Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5

The assertions, refutations, and counter-refutations concerning two core pieces of Richard Taruskin’s studies on Russian music—Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6 and Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5—provide a starting point for discussion about the possibilities, limits, and obligations of musicological int...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Eileen Mah
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Columbia University Libraries 2021
Materias:	Music and books on Music M
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ddd4bc11fb424f848bbb8fb57e4defb1
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ddd4bc11fb424f848bbb8fb57e4defb1
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ddd4bc11fb424f848bbb8fb57e4defb12021-11-06T18:55:54ZAlternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 510.52214/cm.v108i.71760011-3735https://doaj.org/article/ddd4bc11fb424f848bbb8fb57e4defb12021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/currentmusicology/article/view/7176https://doaj.org/toc/0011-3735 The assertions, refutations, and counter-refutations concerning two core pieces of Richard Taruskin’s studies on Russian music—Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6 and Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5—provide a starting point for discussion about the possibilities, limits, and obligations of musicological interpretation. Moreover, an important aspect of the discussion is the phenomenon of “alternative facts,” both in publication and in pedagogy, and possibly in music itself. Taruskin argues against the logical fallacies of overly specific or overly simplistic interpretations, but hesitates to fully interpret certain music himself, thereby participating in the web of alternative facts. Taruskin refutes popular myths about biographical meanings in Tchaikovsky’s symphony, but in so doing, also seems to reject a tragic reading of any kind. He explains away various musical structures and extroversive references, but fails to explore why those elements are in fact present. As for Shostakovich’s symphony, Taruskin notes its saturation with musical topics, but ignores their allusive specificity, downplaying their significance altogether for what he calls their transferability. Yet Taruskin himself identifies an allusion to a specific Orthodox hymn, and therefrom draws specific conclusions. His evidence for calling the passage a “literal imitation” is actually flawed, but a truly literal quotation of this very hymn may be present throughout the entire symphony, and may act as a sort of species of alternative fact itself. In any case, something that specific, and its placement in the symphonic structure, deserve notice and demand specificity of interpretation. Eileen MahColumbia University LibrariesarticleMusic and books on MusicMENCurrent Musicology, Vol 108 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Music and books on Music M
spellingShingle	Music and books on Music M Eileen Mah Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5
description	The assertions, refutations, and counter-refutations concerning two core pieces of Richard Taruskin’s studies on Russian music—Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6 and Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5—provide a starting point for discussion about the possibilities, limits, and obligations of musicological interpretation. Moreover, an important aspect of the discussion is the phenomenon of “alternative facts,” both in publication and in pedagogy, and possibly in music itself. Taruskin argues against the logical fallacies of overly specific or overly simplistic interpretations, but hesitates to fully interpret certain music himself, thereby participating in the web of alternative facts. Taruskin refutes popular myths about biographical meanings in Tchaikovsky’s symphony, but in so doing, also seems to reject a tragic reading of any kind. He explains away various musical structures and extroversive references, but fails to explore why those elements are in fact present. As for Shostakovich’s symphony, Taruskin notes its saturation with musical topics, but ignores their allusive specificity, downplaying their significance altogether for what he calls their transferability. Yet Taruskin himself identifies an allusion to a specific Orthodox hymn, and therefrom draws specific conclusions. His evidence for calling the passage a “literal imitation” is actually flawed, but a truly literal quotation of this very hymn may be present throughout the entire symphony, and may act as a sort of species of alternative fact itself. In any case, something that specific, and its placement in the symphonic structure, deserve notice and demand specificity of interpretation.
format	article
author	Eileen Mah
author_facet	Eileen Mah
author_sort	Eileen Mah
title	Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5
title_short	Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5
title_full	Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5
title_fullStr	Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5
title_full_unstemmed	Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5
title_sort	alternative facts in musicology and vechnaya pamyat' in shostakovich's symphony no. 5
publisher	Columbia University Libraries
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/ddd4bc11fb424f848bbb8fb57e4defb1
work_keys_str_mv	AT eileenmah alternativefactsinmusicologyandvechnayapamyatinshostakovichssymphonyno5
_version_	1718443701533933568

Alternative Facts in Musicology and Vechnaya Pamyat' in Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5

Ejemplares similares