During the 1930’s and ‘40’s, the Soviet regime wanted memorable melodies in its music, probably so it would be easier for the public to remember music in the form of propaganda. They wanted music to be understood by all, and this was achieved not only with a memorable melody, but also with the “plain language of music,” or more traditional musical harmonies created by Beethoven and other prominent Germans. They wanted music which conformed to the doctrine of Socialist Realism-or music that would serve as propaganda for the ideals of the state—rather than “naturalism,” which, although it leveled the plane of all Soviets, also puts them in a “beastly guise.”

People can’t tell if the famous Soviet-era composer, Dmitri Shostakovich was being subversive against Stalin and the Soviet regime in some of his pieces. If he would have been caught by the Soviets they would have killed him, so no one knows if he would have been bold enough to do this. For this reason, people talk about his music as either hiding a subversive message or simply writing some of it to appease the regime who hated his opera The Lady Macbeth of the Mtensk District. The regime wanted music to have a covert political message- the fact that Lady Macbeth is a bourgeois woman and is popular with bourgeois audiences abroad—means that it is “apolitical” and therefore isn’t a piece of propaganda illustrating the glory of the Soviet state.

One example of this idea is the 3^rd and 4th movements of his Fifth Symphony. The 3^rd movement has a lyrical melody in an F# minor key, but the end of the piece has an F# major chord. This hopeful chord could be interpreted by the Soviet regime to be a new hope renewed in the people by Stalin coming to power, but it also could be interpreted as Shostakovich hopes for a better future without Stalin in power. The 4^th movement has aggressive and powerful melody, but there is a persistent repetition beneath the melody that undermines it. This could be interpreted simply as the driving force of the Soviet regime in battle and its constancy of power and strength. It could also be interpreted as a force of dissension from the power of the regime that was growing covertly under the surface or as a comment on Soviet life of the sameness and monotony of life under the regime.