CRASSH

Recent scholarship has often focussed on the dogmatic aspects of Soviet music, not least on the impact Stalin's wish for "national form" had on instrumental music in the Russian SSR and its colourful relatives in the Soviet republics - an influence near to stagnation, so it seemed. However, the more national features became idiosyncratic and "authentic" in the late Soviet period (e.g. caucasian symphonism), the less the aesthetic concept of musical nationalism in itself has been questioned. Late 19th century "ethnical" traditions have been accepted since Stravinsky made clear that national elements could well result in musical innovation. But apart from questions like authenticity or innovation, there is still need to reflect on the political and cultural function of national or even nationalistic approach to and in music. While Terteryan's Armenian musical mythology is praised without constraint, you hardly ever will hear a note of Sviridov's seemingly official and dogmatic neofolclorism – though noone complains about Lang Lang playing hardcore Chinese socialism for the Olympics 2008 and elsewhere. Discussion should be about if there really is a distinction beetween "good" and "bad" nationalism, according to musical substance. I will do this based on Soviet music examples, and raise some rather painful questions, as regards our attitude towards political systems, our self-positioning and self-stylization within the cultural discourse.