him from suffering the fate of many of his friends and allowed him to keep composing.
In many parts of the book, Shostakovich鈥檚 humor comes through as he recounts incidents and stories, often sardonic and mocking of the situation鈥檚 absurdity or the foolishness of those involved. One of the last stories in the book is the hilarious recounting of his involvement in the competition to rewrite the Soviet national anthem, of how he and four others were called into Stalin鈥檚 presence as their compositions were evaluated by the Great Gardener. Ridiculousness abounds.
In the introduction, Volkov identifies Shostakovich as a Russian yurodivy, a jester-trickster type who 鈥渉as the gift to see and hear what others know nothing about. But he tells the world about his insights in an intentionally paradoxical way, in code. He plays the fool, while actually being a persistent exposer of evil and injustice鈥� (xxv). The role of the yurodivye is to provide concealed criticism and protest in times when overt criticism gets you executed. But it鈥檚 clear that Shostakovich always held genuine compassion for the common people, for the innocent and oppressed, for those who suffered at the hands of the Soviet regime. So many instances of his compassion appear in the book such as his love for his family, the way he helped many of his friends and colleagues, his favorite poem by Vladimir Mayakovski, 鈥淜indness to Horses,鈥� and the fearless compassion he demonstrated towards Jews in his 13th Symphony, Babi Yar, and his vocal work From Jewish Folk Poetry.
A short list of words that describe Shostakovich and his memoirs in this book are irony, sarcasm, secrecy, mockery, praise, scorn, criticism, dark humor, grim, anxiety, dread, sensitivity, compassion, kindness, fearlessness, contradiction, wit, calculating intelligence, social aptitude, musical genius, literary competence, survival, torment, perseverance. No list can describe the man's complexity of character.
There鈥檚 much to enjoy in Volkov鈥檚 presentation of this great composer, itself an excellent supplement to listening to Shostakovich鈥檚 music. But, by all means, listen and get to know his music. I recommend symphonies 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 (particularly 5, 7, 8, 10 , 11), all the string quartets, the op. 87 preludes and fugues for piano, the six concertos, his vocal works The Execution of Stepan Rizan and Suite on Verses by Michelangelo Buonarroti, and, and鈥擮MG鈥攕o much to discover. There鈥檚 also plenty of excellent YouTube videos explaining and performing his works. Enjoy!
Edited 1-28-22
December 17, 2017
賷爻乇丿 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 匕賰乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 丕賱爻賵賮賷賷鬲賷 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮貙 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賲賵爻賷賯賷賷 毓賴丿賴貙 兀爻丕鬲匕鬲賴 賵賯乇賳丕丐賴貙 賰賷賮 毓丕卮賵丕貙 賯丕賵賲賵丕貙 兀賵 禺囟毓賵丕 賮賷 馗賱 爻賱胤丞 丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 睾丕卮賲丞 鬲丨賰賲鬲 賮賷 賲賮丕氐賱 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賰賱賴丕 丨鬲賶 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶. 賷鬲丨丿孬 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 毓賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賮賷 馗賱 丕賱禺賵賮 丕賱賲鬲賵丕氐賱貙 賵丕賱毓噩夭 毓賳 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 丕賱氐乇賷丨 毓賳 丕賱睾囟亘 賵丕賱乇賮囟. 賵賴賵 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丨賵賱賴貙 兀賰孬乇 亘賰孬賷乇 毓賲丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賳賮爻賴.
賱賯丿 賮卮賱鬲 賮賷 丕賱丕毓噩丕亘 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱爻亘亘賷賳:
丕賱兀賵賱 賴賵 丕賳毓丿丕賲 孬賯丕賮丞 賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 毓賳丿賷 賵賱匕賱賰 賱賲 兀鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱睾丕賱亘賷丞 丕賱毓馗賲賶 賲賳 兀爻賲丕亍 兀毓賱丕賲 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 丕賱爻賵賮賷丕鬲 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇賷賳貙 賵丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 丕賱賲卮丕乇 廿賱賷賴丕. 兀鬲賵賯毓 兀賳 卮禺氐丕 亘孬賯丕賮丞 賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 兀睾賳賶 賰丕賳 爻賷噩丿 賲鬲毓丞 兀賰亘乇 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱兀丨丕丿賷孬.
賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 賴賵 兀賳 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱爻乇丿 賴賷 亘亘爻丕胤丞 鬲丿賵賷賳 賱兀丨丕丿賷孬 賵匕賰乇賷丕鬲 賮賷 睾賷乇 爻賷丕賯 夭賲賳賷 兀賵 爻乇丿賷 賲丨丿丿. 賷亘丿賵 兀賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮 賯丿 丿賵賾賳 丕賱兀丨丕丿賷孬 賰賲丕 賵乇丿鬲 賮賷 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賲毓 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 賵賱賲 賷丨丕賵賱 賵囟毓賴丕 賮賷 爻賷丕賯 鬲丨乇賷乇賷. 賱賯丿 賰丕賳 丕賱丕賳丿賲丕噩 賲毓賴丕 氐毓亘丕 賱賱卮毓賵乇 丕賱賲鬲賵丕氐賱 亘丕賱鬲卮鬲鬲 丕匕 賷賯賮夭 賮賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賲賳 賲賵囟賵毓 賱丌禺乇 賵賲賳 賯氐丞 賱兀禺乇賶貙 賰賲丕 賷賮毓賱 丕賱賲乇亍 丨賷賳 賷鬲匕賰乇 賵賷爻乇丿 賵丨爻亘. 兀噩丿 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 鬲爻賲賷鬲賴丕 亘丕賱匕賰乇賷丕鬲 兀賵 丕賱卮賴丕丿丞 毓賱賶 睾乇丕乇 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱丕賳锟斤拷賱賷夭賷丞.
賱賯丿 賮卮賱鬲 賮賷 丕賱丕毓噩丕亘 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱爻亘亘賷賳:
丕賱兀賵賱 賴賵 丕賳毓丿丕賲 孬賯丕賮丞 賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 毓賳丿賷 賵賱匕賱賰 賱賲 兀鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 丕賱睾丕賱亘賷丞 丕賱毓馗賲賶 賲賳 兀爻賲丕亍 兀毓賱丕賲 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 丕賱爻賵賮賷丕鬲 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇賷賳貙 賵丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 丕賱賲卮丕乇 廿賱賷賴丕. 兀鬲賵賯毓 兀賳 卮禺氐丕 亘孬賯丕賮丞 賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 兀睾賳賶 賰丕賳 爻賷噩丿 賲鬲毓丞 兀賰亘乇 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱兀丨丕丿賷孬.
賵丕賱孬丕賳賷 賴賵 兀賳 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱爻乇丿 賴賷 亘亘爻丕胤丞 鬲丿賵賷賳 賱兀丨丕丿賷孬 賵匕賰乇賷丕鬲 賮賷 睾賷乇 爻賷丕賯 夭賲賳賷 兀賵 爻乇丿賷 賲丨丿丿. 賷亘丿賵 兀賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮 賯丿 丿賵賾賳 丕賱兀丨丕丿賷孬 賰賲丕 賵乇丿鬲 賮賷 丕賱丨賵丕乇丕鬲 賲毓 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 賵賱賲 賷丨丕賵賱 賵囟毓賴丕 賮賷 爻賷丕賯 鬲丨乇賷乇賷. 賱賯丿 賰丕賳 丕賱丕賳丿賲丕噩 賲毓賴丕 氐毓亘丕 賱賱卮毓賵乇 丕賱賲鬲賵丕氐賱 亘丕賱鬲卮鬲鬲 丕匕 賷賯賮夭 賮賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賲賳 賲賵囟賵毓 賱丌禺乇 賵賲賳 賯氐丞 賱兀禺乇賶貙 賰賲丕 賷賮毓賱 丕賱賲乇亍 丨賷賳 賷鬲匕賰乇 賵賷爻乇丿 賵丨爻亘. 兀噩丿 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 鬲爻賲賷鬲賴丕 亘丕賱匕賰乇賷丕鬲 兀賵 丕賱卮賴丕丿丞 毓賱賶 睾乇丕乇 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱丕賳锟斤拷賱賷夭賷丞.
July 6, 2018
01/07/2018
(賱賱鬲賵孬賷賯)
(賱賱鬲賵孬賷賯)
August 13, 2018
賲賳 丕賱賲賮鬲乇囟 丨賷賳 賷賰鬲亘 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賲匕賰乇丕鬲賴 賵賷爻鬲乇噩毓賴丕 丕賳 賷賰鬲亘賴丕 亘乇囟賶 丕賳 賷爻鬲丿毓賷 丕賱賮乇丨 賯亘賱 丕賱丨夭賳 丕賳 賷爻鬲毓賷丿 丕賱賲噩丿 賯亘賱 丕賱賰亘鬲 貙 賱賱丕爻賮 賴匕賴 賲匕賰乇丕鬲 亘丕卅爻丞 丨夭賷賳丞 賲賳 丕賵賱賴丕 丕賱賶 丌禺乇賴丕 鬲鬲丨丿孬 賲匕賰乇丕鬲 丿賷賲賷鬲乇賷 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 _賵丕賱匕賷 賳卮乇賴丕 爻賵賱賵賲賵賳 賮賵賱賰賵賮 毓賳丿 乇睾亘丞 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 亘賳卮乇賴丕 亘毓丿 賵賮丕鬲賴_ 貙 毓賳 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱賲亘丿毓丞 鬲丨鬲 氐賵賱噩丕賳 爻賷丕丿丞 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 丨賷賳 丨賵賱 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 賰賱 卮賷亍 丕賱賶 賮爻丕丿 賵丨賵賱 丕賱賳丕爻 囟丿 亘毓囟賴賲 賵卮鬲鬲 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 鬲丨鬲 賲爻賲賶 丕賱卮賷賵毓賷丞 丕賱賮丕爻丿丞 貙 賵鬲丿禺賱 賮賷 賰賱 賳賵丕丨賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞 爻賷丕爻丞 丕丿亘 賮賳 賵賰賱 賲丕賰丕賳 鬲丨鬲 丕賱賳賯丿 禺丕氐丞 賲丕鬲禺氐氐 賮賷 毓賲賱賴 亘丕賱匕丕鬲 鬲噩丕賴 賰賱 卮賷亍 丕乇爻賱賴 丕賱賶 丨亘賱 丕賱賲卮賳賯丞 丕賵 丕賱賲賳賮賶 ..
鬲丨丿孬 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 毓賳 賲賵爻賷賯丕賴 亘賵氐賮賴丕 卮賵丕賴丿 賯亘賵乇 丕賱鬲賷 丕賴丿丕賴丕 賱賰賱 賲丕毓乇賮賴 賵賲賳 賱賲 賷毓乇賮賴 賲賳 囟丨丕賷丕 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 貙 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕氐丿賯丕卅賴 丕賱匕賷賳 兀禺鬲賮賵丕 賮噩兀丞 丕賵 丕賱匕賷賳 賯鬲賱賵丕 亘卮賰賱 亘卮毓听听 貙 賯氐 賯氐氐 毓噩賷亘丞 毓賳 亘乇賳丕乇丿 卮賵 賵禺賷亘鬲賴 賲賳 賲丕丕毓鬲亘乇賴 丕賳爻丕賳賷 毓馗賷賲 賵鬲賵賯毓 賲賳賴 毓賳丿 夭賷丕乇鬲賴 賱乇賵爻賷丕 亘毓囟 丕賱卮匕亘 賵丕賱丕賳賰丕乇 賱賱賲噩丕毓丞 賵賱賰賳 亘乇賳丕乇丿 卮賵 賮囟賱 亘乇 丕賱丕賲丕賳 亘賲丿丨 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賲賵丕卅丿賴丕..
鬲丨丿孬 丕賷囟丕 毓賳 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱賲賮囟賱賷賳 賵亘毓囟 賲賳 毓丕氐乇賵賴 賰丕賱卮丕毓乇 賲丕賷丕賰賵賮爻賰賷 丕賱匕賷 賵噩丿賴 卮禺氐 賲鬲賮丕禺乇 貙 丕丨亘 鬲卮賷禺賵賮 噩丿丕 賵賰丕賳 賰丕鬲亘賴 丕賱賲賮囟賱貙 賵氐賮 賮賷 毓丿丞 賮氐賵賱 丌賳丕 丕禺賲丕鬲賵賮丕 賵亘毓囟 賲賳 丨賷丕鬲賴丕 丕賱丨夭賷賳丞...
鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱匕賷 毓丕賷卮賴 毓氐乇 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 亘賳亘乇丞 丨丕賳賯丞 賰賲孬丕賱 毓賳 乇睾亘丞 丕禺賷乇丞 賱賱鬲賳賮爻 賯丿 賳噩丿 賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賳亘乇丞 賮賷 賰鬲亘 鬲乇噩賲賵丕 賯亘賱 賮鬲乇丞 賱賷爻鬲 亘丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 賮丕爻賷賱賷 睾乇賵爻賲丕賳 賵賰鬲丕亘賷 爻賵賱噩爻鬲賳賷賳 丕乇禺亘賷賱 丕賱睾賵賱丕睾 賵賷賵賲 賮賷 丨賷丕丞 丕賷賮丕賳 ..
賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賲賳 丕賱丕賮囟賱 丕賱丕胤賱丕毓 毓賱賶 爻賷乇丞 賱爻鬲丕賱賷賳 丕賷囟丕 賵丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 賲賵爻賷賯賶 賱卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 ..
賷氐賮 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮鬲卮 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕禺賷乇丕 " 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 毓賱賶 丕賱禺氐賵氐 賱丨馗丕鬲 爻毓賷丿丞 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賷 貙 賵賱丕丕賮乇丕丨 賰亘賷乇丞 賰丕賳鬲 賰丕賱丨丞 賵亘賱賷丿丞 賵丕睾丿賵 丨夭賷賳丕 賱丿賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘賴丕 . 賷丨夭賳賳賷 兀賳 丕毓鬲乇賮 亘匕賱賰 賱賰賳賴丕 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 貙 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱亘丕卅爻丞 .
鬲丨丿孬 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 毓賳 賲賵爻賷賯丕賴 亘賵氐賮賴丕 卮賵丕賴丿 賯亘賵乇 丕賱鬲賷 丕賴丿丕賴丕 賱賰賱 賲丕毓乇賮賴 賵賲賳 賱賲 賷毓乇賮賴 賲賳 囟丨丕賷丕 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 貙 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕氐丿賯丕卅賴 丕賱匕賷賳 兀禺鬲賮賵丕 賮噩兀丞 丕賵 丕賱匕賷賳 賯鬲賱賵丕 亘卮賰賱 亘卮毓听听 貙 賯氐 賯氐氐 毓噩賷亘丞 毓賳 亘乇賳丕乇丿 卮賵 賵禺賷亘鬲賴 賲賳 賲丕丕毓鬲亘乇賴 丕賳爻丕賳賷 毓馗賷賲 賵鬲賵賯毓 賲賳賴 毓賳丿 夭賷丕乇鬲賴 賱乇賵爻賷丕 亘毓囟 丕賱卮匕亘 賵丕賱丕賳賰丕乇 賱賱賲噩丕毓丞 賵賱賰賳 亘乇賳丕乇丿 卮賵 賮囟賱 亘乇 丕賱丕賲丕賳 亘賲丿丨 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賲賵丕卅丿賴丕..
鬲丨丿孬 丕賷囟丕 毓賳 賰鬲丕亘賴 丕賱賲賮囟賱賷賳 賵亘毓囟 賲賳 毓丕氐乇賵賴 賰丕賱卮丕毓乇 賲丕賷丕賰賵賮爻賰賷 丕賱匕賷 賵噩丿賴 卮禺氐 賲鬲賮丕禺乇 貙 丕丨亘 鬲卮賷禺賵賮 噩丿丕 賵賰丕賳 賰丕鬲亘賴 丕賱賲賮囟賱貙 賵氐賮 賮賷 毓丿丞 賮氐賵賱 丌賳丕 丕禺賲丕鬲賵賮丕 賵亘毓囟 賲賳 丨賷丕鬲賴丕 丕賱丨夭賷賳丞...
鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱匕賷 毓丕賷卮賴 毓氐乇 爻鬲丕賱賷賳 亘賳亘乇丞 丨丕賳賯丞 賰賲孬丕賱 毓賳 乇睾亘丞 丕禺賷乇丞 賱賱鬲賳賮爻 賯丿 賳噩丿 賲孬賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賳亘乇丞 賮賷 賰鬲亘 鬲乇噩賲賵丕 賯亘賱 賮鬲乇丞 賱賷爻鬲 亘丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 賮丕爻賷賱賷 睾乇賵爻賲丕賳 賵賰鬲丕亘賷 爻賵賱噩爻鬲賳賷賳 丕乇禺亘賷賱 丕賱睾賵賱丕睾 賵賷賵賲 賮賷 丨賷丕丞 丕賷賮丕賳 ..
賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賲賳 丕賱丕賮囟賱 丕賱丕胤賱丕毓 毓賱賶 爻賷乇丞 賱爻鬲丕賱賷賳 丕賷囟丕 賵丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 賲賵爻賷賯賶 賱卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 ..
賷氐賮 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮鬲卮 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕禺賷乇丕 " 賱賲 賷賰賳 賴賳丕賰 毓賱賶 丕賱禺氐賵氐 賱丨馗丕鬲 爻毓賷丿丞 賮賷 丨賷丕鬲賷 貙 賵賱丕丕賮乇丕丨 賰亘賷乇丞 賰丕賳鬲 賰丕賱丨丞 賵亘賱賷丿丞 賵丕睾丿賵 丨夭賷賳丕 賱丿賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 亘賴丕 . 賷丨夭賳賳賷 兀賳 丕毓鬲乇賮 亘匕賱賰 賱賰賳賴丕 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 貙 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱亘丕卅爻丞 .
August 23, 2007
I've read this one a few times. Astonishing chronicle of the life of a great artist during the Soviet-era. I know the book has been called into question in recent years (did Shostakovich really write it, or did Solomon Volkov make a lot of it up?) - regardless, the stories are shocking (and many of them ARE documented, so...).
October 20, 2010
sad and compelling, controversial and confrontational, well-written words about shostakovich. heartbreakingly true and beautiful.
August 14, 2024
See on v盲ga hea raamat.
Mitte niiv玫rd 艩ostakovit拧i elulugu, vaid jutustus Venemaast 艩ostakovit拧i eluajal.
"M玫nikord r盲盲gitakse v玫i kirjutatakse, et Saksa surmalaagrite juhatajad armastasid ja m玫istsid Bachi ja Mozarti. Ja nii edasi. Et nad valasid Schuberti muusikat kuulates pisaraid. Ma ei usu seda. See on vale, mille ajakirjanikud on v盲lja m玫elnud. Ma ei ole kohanud 眉htegi timukat, kes oleks kunsti t玫eliselt m玫istnud. Kuid kust on p盲rit need igavesed lood? Miks ihkavad inimesed, et t眉ranni osutuksid kunsti "patroonideks" ja "armastajateks"? Ma arvan, et sellel on mitu p玫hjust. Esiteks on t眉rannid nurjatud, targad ja kavalad inimesed, ja teavad, et nende r盲spaele t枚枚le tuleb kasuks, kui neid peetakse kultuurseteks ja harituteks, mitte v玫hiklikeks matsideks. J盲盲gu matsiks teo toimepanijad, lihtsad etturid. Need etturid on oma matslikkuse olemise 眉le uhked. Kuid generalissimus peab olema alati ja k玫iges asjatundja. Sellise asjatundja heaks t枚枚tab tohutu masinav盲rk. Kirjutab temast, kirjutab talle k玫nesid ja raamatuid. Suur meeskond eksperte valmistab tema jaoks ettekandeid mis tahes k眉simuse kohta, mis tahes teemal.
Soovite olla spetsialist arhitektuurivaldkonnas? Te saate selleks. Andke vaid korraldus, armastatud juht ja 玫petaha. Soovite olla spetsialist graafika alal? Te saate selleks. Orkestreerimise spetsialist? Miks ka mitte? V玫i keeleteaduses. Nimetage vaid.
Sellel surmalaagri juhatajal, kes v盲idetavalt armastas Mozartit, oli abiline ideoloogia alal. Ja sellel abilisel oli oma abiline. Tuli leida vaid ohver, kes 眉tles esimesena, et Mozart on hea helilooja. Ja kohe oli kohal timukas. Ta k盲gistas ohvri ja kordas tema s玫nu Mozarti kohta, nagu oleksid need tema enda sonad. Ta r枚枚vis ohvrit kaks korda. Ta v玫ttis talt elu ja tema m玫tted. Ja k玫ik tema 眉mber ohkasid:
"Kui kultuurne, kui arukas, kui peen."
K玫ik need lipitsejad, etturid, mutrikesed ja teised v盲iksed inimesed soovivad meeleheitlikult, et nende juht ja 玫petaja oleks vaieldamatult ja tingimusteta m玫ttehiiglane ja sulemeister. See on teine p玫hjus, miks need r盲pased v盲ljam玫eldised hinges p眉sivad.
K玫ik on geniaalselt lihtne. Kui juht ei kirjuta raamatuid, vaid t眉keldab selle asemel inimesi, kes ta siis on? Vastust ei tule otsida ents眉klopeediast. Ega tarvitse oodata j盲rgmist ajakirjanumbrit, et leida sealt rists玫na lahendus. Vastus on lihtne: lihunik, gangster. Ja lipitsejad on seega lihuniku ja gangsteri abilised. Kes tahab endast sel viisil m玫elsa? K玫ik soovivad olla puhtad, n眉眉d kus on puhkenud uus koidik.
(K玫ik t眉rannid kuulutavad alati, et k盲tte on j玫udnud kauaoodatud koidik. Alati just nende valitsusajal. Ja ka k玫ige pimedama 枚枚 valitsedes m盲ngivad inimesed, et on saabund p盲ev. M玫ned esitavad oma osa, j盲rgides Stanislavski petrust, ja see avaldab asjasse p眉hendamatutele suurt muljet.)
Pilt on hoopis erinev, kui juht armastab Beethovenit, kas pole? See muudab mingil m盲盲ral maastikku. Olen kohanud mitmeid muusikuid, kes v盲itsid t玫simeeli,
et Stalin armastab Beethovenit."
(Lk 130-131)
(Paar aastat tagasi lugesin ka Julian Barnes'i romaniseeringut (kas see on s玫na?) 艩ostakovit拧i elust, mis suuresti "Tunnistusel" tugines, ja v玫ib-olla ma m盲letan "Aja m眉ra" liiga 盲hmaselt, aga see oli "Tunnistuse" hale vari. Mul on alati tunne, et kui l盲盲ne autorid p眉眉avad midagi seesugust kirja panna, siis selles on alati mingi kogus naiivsust ja mingi iva j盲盲b puudu. Lugege parem seda.)
Mitte niiv玫rd 艩ostakovit拧i elulugu, vaid jutustus Venemaast 艩ostakovit拧i eluajal.
"M玫nikord r盲盲gitakse v玫i kirjutatakse, et Saksa surmalaagrite juhatajad armastasid ja m玫istsid Bachi ja Mozarti. Ja nii edasi. Et nad valasid Schuberti muusikat kuulates pisaraid. Ma ei usu seda. See on vale, mille ajakirjanikud on v盲lja m玫elnud. Ma ei ole kohanud 眉htegi timukat, kes oleks kunsti t玫eliselt m玫istnud. Kuid kust on p盲rit need igavesed lood? Miks ihkavad inimesed, et t眉ranni osutuksid kunsti "patroonideks" ja "armastajateks"? Ma arvan, et sellel on mitu p玫hjust. Esiteks on t眉rannid nurjatud, targad ja kavalad inimesed, ja teavad, et nende r盲spaele t枚枚le tuleb kasuks, kui neid peetakse kultuurseteks ja harituteks, mitte v玫hiklikeks matsideks. J盲盲gu matsiks teo toimepanijad, lihtsad etturid. Need etturid on oma matslikkuse olemise 眉le uhked. Kuid generalissimus peab olema alati ja k玫iges asjatundja. Sellise asjatundja heaks t枚枚tab tohutu masinav盲rk. Kirjutab temast, kirjutab talle k玫nesid ja raamatuid. Suur meeskond eksperte valmistab tema jaoks ettekandeid mis tahes k眉simuse kohta, mis tahes teemal.
Soovite olla spetsialist arhitektuurivaldkonnas? Te saate selleks. Andke vaid korraldus, armastatud juht ja 玫petaha. Soovite olla spetsialist graafika alal? Te saate selleks. Orkestreerimise spetsialist? Miks ka mitte? V玫i keeleteaduses. Nimetage vaid.
Sellel surmalaagri juhatajal, kes v盲idetavalt armastas Mozartit, oli abiline ideoloogia alal. Ja sellel abilisel oli oma abiline. Tuli leida vaid ohver, kes 眉tles esimesena, et Mozart on hea helilooja. Ja kohe oli kohal timukas. Ta k盲gistas ohvri ja kordas tema s玫nu Mozarti kohta, nagu oleksid need tema enda sonad. Ta r枚枚vis ohvrit kaks korda. Ta v玫ttis talt elu ja tema m玫tted. Ja k玫ik tema 眉mber ohkasid:
"Kui kultuurne, kui arukas, kui peen."
K玫ik need lipitsejad, etturid, mutrikesed ja teised v盲iksed inimesed soovivad meeleheitlikult, et nende juht ja 玫petaja oleks vaieldamatult ja tingimusteta m玫ttehiiglane ja sulemeister. See on teine p玫hjus, miks need r盲pased v盲ljam玫eldised hinges p眉sivad.
K玫ik on geniaalselt lihtne. Kui juht ei kirjuta raamatuid, vaid t眉keldab selle asemel inimesi, kes ta siis on? Vastust ei tule otsida ents眉klopeediast. Ega tarvitse oodata j盲rgmist ajakirjanumbrit, et leida sealt rists玫na lahendus. Vastus on lihtne: lihunik, gangster. Ja lipitsejad on seega lihuniku ja gangsteri abilised. Kes tahab endast sel viisil m玫elsa? K玫ik soovivad olla puhtad, n眉眉d kus on puhkenud uus koidik.
(K玫ik t眉rannid kuulutavad alati, et k盲tte on j玫udnud kauaoodatud koidik. Alati just nende valitsusajal. Ja ka k玫ige pimedama 枚枚 valitsedes m盲ngivad inimesed, et on saabund p盲ev. M玫ned esitavad oma osa, j盲rgides Stanislavski petrust, ja see avaldab asjasse p眉hendamatutele suurt muljet.)
Pilt on hoopis erinev, kui juht armastab Beethovenit, kas pole? See muudab mingil m盲盲ral maastikku. Olen kohanud mitmeid muusikuid, kes v盲itsid t玫simeeli,
et Stalin armastab Beethovenit."
(Lk 130-131)
(Paar aastat tagasi lugesin ka Julian Barnes'i romaniseeringut (kas see on s玫na?) 艩ostakovit拧i elust, mis suuresti "Tunnistusel" tugines, ja v玫ib-olla ma m盲letan "Aja m眉ra" liiga 盲hmaselt, aga see oli "Tunnistuse" hale vari. Mul on alati tunne, et kui l盲盲ne autorid p眉眉avad midagi seesugust kirja panna, siis selles on alati mingi kogus naiivsust ja mingi iva j盲盲b puudu. Lugege parem seda.)
November 7, 2018
賷毓乇賮 丕賱賰孬賷乇 丕賱賲賯賵賱丞 丕賱丿丕乇噩丞貙 "賲賳 乇丨賲 丕賱賲毓丕賳丕丞 賷賵賱丿 丕賱廿亘丿丕毓"貙 賵丕賱賵丕賯毓 兀賳 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 賵賱丿 賲毓丕賳丕鬲賴 丿賵賳 乇睾亘丞賺 賲賳賴貙 亘廿亘丿丕毓賴責 亘賱 毓亘賯乇賷鬲賴 賵賮匕丕匕鬲賴 丕賱賮賳賷丞. 賱賲 賷毓乇賮 丕賱賲毓丕賳丕丞 賯亘賱 賮賳賴. 賵賴匕丕 賲賳 兀爻賵兀 丕賱賲氐丕卅乇 丿賵賳 噩丿丕賱貙 兀賳 賷賯賵丿賰 賮賳賰 廿賱賶 丨鬲賮賰貙 賵賱丕 毓丕丿賷鬲賰 廿賱賶 廿賯氐丕卅賰. 毓丕賳賶 賵賰賲 毓丕賳賶 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 賮賷 丨丿賵丿 噩睾乇丕賮賷丞 賲囟胤賴丿丞 賵丿賮毓 囟乇賷亘丞 賳馗乇鬲賴 丕賱賮賳賷丞 丕賱賮丕乇賯丞 賮賷 賲毓丕賱噩丞 丕賱賮賳 賱爻亘亘 賱賷爻 丌禺乇賴 賯賱丞 賮賯賴 丕賱爻賱胤丞 丕賱毓賱賷丕 亘氐賳毓鬲賴. 丕賯鬲賳賷鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲匕賰乇丕鬲 賯亘賱 兀賳 兀亘丿兀 鬲乇噩賲丞 囟噩賷噩 丕賱毓氐乇貙 賵賯乇兀鬲賴丕 亘毓丿卅匕賺 賮鬲丿丕毓鬲 丨賷丕丞 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 毓賱賶 乇兀爻賷. 賵賱丕 賲賮乇 賱賱賲乇亍 賲賳 賲氐賷乇賴 賮賷 丕賱鬲賯丕亍 丕賱丨賷賵丕鬲 :)
December 13, 2009
The story of the creation and emergence of Testimony is one of high drama. In these memoirs Dmitri Shostakovich, the musical titan whom the Russians presented to the world as the personification of their ideal in the arts, reveals himself as a profoundly tormented man - deeply ambivalent in his feelings about himself and his role.
For some four years before Shostakovich's death, working first in Leningrad and then in Moscow, the brilliant young Soviet musicologist Solomon Volkov drew forth from Shostakovich memories whose publication the composer came to see as mandatory. "I must do this, I must," he said to Volkov, who took down these recollections and then shaped and edited them, retaining always Shostakovich's idiosyncratic patterns of recall and abrupt personal voice. The composer read, approved and signed each section when Volkov completed his work. He consented to the manuscript's being published in the West and imposed only one condition: that it not appear until after his death.
Shostakovich calls these recollections "the testimony of an eyewitness," and brings an eyewitness's immediacy to this series of associative reminiscences which range over the full length of his life, from before the Revolution through the ill-fated thaw which followed Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin. Scenes spring to life as if the reader were present at them: astonishing and courageous conversations with Stalin; the uproarious competition to create a new national anthem (in which Shostakovich joined forces with Khachaturian); the fabrication of false geniuses; the ubiquity of plagiarism. He recalls musicians, artists and writers whom he knew: Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Glazunov, Meyerhold, Akhmatova, and many others at the center of Russian culture. He speaks out passionately against the anti-Semitism rife in all levels of society. He writes with mordant wit about individuals, prominent and obscure, who danced to the changing tunes of those in power.
He had never let any of this be known publicly before, and the picture that emerges of what it was like to be a creative artist in the Soviet Union is moving and often harrowing.
This was a life and an art Dostoevskian in its emotions, and these memoirs are plain-spoken and outspoken, sardonic and powerful - a Shostakovich the world has never seen before and a life that was at once triumphant and tragic.
This was recommended by my university music prof, and I don't remember the context for it. I don't remember if it was for the insights into Shostakovich's music, or the insights into the Russian political situation at the time, or just because it's a great read, but it was great for all three of those things. I don't normally even read prefaces, but I did read this one, and I was sold by the end of it. The realization that the book you're holding in your hands actually had to be smuggled out from behind the Iron Curtain - in the fairly recent history - in order to be published at all, and that at least one person who helped with this smuggling couldn't be named even at the time of publication in the 70s, is enough to get you interested. What follows doesn't disappoint.
It's not a biography in the traditional linear sense, but rather, as the blurb suggest, is just reminiscences. Volkov just got Shostakovich talking, and went with what came out. It did start around his childhood, but once he hit adulthood, there was little or no real chronological order to anything. But that didn't make it any less engaging or anything. It was really quite fascinating. Obviously, by now, we all know that Stalin was pretty much a tyrannical whackjob, but even we don't really realize the extent of it. This helps to make some of it clearer. A good example is in the footnotes. Volkov has included helpful footnotes any time Shostakovich mentions a new name, especially one that's not necessarily familiar to Western readers. A staggering number of them include some variation of the following: "Stalin had him shot." It's a little crazy to realize that artists could be killed in the middle of the night because Stalin hadn't liked their latest creation. Frankly, it's amazing Shostakovich didn't just disappear some night, because Stalin had all kinds of nasty things to say about his work. Shostakovich spent much of his life wondering every night if this was the night. Which is kind of interesting, because while one certainly wouldn't want to live in a society like that, there is a tiny part of every artist, I think, that thinks that it must almost be nice to have a government that cares enough about art to have people shot over it.
Shostakovich didn't really like to talk about himself, so much of this book is about others, but some of the most powerful bits are the parts where he actually does let the wall down a bit and talk about himself. The anti-Semitism he opposed, for example. When he starts talking about that, and his feelings about the oppression of the Jews, and people in general, and Russia as a whole, it really was very moving. His frustrations with the way his music was received or interpreted are also very interesting.
All in all, it really was a great read, well worth it to anyone studying Russian history or Russian music, but just as worth it for mere interest. If nothing else, it made me want to listen to more Shostakovich and look into some of the more obscure Russian composers he talked about.
For some four years before Shostakovich's death, working first in Leningrad and then in Moscow, the brilliant young Soviet musicologist Solomon Volkov drew forth from Shostakovich memories whose publication the composer came to see as mandatory. "I must do this, I must," he said to Volkov, who took down these recollections and then shaped and edited them, retaining always Shostakovich's idiosyncratic patterns of recall and abrupt personal voice. The composer read, approved and signed each section when Volkov completed his work. He consented to the manuscript's being published in the West and imposed only one condition: that it not appear until after his death.
Shostakovich calls these recollections "the testimony of an eyewitness," and brings an eyewitness's immediacy to this series of associative reminiscences which range over the full length of his life, from before the Revolution through the ill-fated thaw which followed Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin. Scenes spring to life as if the reader were present at them: astonishing and courageous conversations with Stalin; the uproarious competition to create a new national anthem (in which Shostakovich joined forces with Khachaturian); the fabrication of false geniuses; the ubiquity of plagiarism. He recalls musicians, artists and writers whom he knew: Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Glazunov, Meyerhold, Akhmatova, and many others at the center of Russian culture. He speaks out passionately against the anti-Semitism rife in all levels of society. He writes with mordant wit about individuals, prominent and obscure, who danced to the changing tunes of those in power.
He had never let any of this be known publicly before, and the picture that emerges of what it was like to be a creative artist in the Soviet Union is moving and often harrowing.
This was a life and an art Dostoevskian in its emotions, and these memoirs are plain-spoken and outspoken, sardonic and powerful - a Shostakovich the world has never seen before and a life that was at once triumphant and tragic.
This was recommended by my university music prof, and I don't remember the context for it. I don't remember if it was for the insights into Shostakovich's music, or the insights into the Russian political situation at the time, or just because it's a great read, but it was great for all three of those things. I don't normally even read prefaces, but I did read this one, and I was sold by the end of it. The realization that the book you're holding in your hands actually had to be smuggled out from behind the Iron Curtain - in the fairly recent history - in order to be published at all, and that at least one person who helped with this smuggling couldn't be named even at the time of publication in the 70s, is enough to get you interested. What follows doesn't disappoint.
It's not a biography in the traditional linear sense, but rather, as the blurb suggest, is just reminiscences. Volkov just got Shostakovich talking, and went with what came out. It did start around his childhood, but once he hit adulthood, there was little or no real chronological order to anything. But that didn't make it any less engaging or anything. It was really quite fascinating. Obviously, by now, we all know that Stalin was pretty much a tyrannical whackjob, but even we don't really realize the extent of it. This helps to make some of it clearer. A good example is in the footnotes. Volkov has included helpful footnotes any time Shostakovich mentions a new name, especially one that's not necessarily familiar to Western readers. A staggering number of them include some variation of the following: "Stalin had him shot." It's a little crazy to realize that artists could be killed in the middle of the night because Stalin hadn't liked their latest creation. Frankly, it's amazing Shostakovich didn't just disappear some night, because Stalin had all kinds of nasty things to say about his work. Shostakovich spent much of his life wondering every night if this was the night. Which is kind of interesting, because while one certainly wouldn't want to live in a society like that, there is a tiny part of every artist, I think, that thinks that it must almost be nice to have a government that cares enough about art to have people shot over it.
Shostakovich didn't really like to talk about himself, so much of this book is about others, but some of the most powerful bits are the parts where he actually does let the wall down a bit and talk about himself. The anti-Semitism he opposed, for example. When he starts talking about that, and his feelings about the oppression of the Jews, and people in general, and Russia as a whole, it really was very moving. His frustrations with the way his music was received or interpreted are also very interesting.
All in all, it really was a great read, well worth it to anyone studying Russian history or Russian music, but just as worth it for mere interest. If nothing else, it made me want to listen to more Shostakovich and look into some of the more obscure Russian composers he talked about.
September 22, 2022
丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 噩賷丿丞 噩丿丕
September 30, 2018
賵丕丨丿 賲賳 兀乇賵毓 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 賯乇丕鬲賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞.
May 9, 2015
This is not an autobiography, but memoirs about the people among whom Shostakovich associated, from fellow musicians and filmmakers and poets, to Stalin, whom he usually refers to sarcastically. Shostakovich dictated these memoirs to his close and trusted friend Volkov, and asked him to publish them in the west after his death. It is an expose of life as an oppressed Soviet musician and citizen. Very interesting to me as a musician, but even moreso as an insider's look at life in Russia under the terrifying rule of Stalin.
He was constantly afraid for his life, but he continued to compose symphonies that depicted what the people suffered. He was forced to read state-written speeches, some of them even denouncing himself. Because his music was named "formalist" or anti-Soviet, he was publicly called an "enemy of the people." He saw other composers change their methods and even denounce each other to save their own skins, but he continued to write music that spoke the truth. His seventh symphony, according to Volkov, was heard by millions of Americans on live radio and "was probably the first time in musical history that a symphony played so political a role," according to Volkov's footnotes. "At first, everything developed normally, but then I realized there were too many articles, too much noise. They were turning me into a symbol...And I grew more and more frightened." "Every report of the success of the Seventh or Eighth made me ill. A new success meant a new coffin nail." Yet he continued his path. The scherzo of the tenth symphony is "a musical portrait of Stalin," a man whom he detested. "And now let people hear the music, and then they'll see what they have to do and how to separate the important from the unimportant."
He was constantly afraid for his life, but he continued to compose symphonies that depicted what the people suffered. He was forced to read state-written speeches, some of them even denouncing himself. Because his music was named "formalist" or anti-Soviet, he was publicly called an "enemy of the people." He saw other composers change their methods and even denounce each other to save their own skins, but he continued to write music that spoke the truth. His seventh symphony, according to Volkov, was heard by millions of Americans on live radio and "was probably the first time in musical history that a symphony played so political a role," according to Volkov's footnotes. "At first, everything developed normally, but then I realized there were too many articles, too much noise. They were turning me into a symbol...And I grew more and more frightened." "Every report of the success of the Seventh or Eighth made me ill. A new success meant a new coffin nail." Yet he continued his path. The scherzo of the tenth symphony is "a musical portrait of Stalin," a man whom he detested. "And now let people hear the music, and then they'll see what they have to do and how to separate the important from the unimportant."
July 26, 2013
Shostakovich had a sad life. He said at the end of the book, "...every day of my life brings no joy." He knew a lot of talented and important people and he was very talented himself but he was not happy. He lived under Stalin's rule. In this book he tells how terrible Stalin was and tells many stories about how Stalin killed the blind, the successful, and the highly skilled. Stalin was easily jealous, unpredictable and very destructive. Russia, at the time of Shostakovich was not a good place to live. There is one story that he relates that is very amusing about Stalin asking the great composers of Russia to compose a new Russian anthem. He tells Shostakovich and Khachaturain that they have to collaborate on the anthem. Their styles are very different but they have no choice they do as Stalin commands. Some composers submit several anthems hoping that one of theirs will be chosen. Shostakovich and Khachaturain's anthem is not the winning choice, however Shostakovich concludes, "A national anthem must have bad music, and Stalin didn't break with tradition, as was to be expected." It was an interesting book, and it's hard to stomach all the lives that Stalin influenced for evil. One thing I learned from this book is not to live a life like Shostakovich. Shostakovich often wished he would have spoken up but didn't want to get people in trouble so he stayed quiet. He would say something like I wish I would have said something, or I should have spoken up but I didn't.
November 29, 2010
This book's been controversial since it was published in '79, 4 years after Shostakovich鈥檚 death. Some think it鈥檚 largely fabricated, others think it accurately represents the composer. The interviewer/author doesn鈥檛 do an exceptional job (e.g. there鈥檚 essentially nothing about Shostakovich鈥檚 family after his childhood), but if it鈥檚 substantially a fabrication, it鈥檚 pretty well done and pretty consistent. Regardless, it鈥檚 full of the tragedy and horror of life under Stalin, particularly as it affected the Soviet cultural elite, with many disturbing but interesting episodes. Surely the general gist is accurate.
More positively, it sheds a little light on Russian music from an important composer鈥檚 perspective, especially regarding Glazunov as an educator and also regarding Mussorgsky (if we trust these specifics). Nearly every paragraph is thick with a sarcasm that seems akin to the irony and sarcasm in Shostakovich鈥檚 music. Tragic as the material is, the sarcasm is often funny and occasionally hilarious. I haven鈥檛 seen the new Ashkenazy forward 鈥� I鈥檇 like to hear his take on the book.
More positively, it sheds a little light on Russian music from an important composer鈥檚 perspective, especially regarding Glazunov as an educator and also regarding Mussorgsky (if we trust these specifics). Nearly every paragraph is thick with a sarcasm that seems akin to the irony and sarcasm in Shostakovich鈥檚 music. Tragic as the material is, the sarcasm is often funny and occasionally hilarious. I haven鈥檛 seen the new Ashkenazy forward 鈥� I鈥檇 like to hear his take on the book.
August 27, 2015
If you think this book will leave you happy and fulfilled. You are wrong. If anything it will leave you with more questions and a dire need to know more.
I enjoyed every minute of this book and although the story is indeed rather 'tragic and unhappy' as Guardian put it, it was also very entertaining to the extent that I couldn't keep my laughter inside of me thus scaring old ladies on the train.
For me this was one of those books that I couldn't put down yet never wanted it to end.
It changed some of my na茂ve thoughts about music and life. Things I though I knew but never actually took time to understand.
This story...this testimony of the great composer Dmitri Shostakovich is a must-read for every musician...it's essential if you want to understand better his music and the time he and his companions lived in.
Definitely one of my favorite books and something I will eventually re-read!
I enjoyed every minute of this book and although the story is indeed rather 'tragic and unhappy' as Guardian put it, it was also very entertaining to the extent that I couldn't keep my laughter inside of me thus scaring old ladies on the train.
For me this was one of those books that I couldn't put down yet never wanted it to end.
It changed some of my na茂ve thoughts about music and life. Things I though I knew but never actually took time to understand.
This story...this testimony of the great composer Dmitri Shostakovich is a must-read for every musician...it's essential if you want to understand better his music and the time he and his companions lived in.
Definitely one of my favorite books and something I will eventually re-read!
December 31, 2013
Intersting memories mostly about other musicians (Glazunov, Borodin, Mussorgsky, Yudina) the political pressures only slightly mentioned. Rarely personal relations beside the music.
But life was grey for Dimitri. His ambivalence toward the political system I can understand: He wanted to live, had famiy. Mandelstam and others died. To hide was no opportunity for him. So, in this regard, I don't like 'Europe central' for its spitefulness. To undersatnd his music you have to read another book (I read therefore the biography of K. Meyer.
But life was grey for Dimitri. His ambivalence toward the political system I can understand: He wanted to live, had famiy. Mandelstam and others died. To hide was no opportunity for him. So, in this regard, I don't like 'Europe central' for its spitefulness. To undersatnd his music you have to read another book (I read therefore the biography of K. Meyer.
December 12, 2017
Reading a book written by a hero of mine was truly an honor, and any music lover should read this memoir.
Of course it was tragic; a man declared "Enemy of the people" by Stalin who was simultaneously employed with the enormous task of portraying Russian life and emotion.
However, it's also so human. Shostakovich is funny and snide and gives his full and honest opinion on every page. Well aware that people would actually read his memoirs someday, he wrote in a captivating manner that will make you cry and laugh and feel like you've run a marathon when you've finished.
Of course it was tragic; a man declared "Enemy of the people" by Stalin who was simultaneously employed with the enormous task of portraying Russian life and emotion.
However, it's also so human. Shostakovich is funny and snide and gives his full and honest opinion on every page. Well aware that people would actually read his memoirs someday, he wrote in a captivating manner that will make you cry and laugh and feel like you've run a marathon when you've finished.
Read
December 9, 2017True m茅moires of musicians are "read" in the language they prefer to write, which is their composing. To get an idea of the State pressure under which Dmitri Shostakovich had to create his art, listen first to the oratorio "The Song of the forests", a "safe" piece he composed in 1949 (as being suspected of formalism) for which he got the Stalin prize, and than to his violin concerto Opus 99, which he shelved until after Stalins death.
August 7, 2008
This book is a fascinating study of both Shostakovich and Soviet life. Having lived in Russia for extended periods of time, I have personally witnessed the after effects of communism. I am aware of the "dubious" history of this book, but wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone, as I have never read anything as true to my own experiences in Russia as this book is.
December 12, 2010
I don't know what to think...because I don't know how much of it is true. I feel like Shostakovich really employed what he/someone said at the beginning of the book about how people shouldn't talk about themselves, but rather reveal themselves through talking about people he knew. I enjoyed all the anecdotes, but not sure how much I learned about the man himself. Onto Shostakovich and Stalin.
April 29, 2022
賲匕賰乇丕鬲 丿賷賲鬲乇賷 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮,丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷 丕賱乇賵爻賷 丕賱賲丨亘亘 丕賱賶 賳賮爻賷 ,賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲乇噩賲丞 亘丿賷毓丞 賱毓賲賱 丕賱爻賷乇 丕賱兀亘丿丕毓賷丞 丕賱匕丕鬲賷丞 丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賷丞 ,氐丿乇 毓賳 丿丕乇 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤 賵毓丿丿 兀賵乇丕賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賷 357 ,賯乇兀鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲乇鬲賷賳 禺賱丕賱 爻賳賵丕鬲 賲鬲賮乇賯丞 .
May 28, 2017
賰賲 毓丕賳賷鬲 賷丕 卮賵爻鬲丕賰賵賮賷鬲卮...乇丨賲賰 丕賱賱賴 丕賷賴丕 丕賱賲亘丿毓
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.