Laurel Fay – Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose

Testimony?

o Six prominent Soviet composers (all former friends and students of Shosty) declare that
Volkov is the genuine author of the book, claiming it ‘has nothing in common with the true
reminiscences of D. D. Shostakovich’ (p.485)
o Shosty’s widow, Irena, said ‘Volkov saw Dmitrich three or maybe four times. … He was never
an intimate friend of the family – he never had dinner with us here, for instance… I don’t see
how he could have gathered enough material from Dmitrich for such a thick book’
o Criticism of the scholarly industry in America to disregard such issues of inaccuracy in the
name of having more anti-soviet propaganda (p.487)
o Fay provides evidence that Volkov has altered previous statements of Shostakovich’s (p.488)
o ‘Yet the sheer length of the identified quotations as well as their formalized language make
it utterly inconceivable that the composer had memorized his previously published
statements and then reproduced them exactly in his conversations with Volkov.’ (p.490)
o Book doesn’t credit the use of any other published sources, only his seated conversations
with Shosty which links back to Irena’s statement; where did all the material come from?
o Highly suspicious that Fay’s request to view the original Russian manuscript was denied by
the publisher. (p.491)
o Fay supposed this denial might be because Shosty was never shown what Volkov had
actually written and was instead shown works that had already been published with his
signature
o Very little of what Volkov wrote can be verified – especially considering the number of
private meetings
o ‘For instance, he states that, while working on Testimony, Shostakovich would summon him
“usually early in the morning, when the office was still empty”… In other words, there were
no witnesses. Similarly, the conversations were recorded not on tape, but in “notes that I
had developed during my years as a journalist”.’
o Falsehoods in some of his other publications much like his own biography. See page 492
o Evidence of the photo sent by Shosty to Volkov with much more formal Russian language
than one would expect from the relationship Volkov claimed to have (p.492)
o Fay argues the book is disorganised so as to distort any semblance to chronology so people
couldn’t find fault
o ‘Why would Shostakovich, while insisting that the manuscript be published only after his
death, callously disregard the ominous ramifications of its publication for his wife and
family? Why did it take more than three years, after Volkov’s emigration, to have the book
translated and published?’ (p.493)
o ‘If Volkov has solid proof of the authenticity of these memoirs, in the form of the original
notes, letters from the composer or other documents, he must be prepared to submit them
to public scrutiny. Until such tangible proof is offered, we can only speculate about where
the boundary lies between Shostakovich’s authentic memoirs and Volkov’s fertile
imagination.’
Allan B. Ho and Dmitry Feofanov – Shostakovich
Reconsidered

o Authors give thanks to Volkov at start of book – very suggestive of quite a close relationship
which leaves room for bias
o The authors completely oppose Fay’s approach to confronting Volkov’s discrepancies in
Testimony (p.16)
o Stephen Johnson quoted to say, ‘I’ve wondered whether some of the disputants value
Testimony for the light it throws on the music, or the music for the light it throws on
Testimony.’ (p.35 see reference)
o Interesting for the authors to quote Menuhin’s support of Testimony considering he had his
own controversy surrounding the truth of his displaced persons camp visit (p.36)
o Uses the same Peter Schaeffer quote as the Fay article
o Thinks that Volkov’s refusal to address criticism is him taking a Shosty approach in not
paying hede to things that don’t warrant his attention. Complete contrast to Fay’s view –
though the authors do also criticise Fay’s approach in that regard (p.40)
o Slates the Fay article, ‘at best, the author’s naivete of her subject matter and, at worst, her
willingness to conceal and distort pertinent evidence’ (p.44-5)
o Authors use evidence of soviet officials planning to dismantle the book if it showed Shosty
or the government in a negative light. Doesn’t seem the strongest argument because with
today’s understanding of the Russian government operated, this was of course going to
happen. If anything, it doesn’t prove any point but makes things more ambiguous (p.54)
o They try to use other Soviet war crimes to disprove Fay’s point use of Schaeffers ‘disturbing
the peace’ quote. This is slightly ridiculous – as a musicologist what business does she have
of writing at about political and religious warfare? (p.55)
o They use Shosty’s admittance that he never reads stuff he signed his name to in the USSR to
say that those still within the USSR were forced to sign Testimony’s denouncement. Whilst
this has potential to be the case, it undermines there argument as Fay argues whether
Shosty really knew what chapters he was signing his name to in the book. (p.65)
o Try to use evidence from Shosty’s favourite student Tishchenko (attended first meeting with
Volkov at Shosty’s request which is confirmed by Volkov) saying there wasn’t enough
conversation in the meetings for the amount of pages Volkov wrote. They argue he cannot
make that judgement considering he attended one of dozens of meetings but what are you
to belief when his student and his wife said there was not enough meetings/notes to
constitute that much writing. The authors have no solid proof of further meetings (p.68-70)
o A lot of the cited evidence making quite drastic claims about Tishchenko and Shosty on
pages 70-71 are either from Testimony itself or from conversations that the authors had
with Volkov which I’m struggling to see any record for (p.70-71)
o This happens again on page 212 – claims colleagues, family and friends confirm that
he voiced many of the unbelievable statements in Testimony privately but provides
no evidence
o Yakubov also quoted to say they only met about three times and it’s impossible to write a
book of that size of off three meetings (p.73)
o ‘Volkov also categorically denies telling Yakubov ‘he had met Shostakovich only three times’
and re-affirms that dozens of conversations took place over a four-year period.’ - For which

2
 there is still no evidence. Presents as just word of mouth from Volkov himself, he said she
said situation.
o Gets uncomfortably personal discussing Irina and Shosty’s marriage, seemingly making
personal jibes from comments she made about Volkov, ‘Indeed, compared to Shostakovich’s
children, it is Irina ‘who hadn’t been acquainted with [the composer] for a long time.’ (p.81-
2)
o Known Testimony supporter, Ian MacDonald even accepted Fay’s arguments, noting that he
would revise the inclusion of Testimony in his work on ‘The New Shostakovich’ (p.117)
o Authors use a quote from Meyer to disprove Fay’s point that Shosty’s language is not
representative of a close friend. Has opposite affect though as it says ‘Dmitri Dmitriyevich
didn’t like familiarity’. If this is the case how are we to believe that he had a close and
personal relationship with Volkov? (p.121)
o Authors claiming Shosty didn’t make the three referenced names more pointed at key
figures in the Russian gov. for fear of being shot. BUT if he requested the memoir be
published after his death what does it matter who he offends? His family? He already puts
them at risk by writing what he did so this makes no sense (p.124)
o Multiple accounts of Shosty having a photographic memory (p.80 and New York Times
article) yet the day he met Lenin, he can’t remember a thing of it? (p.178)
o Author’s try to use his constant contradictions to say that it was very characteristic of Shosty
to change his mind about something frequently. If anything this disproves the authenticity of
the memoir because Volkov says, ‘often contradicted himself then the true meaning of his
words had to be guessed.’ Who is to say Volkov guessed right? (p.181)
o Authors give thanks to Volkov at start of book – very suggestive of quite close relationship
which leaves room for bias
o The authors completely oppose Fay’s approach to confronting Volkov’s discrepancies in
Testimony (p.16)

Solomon Volkov – Testimony: The Memoires of Dmitri

Shostakovich

o ‘I did it with music. Stalin is gone, but there are more than enough tyrants around’ – given
how Volkov himself claimed that Shosty’s claims were often ambiguous and left to
interpretation, and given that there is no verifiable accounts of what he said, could it be that
Shostakovich is simply alluding to the all the possible tyrants that his 7th could be applied to
and Volkov has taken that to mean it was written about Stalin (p.140)
o Also because he says ‘You can’t explain anything to a bad performer and a talented
person should sense it’
o