Talk:Testimony (Volkov book)

I've tried to be NPOV in writing this; I'm ambivalent about it myself, so I like to think I've succeeded. Given the disagreements this one produces, it's probably best to discuss here a little more and be a little less bold than usual with substantive changes. It's not very wikified, but maybe it's just not that kind of subject. Markalexander100 02:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From the first paragraph: "the Shostakovich of the book was sometimes critical of fellow composers, and most notably was strongly anti-communist in his views" - I wouldn't say so. I have read the book (in the German translation), and to me it seems that the "Shostakovich of the book" is strongly anti-Stalinist and dislikes many things in Soviet communism, but he doesn't denounce communism as a whole. I have changed "anti-communist" to "anti-Stalinist". gestumblindi 01:16, 24 Mar 2004 (CET)

"Anti-Stalinist" doesn't fully convey an anti-Soviet communism attitude - I seem to remember there's quite a lot of criticism of Lenin in the book as well (I may be wrong, it's a few years since I read it). Perhaps something more inclusive like "...and most notably strongly critical of the communist Soviet government" would be better. Just a thought. --Camembert

How about anti-Soviet? It's political rather than economic criticism, so I'd agree maybe communist isn't the best word. Markalexander100 07:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-Soviet" seems good to me. I've edited the article accordingly. --Camembert

I agree. gestumblindi 23:15, 24 Mar 2004 (CET)

This article needs to be re-edited on the basis of a second article Laurel E. Fay wrote in 2000--2002, "Volkov's 'Testimony' Reconsidered", published in "A Shostakovich Casebook" (Indiana University Press 2004). The editing would concern the sections "Recycled Material", "Shostakovich and Volkov", and "Friends' Attitudes". In her second article Fay disputes the claim that the first page of the book, which contains unrecycled and controversial material, was signed by Shostakovich. She also provides strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that the words Flora Litvinova quotes refer to Volkov's and Shostakovich's collaboration on the latter's preface to Volkov's book, "Young Leningrad Composers", and not to the writing of the memoirs. Finally, on the basis of Boris Tishchenko's own words and the testimonies of Veniamin Basner's and Kara Karayev's children, Fay shows that at least four of the composers who signed the letter condemning "Testimony" (i.e., Tishchenko, Basner, Karayev, and Moisey Weinberg) did so of their own free will. I can make these additions by myself later on, but given that English is not my native tongue, I would happily leave the task to any one of the earlier writers of this article. --weikko 22:49, 27 Sep 2006

Rostropovich as a 'Testimony' defender? Over all, he seems to have supported the

truth* of some passages, heatedly contested that of others (see: Prokofiev) and denied the *authenticity* of the book.

About the book itself

Tha article, at the moment, expansively deals with the question of Testimony's authenticity. There is nothing about the actual content of the book. -- megA (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Shostakovich Wars

Ho and Feofanov are at it again, and getting cited on this page for their 2011 publication. If I may point out a basic error that has showed up in this article:

Ho and Feofanov claim that Laurel Fay in 2002 examined the "Heikinheimo typescript," and that this typescript differed considerably from the original typescript. Nevertheless, Ho and Faeofanov say they examined the Heikinheimo typescript on April 25, 1999 (SW 61). Fay quite clearly states what she examined: a copy of the typescript in the Shostakovich family archives in Moscow. Ho and Feofanov ask questions about the provenance of the typescript Fay examined and quote an anonymous source. The Shostakovich Family Archives is a place in Moscow. Ho and Feofanov could go there and compare the typsecripts themselves.

Furthermore, truly useful scholarship would catalog the differences in the typescripts. Instead Ho and Feofanov circumvent the point and leave everything to mere conjecture instead of research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalFailure (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerd Heidemann

Heidemann is stated to have been a communist spy in this article, whereas it seems that his working for the Stasi was never confirmed, and only ever alleged. If there is no conclusive evidence on this point, this article should be changed, and if there is then Heidemann's article needs to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:50DB:F700:CD76:FF0:E83A:C6D9 (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material

There are several unreferenced statements that have been tagged since December 2008. I'm going to make a brief search for supporting references, but I intend to remove those statements if none can be found. — James Estevez (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]