Separating Art from the Artist: Russian Music Abroad

An Overture

Should the affiliation of the person waving the baton or singing play a role in the enjoyment of a piece of music? Since the war broke out in Ukraine, there has been much controversy in the world of classical music that has gone largely unnoticed by those not connected to it. Some Western musicians seek to reject Russian classical composers and performers. Opera houses around the globe are seeking to remove contemporary Russian singers with ties to the state, and orchestras are met with cries to cut Tchaikovsky from their programs. At the end of 2022, the Ukrainian Minister of Culture went as far as to call for a complete ban of Tchaikovsky from the country until the war ends. What does a man who died in the 19th century have to do with a war between modern powers? Can you separate art from the artist? These questions are at the forefront of heated contemporary debates about the relationship between arts and politics.

Anna Netrebko: A Fall from Grace

Perhaps the most famous controversy surrounding current Russian musicians abroad is the case of Anna Netrebko, one of the most talented opera singers of her generation. Born in Russia in 1971, Netrebko was passionate about music even as a child. As a young adult, she attended the St. Petersburg Conservatory. Netrebko made her debut in the United States in 1995 with the San Francisco Opera and has since become a staple in opera houses worldwide. She frequently graces storied stages such as the Metropolitan Opera and even made Time’s “100 Most Influential People” list in 2010. However, the Metropolitan Opera has also been at the heart of Netrebko’s troubles.

After the war broke out in Ukraine, Netrebko—a known supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his regime—refused to speak out against him, though she did make a statement via Facebook opposing the war in Ukraine on February 26, 2022. In the same statement, she expressed that artists should not be expected to voice their political opinions, that art transcends political divides. In the past, Netrebko has been a guest of the Kremlin in order to receive awards recognizing her musical prowess and achievement, and she has garnered praise from Putin personally. One such award is the State Prize of the Russian Federation, awarded to Netrebko in 2005.

After Netrebko’s refusal to criticize Putin for invading Ukraine, the Metropolitan Opera swiftly moved to condemn her and removed her from the season. Supported by the American Guild of Musical Artists, Netrebko emerged victorious from arbitration with the Metropolitan Opera and was awarded over US$200,000 as compensation for her canceled performances. Netrebko currently has a lawsuit pending in Manhattan against the opera house for a sum around US$360,000 for damages relating to defamation and breach of contract. More recently, Netrebko has been performing primarily in Europe and South America, albeit with much backlash and protest—most recently in Berlin, where the opera house faced peaceful demonstrations during her performances. Defenders of Netrebko have pointed out that vocal criticism of Putin could jeopardize the safety of her family and friends living in Russia.

The Tchaikovsky Question

The name “Tchaikovsky” is synonymous with musical genius. Although Tchaikovsky is heralded as one of the greatest composers ever, there have been calls from around the world to remove his work and his name from various institutions in response to the war. While Tchaikovsky has some familial ties to Ukraine, he is considered a Russian composer.

Ever since the invasion, students at Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine have protested the name of their school and pleaded with the administration to change it. The school was founded by the Soviet Union, a controversial reminder of USSR hegemony in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Throughout its long history, the nation that is now known as Ukraine has been intermittently at odds with or ruled by Russia, including under the Soviet Union. Although the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the regime still looms large in the collective memory of many Ukrainians. Some Ukrainians recall Soviet rule as a “tragedy”; others express nostalgia for the stability of Soviet rule. Though the students eventually received support from the Ukrainian government, the school ultimately opted to keep the name, citing the composer’s Ukrainian roots but providing minimal additional explanations.

Ukrainian schools are not the only institutions coming under fire for their relationship with Tchaikovsky. Bard College in the United States anticipated backlash from students over the performance of what is perhaps Tchaikovsky’s most beloved ballet: The Nutcracker. Responses to the issue were included in the program notes for the performance. A ballet traditionally performed during the holiday season, The Nutcracker has been performed all over the world for generations. However, due to the invasion of Ukraine, the Bard College Conservatory Orchestra’s prospective performance drew concerns that Tchaikovsky’s Russian roots and Russia’s instrumentalization of Tchaikovsky as an imperialist force made it inappropriate for the current time.

Nevertheless, the music director of the orchestra and Bard’s president, Leon Botstein, remained staunch in his defense of Tchaikovsky. The performance continued as programmed, and Botstein went on to write an opinion piece in The Musical Quarterly titled “Music in Time of War.” In this piece, he explores the history of music’s connection to war and argues that a boycott of Tchaikovsky only advances modern Russian ownership over the false idea of one cohesive Russian culture dating back centuries. Instead, Botstein believes that Ukrainian voices should be uplifted; modern musicians should be praised or held accountable for their actions and affiliations; and music should be looked at with a critical eye, not to erase, but to understand.

Despite being championed by the Russian state, Tchaikovsky would have likely opposed Putin and his beliefs, specifically on sexuality; it is widely believed that Tchaikovsky was homosexual. Therefore, his veneration by Putin as a poster child for ‘Russianness’ is odd, especially as homosexuality grows increasingly condemned in Russia; in December 2023, the Russian Supreme Court designated the “international LGBT social movement” as an extremist organization. Russia tries to erase this aspect of Tchaikovsky’s identity, as seen in a state-funded biopic that denies his homosexuality. This misinformation demonstrates how the memory of Tchaikovsky is manipulated and instrumentalized as a pawn by a regime that would not accept him were he alive today. Putin’s increasingly chauvinistic, conservative stances promote a narrow vision of stereotypical and homogenized Russian culture at the expense of historically marginalized groups, such as homosexuals.

Weaponized Music: The Cold War and Music in the USSR

These contemporary controversies about the treatment of Russian artists are hardly the first time music has been relevant in global conflicts. A similar situation played out during the Cold War as the United States and the USSR fought for supremacy in the world of classical music. Music became a battleground.

The most relevant story of Cold War musical diplomacy concerns pianist Van Cliburn, also known as “The Texan Who Conquered Russia.” Cliburn, an American, competed in the prestigious Tchaikovsky Competition in the USSR in 1958. Legend has it that before the judges awarded him first prize, they requested the permission of the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, who simply asked if he was truly the best. The judges replied in the affirmative, and Khrushchev signed off on his victory. Despite resulting in a certain degree of embarrassment for the Soviets, this moment shows how the power of music can bridge the gap between nations in conflict. Cliburn’s victory was a morale boost for the United States after the launching of the Russian satellite Sputnik. In fact, Cliburn rose to fame not only in the United States, where he received a ticker-tape parade for his homecoming, but also in the USSR, where he continued to perform with great popularity for many years.

The Tchaikovsky Competition is still held in Russia every four years, but ever since the invasion, it has struggled to convince foreign performers and judges to participate. The Van Cliburn International Piano Competition, part of the famed American’s legacy, has also been affected by the war; the inclusion of six Russian and two Belarussian pianists among the 2022 competitors sparked vocal backlash. Classical music remains a key element of popular culture, controversially a cultural battleground and bridge between warring countries.

Why Music Matters: Conflicting Opinions

Across diverging opinions, one sentiment remains constant: music matters. It always has and always will, for music has the ability to represent people and their struggles. Why might Ukrainians feel so strongly about removing Russian classical music from their tradition? Could it have to do with forging their own identity, or is it simply retaliatory?

Ukrainians’ rejection of Russian classical music may be both retaliatory and a deeply personal move for the musicians of Ukraine. Even if Tchaikovsky had nothing to do with the modern Russian state, Putin’s use of him as propaganda has seemingly impacted Ukrainians’ view of him as a musician. Many Ukrainians seem unable or unwilling to separate the version of Tchaikovsky in Russian propaganda from the real man and his music. Individuals are conflicted, as evidenced by the actions of Oksana Lyniv, a Ukrainian conductor. Though once caught in a debate over a performance of Tchaikovsky in which she defended its continuance, she recently pressured the Vienna Festival to remove Teodor Currentzis, a conductor with ties to the Russian state, from the program.

As Ukraine hopes to emerge from this conflict as a sovereign state, Ukrainians aim to shed the historical legacy of their Russian and Soviet oppressors. Though it may be hard to separate a person from their national or political affiliations, some argue that one should not be forced to renounce their country for work and that musicians are not responsible for the actions of their government.

Given the complexity of the issue, it remains unlikely that the questions posed in this article will ever have a definitive answer. While music (and its legacy) may be divisive, it also has the ability to forge a common ground between two diametrically opposed forces. People will always create, even through times of war, but whether that creation ultimately brings people together or pushes them further apart may be doomed to stay in the eye of the beholder.

This article has been updated with corrections regarding Netrebko’s statements on the war, interactions with the Kremlin, and arbitration proceedings with the Metropolitan Opera.