In January of 1934, Dmitri Shostakovich premiers his third opera, Lady Macbeth, in Leningrad. Lady Macbeth becomes an outstanding success, earning Shostakovich’s play reception as a triumph “brought up in the best [Soviet] tradition”, and a result of the “success of Socialist construction”. Two years later, in January 1936, Joseph Stalin and his cabinet attended a performance of Shostakovich’s opera at the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow. Despite critical success, Stalin and his advisors left offended after the opera’s first act. A few days later, an article denouncing Shostakovich’s opera was published in the official newspaper of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party (the article is generally thought to have been dictated or commissioned by Stalin himself), Pravda. The article, titled “Muddle Instead of Music”, listed a variety of grievances with Lady Macbeth, including accusations of coarseness, primitivity, and formalism. Almost immediately after the publication of the Pravda article, Shostakovich’s livelihood was reduced dramatically. Shostakovich no longer received commissions and was denied performances. The critics who had lauded Lady Macbeth were compelled to rescind any praise in fear of fascistic repercussions.
In 1948, a broader restriction and prosecution of “formalistic” composers was enacted by cultural censor Andrei Zhdanov, which led already out-of-favor Shostakovich to further hardship. Most notably, the entirety of Shostakovich’s catalog was completely restricted and his “family privileges were withdrawn”. Shostakovich’s perceived affront to Soviet ideals led to a scene so hopeless that he is reported to have “waited for his arrest at night (...) so that at least his family wouldn’t be disturbed”.
It was the stated opinion of both Soviet leaders and Soviet censors that Shostakovich’s works were deeply unpatriotic. The handling of music that was thought to represent the state’s ideals was the sole business of the state. In a vacuum, one would think that this instance would answer this article’s eponymous question very simply; patriotic (representing the state’s ideals) music is whatever the state defines as an extension of its ideals.
Though that answer summarizes the positions of the Soviet Union, it does not speak to what makes music patriotic globally.
Around the same time as Shostakovich struggled in Russia, the United States of America probed musicians (in attempts to identify subversive behavior) who are now thought to be inarguably patriotic. Most notably, The Almanac Singers (a politically active group led by Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Millard Lampell, and Lee Hayes) were investigated as a seditious group by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This investigation led to harassment and bad press. In 1950, Almanac Singers Pete Seeger, Lee Hays, Fred Hellerman, and Ronnie Gilbert created The Weavers. Though they mainly sang their own versions of traditional folk songs, the growing anti-communist sentiment led to investigations of The Weavers by the House Un-American Activities Committee. These investigations led to both Seeger and Hays being denounced as communists and losing their recording contracts.
Despite the deliberation of the United States government, Pete Seeger is now considered a major proponent of American ideals, even having performed at the Library of Congress in 2007.
If a musician that the government decided stands firmly against their ideals, now represents patriotic sentiment, then the previous thesis that patriotism is defined by the state must be wrong.
If patriotism is historically mischaracterized by the state, then what defines it? The throughline between both the Soviet definition of patriotism and the American misrepresentation of patriotism is that both; because of, and despite, the involvement of government, patriotic music becomes an extension of the unspoken ideals of a nation. The solution becomes quite clear, patriotic sentiment is set on a nation's ideals and not its actions.
If the above is true, then any nation’s patriotic music must be a direct celebration of the narrative ideals of a nation. To strengthen this argument, one would simply look for evidence of patriotic songs chosen by proponents of national ideals. To cement a song as “patriotic” one could usually look to the government’s endorsements in music. To find this, one would look to the songs scoring national events, like a campaign stop by a presidential candidate or a speech by a sitting president.
In 1970, Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota condemned the presence of the United States in Vietnam, saying the Senate chamber “reeked of blood”. Kansas Republican Senator Bob Dole “vociferously” attacked McGovern for his position on the Vietnam War. In 1996, now Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole played Bruce Springsteen’s anti-Vietnam War anthem Born in the U.S.A. at a campaign stop in New Jersey (Springsteen proceeded to write a letter to his local newspaper clarifying that the song was played without his permission). Despite his strong support for the war in Vietnam, Dole still found the song patriotic enough to play at a major campaign rally. In 1984, sitting President Ronald Reagan (another supporter of the Vietnam War) praised Bruce Springsteen as a “man so many young Americans admire” in a clear allusion to his newly released record Born in the U.S.A. despite the record’s clear positions in opposition to the president.
If a song can be patriotic despite not actually standing for the ideals it is praised on, then what is patriotic about it? My answer to this question would be this; any piece of music can be patriotic, as long as you personally believe that it represents the positive values of your country.
Stalin and Zhdanov both believed that they grasped the concept of patriotism firmly enough that they administered law based on their perceptions. Both the American government in the 50s and the American public in the present day have separate theses of what makes something patriotic, leading to dissonance in the treatment of the same musicians between the two aforementioned parties. The exact same is applicable for both Dole and Reagan, as they believed a song was patriotic, simply making it so.
Patriotism only exists as you define it, leading patriotism music to behave identically. If you hear a song you think espouses your country’s positive values wholeheartedly, then unless you’re convinced otherwise, it does.
Comments