When Soviet Russia invaded Afghanistan (1979) they brought with them their views of music and its purpose. Because Ahmad Toryalai Zahir, a very popular singer in Kabul, refused to make music that glorified the soviets, he was shot and killed. His death happened to be on June 14, 1979, his 33rd birthday, and on that same day his baby boy was born.
I said he was popular. His popularity was huge. He was idolized. After his death he was almost a god. The soviets tried to say that he had been in an automobile accident, but when his wife uncovered his face, she saw the bullet hole in his head.
When The Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist political movement with extreme views and violent tactics, came to power there in 1996 (and how these things actually happen, I do not know), they banned all music. I do not know if Afghan families secretly hummed in their own homes, but I doubt it. And music in the sense that we know it and are free to listen to here in America--and that is any kind we choose--was forbidden. In public and in private.
These are stunning facts. But clearly it is recognized by those who want power that music has power to influence people.
I also know that the soviets, Stalin in particular, attacked and censored the music of Dmitri Shostakovich, and he was repeatedly criticized in Pravda, the official soviet newspaper. As long as they were in power, he suffered, and that includes financially.
Dmitry Kabalevsky, on the other hand, enjoyed Stalin's favor and flourished under that otherwise culturally stifling regime.
The difference? Kabalevsky had joined the Communist Party during WWII and later helped set up the Union of Soviet Composers in Moscow and remained one of its leading figures.
I am not sure why Shostakovich's music was considered subversive, except that he was considered subversive. I happen to like the music of both of them but think Shostakovich's is greater.
No comments:
Post a Comment